The 9/11 Post 11807


Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).


11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 102 103 104 105 106 134
  • Clark

    Paul Barbara, I agree that Gladio is far more important. I just read this:

    https://atlasmonitor.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/operation-gladio-turkeys-invisible-coup-and-the-untold-story-of-the-cold-war/

    The article has a great deal of references. There is a lot to consider. I found it linked from a comment under this article; an interview with Sibel Edmonds:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-sibel-edmonds/

    “Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996”

    Some “Islamic terrorism” incidents can be called “false flag”, but the operatives really are “Islamic” extremists. They have been indoctrinated in specifically controlled or infiltrated mosques and madrassahs:

    ‘Gulen was a key CIA asset who established mosques and madrassahs throughout Turkey and Central Asia funded with the proceeds from the CIA’s international drug trade. He was the central figure in what is known as “Gladio II” the sequel to “Operation Gladio”’

    The article references The Economist just after that section, but that gives a very different spin about Gulen being well respected in the West:

    http://www.economist.com/node/10808408

    9/11 could have involved hijackers and still be called an “inside job”. The question being, inside what? You call it “false flag” whereas I say that the US was hit by its own proxy forces, but how much difference is there really? The US cultivate and subvert these “fundamentalist” groups all the time.

    Here’s a bit more from the Sibel Edmond interview:


    – GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

    – EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

    – GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

    – EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

    – GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

    – EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

    – There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

    – GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

    – EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

    – GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark January 25, 2017 at 00:13
    ‘…after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that….’
    Yes, particularly in the face of evidence of just how incompetent the alleged ‘pilot’ Hasan ‘Hani’ Hanjour was, and other evidence the light-pole clipping was a fake:

    ‘Cab Driver Involved In 9/11 Pentagon Attack Admits “It Was Planned”:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvyQ0vVwjqc
    Fuller 3-part video here: ‘9/11 Files – Citizen Investigation Team (Part 1 of 3)’: https://wn.com/citizen_investigation

    And of course the excellent ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11 (Full Documentary)’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-CxA3iBHzA
    which very clearly demonstrates the lengths to which the alleged ‘Hijackers’ were involved with the US military, the ridiculous lengths they went to to ensure they left an unforgettable trail of ridiculous and threatening behaviour DELIBERATELY, and the total incompetence of Hani Hanjour as a ‘pilot’.
    But you won’t watch it through, though it is only an hour and forty five minutes long.

    I’m glad you are coming round to the significance of Gladio; here is a good Wikispooks article:
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    ‘…Ganser writes of the EU debate:
    Thereafter, as a first point of criticism following the preamble, the resolution of the EU parliament ‘Condemns the clandestine creation of manipulative and operational networks and calls for a full investigation into the nature, structure, aims and all other aspects of these clandestine organisations or any splinter groups, their use for illegal interference in the internal political affairs of the countries concerned, the problem of terrorism in Europe and the possible collusion of the secret services of Member States or third countries.’ As a second point the EU ‘Protests vigorously at the assumption by certain US military personnel at SHAPE and in NATO of the right to encourage the establishment in Europe of a clandestine intelligence and operation network.’ As a third point the resolution ‘Calls on the governments of the Member States to dismantle all clandestine military and paramilitary networks.’ As a fourth point the EU ‘Calls on the judiciaries of the countries in which the presence of such military organisations has been ascertained to elucidate fully their composition and modus operandi and to clarify any action they may have taken to destabilize the democratic structures of the Member States.’ Furthermore as a fifth point the EU ‘Requests all the Member States to take the necessary measures, if necessary by establishing parliamentary committees of inquiry, to draw up a complete list of organisations active in this field, and at the same time to monitor their links with the respective state intelligence services and their links, if any, with terrorist action groups and/or other illegal practices.’ As a sixth point the EU parliament addresses the EU Council of Ministers, above all in its reunion as Defence Ministers, and ‘Calls on the Council of Ministers to provide full information on the activities of these secret intelligence and operational services.’ As a seventh point, the resolution ‘Calls on its competent committee to consider holding a hearing in order to clarify the role and impact of the “GLADIO” organisation and any similar bodies.’ Last but not least in its final point the resolution explicitly addresses both NATO and the United States, as the EU parliament ‘Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Secretary-General of NATO, the governments of the Member States, and the United States Government.’
    He concludes:
    The dog barked loudly, but it did not bite. Of the eight actions requested by the EU parliament not one was carried out satisfactorily. Only Belgium, Italy and
    Switzerland investigated their secret armies with a parliamentary commission, producing a lengthy and detailed public report.
    (DG pp. 23–24)….’

    Well worth reading more of the report.
    The UK Ministry of Defence gave the normal response: ‘We don’t discuss matters of National Security’.

    • Clark

      The important question is how to stop it.

      Of course countries won’t give up their clandestine activities. International organisations such as the EU and the UN are the obvious bodies that would control such activity, because a body of countries will agree that they don’t want any one member interfering in their affairs. But such international bodies lack power.

      I suppose a method of regulation might be a board of spies from all member countries acting as inspectors in every member’s secret services. “Web of Trust” schemes might have some potential. Countries might employ rival countries’ whistleblowers.

      Wherever there’s compartmentalised secrecy there is cover for crime. The current priorities are wrong. Civilian policing needs to have more power to investigate.

      – – – – – –

      I have a copy of Zero; I downloaded it months ago. I think I’ve started watching it more than once. But Paul, too many of the vids you recommend seem designed to lead rather than inform. I could use such material as a starting point, verifying or debunking or filtering each point, and after a while I might work out the flavour of various incidents (rarely are there fully definitive answers when secrecy has been involved) – but I’d only end up with a lot of specific knowledge, which may be interesting but probably wouldn’t help me understand or predict future events.

      And I’m reminded of Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22; in the modern environment of outsourcing, it is certainly more cost effective for each country to bomb its own airfields.

      • Clark

        “Wherever there’s compartmentalised secrecy there is cover for crime. The current priorities are wrong. Civilian policing needs to have more power to investigate”

        This is what Sibel Edmonds’ case illustrates so clearly. “National security” was used as a cover for criminal activity, and members of the US administration were very close to the top criminals. It’s a recurrent theme. It’s what Mike Ruppert ran into when he was a cop. It’s Iran-Contras. It’s I don’t know how many South America CIA-and-drug-barons stories. It’s Afghanistan, Karzai and Dostum.

  • John Goss

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth are calling for an investigation into the use of explosives in the Tehran Plasco building which caught fire and was subsequently brought down. Only by chance can I bring you this because I checked my junk folder and found it there from three days ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY&feature=youtu.be

    I agree there is a good case for an investigation into the use of explosives.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-collapse-kills-tehran-firefighters-battling-plasco-building-fire/

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss January 26, 2017 at 07:54
      Very interesting – I somehow didn’t get around to checking it out, being busy with other things, and I didn’t know A&E had made that call.
      It sure looks like controlled demolition to me; I can’t think why the Iranians would do it, so there is no reason for them not to ‘preserve the crime scene’ and to check for explosives. The Iranians executed the owner in 1979, for treason, so maybe some of his compatriots ‘got their revenge’.
      The building was built 1960/61 by an Iranian Jewish man under the reign of the Shah.

      ‘Plasco Building collapse – Tehran, Iran – January 19, 2017’:
      http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/plasco-building-collapse-tehran-iran.html

      ‘…Fred Dietz1 day ago I’m going to say “inadequate sheer studs”, as there was already an Iranian architect on Press TV saying that Plasco Building (Iran’s first high-rise) was never built inline with “national construction regulations”. But that’s also a world of difference from WTC 7, which had over 3,800 sheer studs that were inspected every year by NYC (and this was revealed in a 2012 FOIA). NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs.…’
      ‘..NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs.…’?
      Surely, that couldn’t be – clearly a job for Inspector Clark and sidekick, Sgt. Kempe.

      • Clark

        Even if the Plasco collapse was initiated by explosives, it wasn’t remotely a “controlled demolition”. That term has become a catch-phrase and is used inappropriately. That building fell all over the place; nothing “controlled” about it. “Controlled” and “deliberate” don’t mean the same thing.

        Paul, thanks for the FOI information about the shear studs. Please post a link. Please also make an effort to remember that I’m undecided about WTC7’s collapse, and that I would like ALL the data released.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark January 26, 2017 at 16:16
          It may not have been a ‘perfect’ controlled demolition, but it was still ‘controlled demolition’ in it came down virtually in it’s own footprint; it seems you are pretty close to believing Plasco was ‘explosively demolished’.

          Regarding a link to the information re shear studs, I searched around, and found that the documentation comes from a book, ‘The Mysterious Collapse’, by David Ray Griffin. though I have three or four of his books, I don’t have that, and have ordered it. I know DRG is extremely careful about any information he puts out, and I’ve heard him speak a number of times in London.

          I did find this (from whence I got the info re DRG’s book):
          ‘9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False’:
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

          There is a LOT of valuable information there, including good info about Barry Jennings’ and Hess’ testimonies, timelines and so forth, and the NIST refusal of a FOIA request for the transcript of Jennings’ testimony to them (which they did not mention in the NIST Report), and of the BBC manipulation of Barry Jennings’ evidence, and how they did an update after Jennings’ death, with Hess (who though Jennings had kept saying ‘we’ in the interview with the BBC, they kept up the charade as if he had been alone), without Hess being invited. Now Hess went along with all the BBC shenanigans.

          Another snippet, which I had known about but forgotten, was how scientific and regulatory bodies of government had been completely politicised before 9/11: (also from the link above):
          ‘….Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

          Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

          One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns – in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee’s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case……’

          • Clark

            I’ve already repeatedly said that NIST’s reports were politicised – though I didn’t say it in those words. I did refer to the 2002 act which was rushed through, and NIST being prevented from blaming anyone for the deaths in the Twin Towers.

            “Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget”

            Two of those three would be appropriate for covering up how flimsy the Twin Towers were. In fact, all three, when we consider this testimony from Sibel Edmonds:

            ‘Edmonds reports how the translation of a telephone intercept that she was reviewing for accuracy apparently referred to 9/11, though its importance had not been noted by her predecessor. The conversation took place in Pakistan in July 2001 involving two men talking about obtaining blueprints for buildings and bridges, clearly part of the planning for the actual attacks. One day after 9/11 the same men congratulated each other and started to plan for the next series of attacks “using young women between the ages of 18 and 24…”’

            That last bit about “using young women between the ages of 18 and 24″ is almost exactly what Craig described in Murder in Samarkand.

            Sorry, I’ve given up on A&E9/11. They’re just too unreliable. They need to put their house in order.

          • Clark

            And if I were a demolition planner, I’d regard your use of “controlled demolition” for the Plastico pigs ear as an insult.

          • Nikko

            ..and for the planners of the WTC demolitions the term “controlled demolition” would be a compliment

          • Clark

            “They” would need to be superhuman to have arranged the Twin Tower collapses with explosives. First they needed charges that are unaffected by fire and high temperatures. Then they needed to trigger them in a precise manner to induce the gradual and progressive inward bowing of both perimeters, even though by then both buildings had huge jagged holes and assorted internal damage. Tricky.

            So assuming “they” manage to initiate descent of the top sections, the difficulty of the rest of the task depends on whether you believe a gravity collapse can occur within the perimeter or not. If it can, job done. But your theories, Nikko, have been that the ejections at the collapse front and the toppling of perimeter sections both required explosives. Goodness knows what the alleged charges driving the ejections were for, but maybe they were “delayed action” charges that exploded to produce the ejections, but only imparted impulse to the perimeter sections a little later, initiating their toppling. No; can’t be that. So there must have been two sequenced sets of charges driving two demolition waves that traversed the buildings from the damaged sections downwards. And each charge had to be fast enough to be sequenced to within about 0.1 second, but slow enough not to make audible explosive sounds.

            And “they” managed to pull this stunt twice, well enough to fool well over 99% of all the world’s physicists and engineers, and with no rehearsal!

            At least WTC7’s collapse looks like it could have been done with explosives.

          • Clark

            And that’s the simplest scenario I could think up that would produce the effects seen. If anyone can come up with a more feasible scenario, do please post it.

          • Nikko

            Sorry Clark, but when you write about physics or engineering it is mainly incoherent nonsense. I read your post twice but can’t make sense of it.

          • Clark

            I’m sorry you don’t understand. All you need to do is explain how the various effects shown on video regarding the degradation and collapses of the Twin Towers, could be produced by explosives, as you claim to believe. I can’t see how it could be done. Those effects are – the gradual inward bowing of the perimeter at the damaged zones, that the dust ejections preceded the outward motion of the perimeter sections, and that the top edges of the perimeter sections toppled outward, rather than being blasted outward at their bottom edges first.

      • John Goss

        Paul, are you on AE911Truth mailing list. I thought you were. Check your junk email folder and see if this is going to junk or spam. Thanks.

      • John Goss

        Oh, and thanks for the additional information.

        I am not going to comment as much on Craig’s blog because I get too many deleted comments which are on topic but may include aspects such as 9/11 and MH17. I have limited time like everybody.

    • Clark

      “Plasco Iran Building Collapse Tehran! 01/19/2017 – (Compilation)”:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov9Q9RME4PM

      First clip (00:02), taken from behind a man who raises his arms. A series of grey ejections starts just under half way up the left of the visible face of the building, proceeding down and somewhat right. Some objects seem to be blasted away from the left of the building quite fast, followed rapidly by dust ejections. The various ejections seem to precede collapse.

      Second clip starts some way into collapse.

      Third clip (00:41) has wires in the foreground on the lower right. A series of ejections are seen on the right face. Audio records percussive sounds. Collapse then begins with the right face roof line sagging in the middle. Further ejections towards the camera position follow. A bright flash is seen at 01:21, well after collapse is underway.

      Fourth, fifth and sixth clips do not show the collapse.

      Seventh clip (03:14) has another building in the foreground on the left and foreground trees, below and on the right. There is a burst of fire from the right, then about two seconds later a greater burst of fire from the same site, then sagging of the roofline being first visible sign of collapse.

      Eighth clip is post-collapse.

      Ninth clip (04:33) shows a gout of flame from the corner towards the camera position, but timing in relation to onset of collapse is difficult to determine due to camera movement taking parts of the building out of shot.

      Subsequent clips (05:17 onwards) are repeats of earlier clips or do not show the collapse.

      Various observations suggest explosions initiated collapse, but those explosions were all in just part of the building. The grey ejections may suggest explosives, rather than ignited gas for instance.

    • Node

      The article is filled with doom-laden quotes from “current and former soldier-scholars” about the effects of underfunding on the UK military but never once mentions what the actual budget is. It’s £35bn/year (not counting cocaine profits) with a guaranteed increase of 0.5% above inflation every year until 2021, but this is obviously not enough. Bet you anything this story is part of a PR softening up campaign which results in a further increase in “defence” spending.

        • Node

          I love how the article is based on a paper written by current and former “soldier-scholars”. Oh yes, “soldier-scholars,” got a sort of Samurai ring about it, much better than “army propaganda unit,” give the bloke a coconut who renamed his unit that.

      • Clark

        “It’s £35bn/year”

        It was 1% of GDP, wasn’t it? Has it been increased? I saw some newspaper article months ago urging it be increased to 2% – I seem to remember Habbabkuk advocating for that. And I thought Trump was complaining about NATO because member countries are each meant to contribute 2% of their GDP but only the US does.

        It’s the only budget heading I’ve heard talk of increasing, let alone doubling. Insanity.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Node January 26, 2017 at 23:08
        I’m sure your right. But it will still be a sobering thought to all those urging sanctions, ‘No Fly Zones’ and maintaining NATO’s belligerent stance in encroaching on Russia’s borders.
        Putin has chided the Eastern European states for their attitude, saying if there was a war, their countries would be a wasteland.
        Russia had a Civil Defence exercise last year in which 40 million Russians took part; a previous year, I think 2012, they had one with 60 million Russians taking part.
        Russia does not want a war, but our Puppetmasters and Banksters (basically the same thing) do. Not for nothing did the Neocons used to be known as the ‘Crazies’ in their student days.
        .

        • Clark

          “Russia does not want a war…”

          …but it might be quite keen on some border skirmishes that could gain it some territory, as it was regarding Ukraine and Crimea. Trump seems to be copying Putin’s nationalist rhetoric of “making Russia great again”, both of which which I find distinctly worrying.

  • Paul Barbara

    Good video of ‘Fake News’ in Syria:
    ‘(Video) Syria, Assassinations, Wikileaks & the West: The Big Plan Exposed’:
    http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/30/vid-syria-assassinations-wikileaks-the-west-the-big-plan-exposed-jaysanalysis-half/

    ‘Fabrication in BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children’:
    https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/conflicting-accounts-of-time-of-napalm-bomb/#_ftn2

    ‘Fabrication in BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children’:
    https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/

    ‘Syria: Agony of victims of ‘napalm-like’ school bombing’:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24288698

    Who is Dr. Saleyha Ahsan?: http://www.thephoenixfoundation.org.uk/about/the-team-key-supporters/

    ‘Fabrication in BBC Panorama ‘Saving Syria’s Children’: (Complaint to BBC):
    https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/complaint-dr-saleyha-ahsan-the-truth-about-fat-bbc-one-2-april-2015/

    Many of her ‘contradictions exposed, and also a couple of pictures of her smiling and giving the .Victory’ sign in front of truck with armed ‘rebels’ including children. She is also a film-maker, knows all about ‘crisis actors’ (HOSPEX injury simulation techniques) which are used to train military medics and was a Captain in the British Army in the Balkans.
    Yes, quite a piece of work.

    But what has happened to the BBC? Have they been sanctioned in any way?

  • Thomas Potter

    ─►Tehran Debris Dwarfs 9/11 NYC Debris◄─

    We can learn something about 9/11 from the tragic Tehran collapse. How? Because the Tehran event is powerful evidence confirming Dr. Judy Wood’s forensic investigation of 9/11 (p. 132), namely, post-collapse pictures reveal a Pasco building debris pile almost three stories tall, approximately what Dr. Wood teaches us to expect from a collapse or demolition of a 17-story high rise (17 floors x 0.125 = 2.125 floors). Call it the 1/8+ rule. Another example is the Seattle Kingdome which was 250 feet tall and left a 30-foot tall debris pile (Wood, p. 74). By contrast “The [World Trade Center] rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height” (Wood, p. 132).

    https://nomoregames.net/2017/01/28/tehran-debris-dwarfs-911-nyc-debris/

    • Clark

      Silly.

      1) Taller buildings have more potential energy, collapse resulting in finer pulverisation of concrete.

      2) Taller collapses spread further laterally.

      3) Much debris was pounded into the many WTC sub-levels.

      • Thomas Potter

        Oh my dear Clark how we do deceive those who would believe that much debris was pounded into the many WTC sub-levels.

        🙂

        “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
        ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes

        “The question is where is all the rubble? Did it all turn to dust?”
        ― Peter Jennings (July 29, 1938 – August 7, 2005) Canadian-American journalist and news anchor

        https://www.youtube.com/v/mXG6bDh632o

        “One level below ground, many retail stores and restaurants, as well as the subway stop there, are intact. Even the water damage was minimal.”
        http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-underground-looting-is-reported-in-center-s-tomblike-mall.html

        Notice the round holes in WTC5
        https://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Slickoutkast/gz_aerial_wtc5.jpg

        How many holes can you count?
        https://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5459/522/1600/659018/Image149.marked.jpg

        500,000 tons of steel and concrete falling a quarter mile didn’t crush this Path train.
        https://www.hudsoncity.net/tubes/pathcarwtc-250.jpg

        Undamaged store contents from the Warner Brothers store in the WTC shopping mall at the concourse level (first subbasement) surviving destruction of WTC 2 above.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20070628071050/http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928918.jpg

        Cartoon figures recovered from the Warner Brothers store at the World Trade Center mall kept at JFK international airport (hangar 17) that survived the destruction of WTC 2 from above. FYI, the shopping mall is the first floor to be impacted at the base of WTC 2.

        http://web.archive.org/web/20070628071032/http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928782.jpg

        Some of the principal evidence that must be explained:

        The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.”

        They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

        The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

        The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.

        The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that “The Gap” was looted.

        The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

        The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.

        The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.

        The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

        The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

        One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.

        No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.

        Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.

        In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.

        Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.

        Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

        Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.

        Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.

        The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.

        Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.

        Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

        Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.

        Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.

        Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.

        Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.

        All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.

        Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

        The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.

        More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

        Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.

        The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.

        For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.

        The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

        The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.

        Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.

        Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.

        There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

        Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth’s magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.

        Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.

        Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.

        Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

        * Is it possible that such a technology exist? Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and lasers in 1955*, commercial and military development of directed-energy technology has proceeded apace, so use of directed-energy technology is likely to exist — and the data tells us it does exist.

        • Clark

          “The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed “collapse.””

          This is false. On many videos, anyone can easily observe free-falling perimeter sections overtaking the internal collapse front.

          “They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground”

          This is false. Anyone can easily observe that the vast majority of dust was produced as the collapse fronts hit bottom, which is when maximum crushing would have occurred.

          Since two obvious falsities are included, and since Dr Judy hosts obvious bunk physics on her site, I will not waste time addressing point after interminable point. If a fraction of these assertions were truly significant, the international academic community would have many debates about it, and hordes of researchers would have descended upon the site in search of Nobel Prize material. Instead, the international physics and engineering communities are entirely satisfied that the Twin Towers suffered structural failure followed by top-down progressive collapse.

          Dr Judy is not stupid; therefore, she is Up To Something. Separating fools from their money, obviously, but maybe also teaching wariness of Twin Tower demolition theories by deliberately over-topping their absurdity.

          • Emmanuel Goldstein

            Clark- You are using doublespeak issued from the Ministry of Truth. Why insert doubt where no doubt exists? Knowing what it would cost to print a book like WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, Dr. Wood is not getting rich off of her research.

            😉

            Amazon Sells Out of 1984 as America Decides to Read a Goddamn Book for Once

            George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984 occupied the number one spot on Amazon’s best-selling books list yesterday, where it remains today. A cautionary tale about a brutal, amoral dictator has evidently felt relevant to people lately. But as of today, Amazon—the world’s largest bookseller—is unable to keep up with demand.

            http://gizmodo.com/amazon-sells-out-of-1984-as-america-decides-to-read-a-g-1791658901

    • John Goss

      On that particular issue you are right. There should have been much more debris after the collapse of the twin towers. However I believe you and Judy Wood are wrong on the disintegration which can be accounted for by nuclear detonations. You never did answer the intense heat question I raised which persisted months after the demolitions. You only said that Judy Wood said there was no excessive heat, which is nonsense.

      • Clark

        It seems as if you’ve never inspected the WTC aftermath photos. Have you?

        And you’ve never quantified the expected temperatures, so “excessive” with respect to what?

      • Thomas Potter

        Mr. Goss, You need to clear a few trees so that they do not block your view of the woods… 😉

        For those who don’t like the lie behind door #1 (19 bad guys), they present you the lie behind door #2 (thermite). Then, if you don’t like the lie behind door #2, you are offered the lie behind door #3. (77-year-old British nuclear weapon technology*) Any lie is ok with them as long as it keeps people from looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is why “thermite” is ok with those promoting “mini-nukes,” and why “mini-nukes” is ok with those promoting “thermite”.

        https://i2.wp.com/i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/TheShellGame.jpg

        *A group of eminent scientists known as the MAUD Committee was set up in Britain and supervised research at the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Liverpool and Oxford. The chemical problems of producing gaseous compounds of uranium and pure uranium metal were studied at Birmingham University and Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). Dr Philip Baxter at ICI made the first small batch of gaseous uranium hexafluoride for Professor James Chadwick in 1940. ICI received a formal contract later in 1940 to make 3kg of this vital material for the future work. Most of the other research was funded by the universities themselves.

        http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx

          • Clark

            John, the temperatures and the duration don’t seem excessive, though admittedly I haven’t attempted to quantify either. But consider. Several floors suffered serious fire, but that left around a hundred that did not. The crush as the collapses hit bottom pulverised much of the concrete, most of which was ejected in the huge clouds recorded on video. That left steel, burning material, and flammable contents from around a hundred floors, all enclosed under the less crushed material that landed on top. That’s a lot of fuel in a confined space, which couldn’t burn out rapidly due to restricted air supply.

            Only small quantities of molten metal were reported, a “trickle” according to Leslie Robertson, and that metal is not known to be steel. Much lead, copper and aluminium were present in the Towers. In the case of the fireman’s report of “molten steel, running down the channel rails”, it could not have been steel unless the “channel rails” (whatever they are) were even hotter and made of a metal with a higher melting point than steel – this follows from basic physics regarding latent heat.

            Much glowing hot metal was pulled from the pile, but this could not have been molten or it could not have been lifted using mechanical grabs.

          • Clark

            John, from the page you linked:

            “As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another. Steel beams pulled from the debris at times are so hot they are cherry red. Benzene, propylene, styrene and other chemicals generated by the combustion of computers, office products and fuels drift through the air”

            http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEEDF113BF93AA25752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

            There are some remarkable photos on that page, showing people and mechanical diggers looking small among the piles of debris, disproving another of Mr Potter’s assertions. Notice also how the height of debris within the remains of the perimeter exceeds that around it, despite the sub-levels providing a deep pit directly beneath. This shows that the perimeters did indeed contain and channel much of the falling material, concentrating it into the buildings’ footprints. Presumably this was mainly floor assemblies and contents, since on the videos perimeter sections were seen to fall outwards.

          • Emmanuel Goldstein

            High heat is doublespeak issued from the Ministry of Truth. All that glows is not hot.

            Amazon Sells Out of 1984 as America Decides to Read a Goddamn Book for Once

            George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984 occupied the number one spot on Amazon’s best-selling books list yesterday, where it remains today. A cautionary tale about a brutal, amoral dictator has evidently felt relevant to people lately. But as of today, Amazon—the world’s largest bookseller—is unable to keep up with demand.

            http://gizmodo.com/amazon-sells-out-of-1984-as-america-decides-to-read-a-g-1791658901

          • John Goss

            “All that glows is not hot.”

            While that might be true thermal imaging works on the principle of heat location. It was very hot around the WTC demolitions for months. You can’t get away with a bland statement like that for something you cannot deal with any other way.

    • Clark

      I won’t be able to listen to that unless you can link a copy elsewhere. But in any case the Plasco building collapse has no bearing upon the collapses of the Twin Towers. At the Plasco building collapse, visible and audible detonations apparently initiated collapse. The Twin Tower collapses were apparently initiated by visible structural failure:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug

      • Nikko

        Have you considered the possibility that the visible structural failure was initiated by explosives?

        Your fanciful descriptions of what caused what do not make sense, no matter how many times you repeat them. To give credence to your theory start by proving that a gravity collapse due to pancaking internal floors (conservation of momentum) will produce constant acceleration as shown by Chandler. Initially, consider the first 3 seconds and the ideal case of no resistance, we can refine it later. Then, when you have successfully done that using accepted physics (not waffle), calculate how much energy is released compared to constant acceleration at 2/3 g (Chandler) at each stage and compare to the energy needed to tear apart the structure. Finally, consider a beam traversing a horizontal distance of 200m and impacting WTC 7. Calculate the initial velocity of the beam and explain where the energy to accelerate it to this velocity came from.

        Assume distance between floors =3.8m. For the last, assume mass of ejected beam = 70kg/m length, area = 0.15m2/m length and drag coeff = 0.82. Or make your own assumptions if you do not agree. When you have done we’ll compare notes.

        • Thomas Potter

          Nikko- What are your calculations for? No calculations needed in forensic science. Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during the course of an investigation. A complete evaluation of all the evidence leads to the conclusion. It’s not the other way around. That would be putting the cart before the horse. You don’t start with a method of destruction and then cherry pick Internet hearsay evidence to support it. That’s why hearsay is not admissible evidence in a court of law. I use “monkey chatter” for the term parroting. 😉

          Those who are interested in the truth will read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

          • Nikko

            I was referring to Clark’s theory of gravity collapse which he needs to prove if it is to have any credibility

          • Nikko

            In the science community it is usual practice to validate one’s theories against observed facts. Your refusal or inability to do so speaks volumes about the qualitity of your theories and you as a researcher.

          • Clark

            Well let’s see, anonymous Nikko. Let’s go together to the physics and structural engineering departments of a university or two, and each present our theories of the collapses to the communities there, and see which meets with more approval.

            My guess is that you are not prepared to drop your mask, let alone take up this challenge.

  • John Goss

    For above a month I have refused to engage Clark on 9/11. This comment, and his criticism of my engineering skills, are the main reason.

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-643141

    I see Nikko is experiencing similar problems. On other threads I will be happy to engage with Clark if there is something which warrants my engagement. But his fixation with anti-science on this thread in support of the official line and the blogpost makes it impossible to get any sensible debate.

    • Clark

      John, you do not attempt technical debate. You never submit anything approaching an engineering argument.

      Nikko apparently just pulls numbers out of the air, for instance his figures in his fourth paragraph here:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-645805

      “0.01s per floor at the beginning, 0.05s at the end and averaging 0.04s…”

      come with absolutely no reasoning presented at all. You accuse me of anti-science, but Nikko repeatedly asserts that although kinetic energy expended in inelastic collisions between floor material would be released as deformation of that floor material, it could not have resulted in damage to that material. For unspecified reasons he defines such damage as “external work”:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-650682

      In the following gem of self-contradiction, he justifies Chandler drawing a straight line through his wiggly data points, and then claims that those same data points have sufficient resolution to show variations in acceleration if they existed! Fourth paragraph:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-651298

      The “official line”, John, is that the Towers performed well, and met or exceeded city and state building regulations. It is NOT that the Port Authority was exempt from building regulations, that expense was saved by using unsuitable steel, that the Towers lacked cross-beams and employed lightweight floor assemblies stabilised by shock absorbers instead, lacked sufficient emergency exit facilities and sprinkler systems, had emergency systems vulnerable to single-point failures, and fell in far less than the time they were supposedly fire rated for.

      I respect GOOD engineers. I do not respect engineers who look at a cheap, shoddy design and pretend that it is excellent because, for political reasons, they wish to advance a theory for which there is zero evidence.

      Have you given up on Trump yet? He says he thinks “torture absolutely works”, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If you’re looking for anti-science, you should be looking at him, not me.

      • Nikko

        “Nikko apparently just pulls numbers out of the air, for instance his figures in his fourth paragraph here:”

        Clark, to somebody ignorant of schoolboy physics, it may well seem like numbers pulled out of thin air. Others if interested can easily calculate their own numbers in 20 minutes or so with a spreadsheet, the assumptions I have stated and some basic physics (conservation of momentum, equations of motions).

        Waste of time to rehash the arguments again as we have been through them a number of times but your accusing Chandler of fraud is stooping low. In his graph the relationship between velocity and time has a determinance coefficient of 0.998 which is an excellent indicator of a straight line relationship.

        • Clark

          Yes, anyone can come up with “their own numbers in 20 minutes or so with a spreadsheet”. Or just make them up to apparently support their favourite argument.

          There is NO NECESSITY to those numbers that you presented. They do not follow from the laws of motion alone, and you seem to me to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST by pretending that they do.

          I object to that; I object strongly to pseudo-science. You know my physics is good enough that you can’t fool me, but you blunder on in an attempt to fool less technical readers.

          I challenge you again, and further:

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-104/#comment-652777

          Let us go to a university, and discuss this on camera with some professors and graduates. We shall post the result to YouTube. Put up or shut up.

          You too, John Goss. I will not see science mangled for political ends.

          • Clark

            John Goss, maybe you can help. Can you recommend a working engineer, maybe someone you worked with, someone with a professional affiliation and who writes in the relevant field in reasonably prominent technical journals? Invite such an engineer to join our discussion. I insist on real names and verified identity.

            I am not putting up with any more of this nonsense. We are discussing rigorous science, in which matters can be pronounced right or wrong. These are not matters of opinion.

          • Nikko

            @ Clark: “You know my physics is good enough ………………….”

            Really? As you have only ever presented fanciful ideas devoid of real physics, I have my doubts. You are the one doing pseudo-science.

          • Nikko

            @Clarck: “Nikko, I accuse Chandler of bunk. Do you defend his paper ”

            As you do not go into detail, I am not going to waste time on this. His determination of the rate of collapse seems fine.

          • Clark

            I linked the paper. From the abstract:

            the falling block could not have acted as a “pile driver.”

            From page 10:

            the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed “pile driver,” suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.

            From page 11:

            The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates

            Something other than the falling block (explosives?) must be destroying the structural integrity of the interface zone so that it offers only a small fraction of the resistance it was designed to provide

            From the summary:

            The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the collision with the lower section of the building indicates that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile driver. […] the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top section of the building is strong confirmation that some other source of energy was used to remove the structure below it… such a block could not possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building.

          • Nikko

            I do not see anything obviously wrong with any of the statements you have picked. Makes perfect sense given the constant acceleration of the top section which he measured.

            If you do not agree with Chandler’s measurements I suggest you redo the work to check.

          • Clark

            Hmmm. Those arguments “disprove” vérinage demolition. They “disprove” that trick where you balance a heavy load an empty aluminium drink can, and then tap opposite sides causing it to suddenly crush. They are fundamentally wrong because they ignore the critical importance of geometry to the strength of a structure.

            Video tracking is what Chandler does best and I have no great argument with his WTC1 measurement, though (1) I haven’t checked it eg. for scale, elevation compensation etc., and (2) I may be able to find a one-data-point-per-frame dataset at another site.

            I said before that Chandler’s stuff is very odd. He suggests explosives for all sorts of odd aspects of the building collapses, most of which have much better interpretations that are quite easy to see. I suspect that he knows that, too, so what is he up to?

          • Nikko

            Both your examples involve the application of an external source of energy so I see nothing wrong at all in Chandler.

          • Clark

            So? If you’re going to argue like that, the aircraft and fuel introduced external energy to the Twin Towers, though that’s essentially irrelevant. In all cases, the energy that deforms the lower structure starts mostly as the gravitational potential energy of the upper load.

            If you can’t see that paper’s problem, your ability in physics is severely compromised.

          • Nikko

            Of course I am going to argue like that because in both cases the collapse was initiated by an external (and symmetrical) force. In the twin towers the external force happened way before the collapse so could not have initiated it.

            If it was the case, as you say, that “the energy that deforms the lower structure starts mostly as the gravitational potential energy of the upper load”, then every building would be at risk. If that is what you believe I advise you sleep in the park tonight.

            @ Clark “OK, what about this bit? –
            “The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates”

            The statement is perfectly correct. Momentum can be lost only through reducing mass or velocity, but a falling object is not normally subjected to destructive forces that would make it lose mass.

          • Clark

            In each case of the Twin Towers, fire was still burning when collapse initiated. You’re now saying force rather than energy, but fire induces forces, too.

            But you are waffling, as well you know. None of this makes the slightest difference. Chandler’s argument makes no mention of the initiating event. It’s about the vertical forces and motion post-initiation. You’re avoiding the matter.
            – – – – –
            So an object has to be decelerating to impart momentum, does it?

          • Nikko

            Energy and force are related, did you not know?

            “It’s about the vertical forces and motion post-initiation.” You are correct, that is exactly what it is about, except that never in the time we have been discussing this have you even attempted to explain how the destruction of the buildings could be achieved with gravity forces alone.

            In fact, detail is something you studiously avoid – in your “theory”, in your criticism of Chandler, in your criticism of what I say. If you find the ability to explain we can continue.

          • Clark

            Oh that’s simple; have I really never mentioned it? The floor assemblies weren’t rated to take the weight of the falling top sections, even unloaded, even as a static load. When the top sections started to fall, the floor assemblies couldn’t stop them, and were either smashed or decoupled from the frame, causing that material to fall, too. A chain reaction ensued, falling and accelerating within the perimeter, as witnessed by the ejections as air was displaced at the collapse front. A little behind (ie. above) the collapse front, the perimeter walls fell outward, nudged by the passing mass of debris within.

            Seems obvious, really; inevitable.

          • Nikko

            There you go again – the same fancifull and unrealistic description without an attempt to quantify the destructive forces in comparison with what gravity can achieve. It is you who is waffling. It may only seem obvious to someone who does not understand physics.

            Do some calcs ffs. Start by computing the force necessary to accelerate a beam laterally such that it travels 200m and hits WTC7. That is easy. Then comeback and we’ll compare notes.

            Your idea to go to a university physics department to present your theory is a joke as you have nothing beyond a few words. May be English Literature department may be more appropriate to rate you as a fiction writer.

          • Clark

            You want me to prove that buildings can collapse? That vérinage demolition is possible, though there are videos of it? And if I can’t be bothered, then it must have been thousands of demolition charges? Huh. You want me to prove that floor assemblies rated for at most ten times their own weight as a static load will actually fail if more material than that impacts upon them as a dynamic load?

            You know what will happen if we visit a university. The physics department will confirm that buildings can collapse without explosives, and say that any further detail should be sought from the engineering department. And the engineering department will say “the Twin Towers collapsed. The details are complex”, and will refer us to an FEA simulation.

            And then you, as a Truther conspiracy theorist will say “computer simulations can’t be trusted; the software could all be controlled by the NSA”, even if the software is publicly licensed.

            I don’t have to prove anything, Nikko. Regarding the Twin Towers, I’m quite satisfied with the nearly unanimous academic and professional consensus, which my back-of-a-fag-packet reckonings have never contradicted in the slightest. It’s your lot that need to prove that the buildings were an order of magnitude stronger than they needed to be, and achieved it in practice despite being cheap crap.

          • Clark

            Incidentally, I read Bažant and Zhou, 2002 a while ago. I didn’t attempt to check the structural engineering stuff because I’m not familiar with that, but the basic physics seems sound enough.

            Truther criticisms are misguided and seem to miss the point rather spectacularly; the paper does not propose any particular collapse sequence, it just shows that even the one requiring most energy of deformation (buckling of columns all the way down) is feasible. I shalln’t bother going into details with you because you’ve demonstrated at length that your mind is quite closed to anything but pre-rigged explosive demolition. However, any genuine truth-seeker is welcome to raise the matter with me.

          • Clark

            Now, to pick up on a couple of points, of course energy and force are related, the most basic relationship being energy (or work) equals force applied times the distance through which it acts. Energy is so central to physics that it relates to just about everything.

            You endorsed Chandler’s weasel-worded statement “The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates”, but then ignored my question; “So an object has to be decelerating to impart momentum, does it?”

          • Nikko

            @Clark: “You want me to prove that buildings can collapse?”

            What you need to prove is that buildings can collapse and totally destroy themselves in the process with gravity being the only force. Without this proof your theory has no credibility. There is no academic consensus on this – as has been pointed out to you before, silence is not the same as agreement.

            You have to prove it was a gravity collapse because a collapse like the WTC towers was a unique event, not seen before or since. As far as controlled demolition goes, it is not necessary to prove anything because there are plenty of examples of controlled demolitions used to collapse buildings in the manner displayed by the towers.

            @Clark: “You endorsed Chandler’s weasel-worded statement “The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates”, but then ignored my question; “So an object has to be decelerating to impart momentum, does it?””

            I ignored because it makes no sense in relation to the discussion.

          • Clark

            Chandler wrote: – “The falling block can lose momentum only to the extent that it decelerates”

            You assured me “The statement is perfectly correct”. So, do you assert that an accelerating mass cannot impart momentum?

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    It’s so very humorous to watch agents from the Ministry of Truth hide the evidence here and elsewhere. 😉

  • Clark

    Paul Barbara, Node, John Goss:

    Paul Barbara, January 20, 12:21:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-650669

    “…using the ‘Terrorist Threat’ to gather more and more information on all of us – knowledge is power, so the more they know about us, the easier it is to control us”.

    Node, December 9, 2016 at 16:50:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-641839

    “Last week they [Facebook] suggested I might know you [John Goss]! The only feasible way they can connect us is through a donation I made to your charity page, which I guess means they are using the cookies on millions of pages with facebook-share links to track my movements.

    – …for fuck’s sake, if they can do this to me with the absolute minimum of information, what the fuck can they do to those who log their every life detail in their personal CIA files Facebook page?”.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump

    “We have profiled the personality of every adult in the United States of America—220 million people,” Nix boasts.

    – He opens the screenshot. “This is a data dashboard that we prepared for the Cruz campaign.” A digital control center appears. On the left are diagrams; on the right, a map of Iowa, where Cruz won a surprisingly large number of votes in the primary. And on the map, there are hundreds of thousands of small red and blue dots. Nix narrows down the criteria: “Republicans”—the blue dots disappear; “not yet convinced”—more dots disappear; “male”, and so on. Finally, only one name remains, including age, address, interests, personality and political inclination. How does Cambridge Analytica now target this person with an appropriate political message?

    – Trump’s striking inconsistencies, his much-criticized fickleness, and the resulting array of contradictory messages, suddenly turned out to be his great asset: a different message for every voter.

    John Goss, December 10, 2016 at 15:51:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-642014

    “Those who post to Facebook and I do regularly should not be surprised either if they can see comments and others cannot.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump

    “Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven,” Alexander Nix remembers. On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump’s team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook. The messages differed for the most part only in microscopic details, in order to target the recipients in the optimal psychological way: different headings, colors, captions, with a photo or video. This fine-tuning reaches all the way down to the smallest groups, Nix explained in an interview with us. “We can address villages or apartment blocks in a targeted way. Even individuals.”

    In the Miami district of Little Haiti, for instance, Trump’s campaign provided inhabitants with news about the failure of the Clinton Foundation following the earthquake in Haiti, in order to keep them from voting for Hillary Clinton. This was one of the goals: to keep potential Clinton voters (which include wavering left-wingers, African-Americans, and young women) away from the ballot box, to “suppress” their vote, as one senior campaign official told Bloomberg in the weeks before the election. These “dark posts”—sponsored news-feed-style ads in Facebook timelines that can only be seen by users with specific profiles—included videos aimed at African-Americans in which Hillary Clinton refers to black men as predators, for example. .

  • Paul Barbara

    Clatrke, I went to a lot of trouble writing a longish article, including a rebutal of your last attack on me re Barry Jennings’ testimony, but both your and m,y post have been ‘mediated’ out of existence, probably because of mutual ad hominems..
    So we might as well both keep posts ‘moderate’.
    You asked me some time ago for a link re the shear studs – I haven’t yet found the link for the ‘Inspected every year’ business, but I did find one with a lot of useful info, and thje fact that the beam was anchored to the floor by shear studs.
    Also that although the coefficient of expansin of steel and concrete are very similar, NIST simply heated up the beams in it’s simulation, and didn’t heat up the floors.
    ‘NEW WTC 7 FINDINGS: NIST CRIMINALLY MANIPULATED COMPUTER INPUT DATA; EXPLOSIONS AND EXTREME HEAT IGNORED; KEY VIDEOS CUT SHORT’:
    https://isgp-studies.com/911-wtc-7-collapse-nist-failure-to-disprove-controlled-demolition-thermate#NIST-omissions-seat-stiffeners-lateral-support-beams
    ‘….Key NIST omissions: 1 inch of seat width, stiffeners, lateral support beams
    Unfortunately for NIST, after a successful FOIA request in 2011 for the shop fabrication drawings of Building 7, NIST was found to have omitted crucial data from its computer simulation model in order to (barely) reach enough lateral displacement for girder A2001 to have fallen off its seat. With one or more of this crucial data included, it appears to have been impossible for the girder in question to have failed, meaning that NIST would have to start its investigation all over again…..’
    ‘….To summarize, it appears that at some point NIST scientists determined that girder A2001 must have failed and then began to manipulate their computer model by strategic omissions in order to make this failure happen:

    a little less seat width here;
    a couple of stiffeners less there;
    take out those lateral support beams;
    crank up that temperature;
    and stretch the thermal expansion to its absolute theoretical maximum.
    And voila, we have a failure!….’

    • John Goss

      Paul it is four pages back since you posted this:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-644900

      It has been ignored by those who support the official NIST version. Richard Gage, who does not hide behind a pseudonym, points out in good clear English and engineering what is flawed about the NIST account and all the omissions they had to make to try, unsuccessfully, to model the demolition. Those on here who support NIST (two left I think) have made no attempt to dismantle Gage’s arguments. I suspect that is because they are waiting for the crank sites to come up with some kind of riposte on which to hang their pre-formed theories. Of course that is not science. Science requires an open mind. And the science is simple. It starts with Newton.

      My daughter is a solicitor. Her eldest is thirteen years old. I asked him a couple of months back what he was doing at school and what lessons he enjoyed. Science was one and they were learning Newton’s laws of motion. He was able to explain the Second Law but when I asked him about the third he said they have not done that yet. I told his mother that when he learns the third law he will be able to understand why the twin towers could not have come down in almost freefall in the way the media have presented it. She later asked my grandson’s science teacher if what I said was right. He said yes and I was pleased she let me know. Before that she believed, like many others, that planes had brought down the twin towers. Thank God I thought that my grandson is being taught by someone who knows science. 🙂

      • Paul Barbara

        @ John Goss February 2, 2017 at 10:19
        ‘…Thank God I thought that my grandson is being taught by someone who knows science.’
        I’m sure there’s someone on this thread who can set that teacher straight!

        Could you pass these links to your daughter, and ask her to have a look through them?
        They are not long, but she might have an idea how Melanie can get some decent lawyer on her case:
        http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/melanie-shaw-beechwood-child-abuse-witness-held-peterborough-prison
        http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/beechwood-child-abuse-survivor-melanie-shaw-arrested-again
        http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-special-report-glimpse-institutionalised-child-abuse

        It may expand her understanding to a different level.

        • John Goss

          Paul, it reads like a very disturbing case, that of Melanie Shaw. My daughter is unlikely to know a solicitor who could help since she does not specialise in family law or criminal law, and as far as I know neither does her firm.

          My thoughts would be to contact the Inquiry which has been set up especially to deal with police forces and children’s homes who are not co-operating. I urge you to watch the video from Professor Alexis Jay, contact them and see what advice they can give. Good luck.

          https://www.iicsa.org.uk/

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss February 2, 2017 at 14:11
            Thanks, John, I will check the video and contact them. My last email to them remained unanswered, though.
            I didn’t really think your daughter could help, but it would have expanded her knowledge of what’s going down, in the UK and elsewhere.

      • Kempe

        ” I told his mother that when he learns the third law he will be able to understand why the twin towers could not have come down in almost freefall in the way the media have presented it. She later asked my grandson’s science teacher if what I said was right. He said yes ”

        Please provide name of school so said teacher can be sacked. He/she is obviously unfit to teach.

        Not that I believe a word of it.

        • John Goss

          I am not going to give an anonymous commenter who does not understand basic science any family details. You may not believe the anecdote. But there appear to be many truths you don’t believe Kempe.

          • Kempe

            OK, how about the name of the teacher and the school? I promise not to raise any complaint, I’m sure many parents will be doing that in any case.

          • Clark

            John, I asked you before to bring these matters before an engineer; someone you trust, maybe someone you worked with. But it has to be someone who writes, in the relevant field, and who will put their qualification to their remarks:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-104/#comment-652926

            You ignored me then, and my prediction is that you will ignore me again now.

            I’m thinking about writing to the education authority. Your grandson shouldn’t be that hard for the authorities to trace, and it’s important that he and his classmates get a proper education, free from bunk.

            Contact us:

            City Solicitor Legal and Democratic Services

            PO Box 15992
            Birmingham, B2 2UQ
            Telephone: 0121 303 7602
            Email: [email protected]

          • Kempe

            ” I know you are not an engineer. ”

            Then you don’t know very much. I have a degree level qualification in the subject and a B Sc in physics.

      • Emmanuel Goldstein

        “Richard Gage, who does not hide behind a pseudonym, points out in good clear English and engineering what is flawed about the NIST account and all the omissions they had to make to try, unsuccessfully, to model the demolition.”

        Maybe Mr. Goss should begin his sentence with this qualifying statement: Richard Gage, who came out of nowhere and who has no verifiable past…

        Richard Gage and other Liars for 9/11 Truth

        If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.

        BTW- Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state in which we live 😉

        • Clark

          “BTW- Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state in which we live ?”

          Yes and anyone who contradicts my best friend smells of poo-poo.

          Next…

          • John Goss

            Perhaps this is you Mr. Potter.

            “Thomas R. Potter – AIA, Project Architect

            Bachelor of Architecture, NJIT New Jersey Institute of Technology – 1986
            NJ Licensed Architect since 1989
            Third Generation of Family Architectural practice
            American Institute of Architects, AIA-NJ, Newark and Suburban Section
            Project Architect on over 200 Public Projects since 1986
            Township of Union ADA Committee
            Township of Union Education Foundation
            Member – National Trust for Historic Preservation
            Member – Constructive Specifications Institute
            New Jersey Institute of Technology – School of Architecture Deans Advisory Council”

    • John Goss

      Yes Paul the poll is only just over three years old. I wonder what the response would be now. I expect more people are aware. Certainly more architects and engineers are aware since that report mentions 2,000 architects and engineers calling for a proper inquiry whereas today it is creeping towards the 3,000 mark.

      • Paul Barbara

        Someone emailed me the link; I didn’t check the date. But at least it is still current; it gave me an opportunity to post some ‘enlightening’ comments, and a number of other people have commented since my last post.
        Keeps the pot boiling!

    • Kempe

      Look at it closely and the majority still understand that the towers were brought down as a result of the aircraft impact alone. Only 12/13% reject the NIST report entirely or believe in controlled demolition.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Craig
    ‘…I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block….’
    A fuel-air blast may be simple, but can be devastating. The thing is, the ‘oven’ doesn’t blow up; what occurs is the oven is turned on but is unlit, either because it went out, or the pesron forgot to light it and went out, or a major leak caused it to leak. This does not explode, but will build up until a spark (perhaps someone coming home and turning a light on) or something else ignites the gas-air mix.
    This creates a devastating explosion (Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE). Saboteurs are often taught how to blow up, say, grain stores or flour mills, byu creating dust with an explosive, then a secondary timed device expl;odes, igniting the dust. Again, a massive explosion.

    • Kempe

      Ronan Point.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

      As good an example of a progressive collapse as you’ll find anywhere although as truther physics says such things are impossible it must’ve been a controlled demolition!

      If memory serves the cooker had been badly installed and leaked. The blast occurred when the occupant of the flat struck a match.

      • John Goss

        The building was badly designed, made from prefabricated concrete, devoid of structural steel and building regulations were changed because of it. What more needs to be said?

        • John Goss

          “What more needs to be said?”

          It did not fall anything like the twin towers or building 7. Floors were hanging limply from one side.

          • Clark

            “What more needs to be said?”

            1) Chandler’s argument that top-down progressive collapse cannot happen – an argument that you apparently accept, John – makes no distinction between steel, concrete, or any other material. It says that the top of a structure cannot fall through the structure that previously supported it, no matter what it is made from.

            2) The Ronan Point design was not devoid of steel. Some, but not all, steel components had been omitted in construction.

            3) Building regulations (“codes” in the US) WERE changed as a result of the 9/11 collapses.

            4) If the whole top of the building had started to descend, as happened to both the Twin Towers, then presumably all corners and sides would have been destroyed right down to the ground, just as happened with the Twin Towers.

          • Clark

            “It did not fall anything like the twin towers or building 7”

            The corner of Ronan Point fell very much like the Twin Towers – the damage dropped the structure above onto the structure below, causing it to collapse downwards all the way to the ground.

            Building 7 fell nothing like Ronan Point or the Twin Towers.

            “What more needs to be said?”

            Quite a lot, actually. Since when has it been good engineering practice to repeatedly misrepresent, and muddle up like with unlike, “engineer” Goss?

          • Nikko

            @ Clark: “1) Chandler’s argument that top-down progressive collapse cannot happen – an argument that you apparently accept, John – makes no distinction between steel, concrete, or any other material. It says that the top of a structure cannot fall through the structure that previously supported it, no matter what it is made from”

            Wrong. What Chandler said is that it cannot happen at an acceleration rate equal to 64% of g and in a building with a factor of safety of 4 or 5. These little details make all the difference.

            Do you know how quickly the collapse progressed at Ronan Point?

          • Clark

            Chandler states those quantities, but does not formulate them into much of a relationship. His argument is merely that a mass cannot accelerate under gravity through a structure that formerly supported it.

            He does vaguely argue that about 90% of the support must have been “lost”. That figure is around the right order of magnitude, since floor assemblies were rated to support something in the region of four to ten times their own weight, whereas the vertical frame (perimeter and core) supported all 110 floors assemblies – ie. a floor assembly could offer only 10% or less of the support that the frame could.

            Chandler is a very slippery fish; he seems to word his arguments as might a lawyer or a politician. You must look at his other allegedly explosive effects sometime.

          • Nikko

            In that one short paper Chandler’s done more calculations and exhibited more logical thinking than you have in the hundreds of posts on here. Chandler is specific and scholarly. Your criticism of him is devoid of proper detail, saying that he is wrong but not explaining and proving why. Is that the best you can do? Or is this how you operate?

          • Nikko

            Clark, you ignored my question about how fast the Ronan Point collapse occurred. Without knowing that you are on no position to compare it to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Are you avoiding detail again?

          • Clark

            I really like Chandler’s video tracking exercises.

            OK, he writes some very neat differential equations. That in itself should give you a clue; a collapse is a chaotic process, not a neat one.

            In school and early college, teachers present students with selected problems. The problems are selected on the basis of their solubility. For instance, students are given quadratic equations that have real solutions rather than complex ones. As students, this selectivity gave us an initial impression that all quadratic equations have two real solutions, but of course they don’t, but our teachers don’t tell us about that until later.

            Likewise with other equations. Have a look at this deceptively simple looking relationship:

            x = xr(1-x)

            Play around with values of x where 0 < x < 1 and r is a constant 0 < r < 4

            Likewise in the sciences. Problem that are set have been selected to be simple enough for students to work with. If they had been chosen at random, students would just give up, because insoluble and non-linear relationships far outnumber soluble, linear ones.

            So we get used to assuming things like uniform acceleration. We come to expect that a roughly straight line of velocity against time necessarily implies that the line is actually straight, and the deviations are just our errors of measurement.

            But it depends on the system under observation, doesn’t it? Our equations are just abstracted idealisations.

            So consider an enormous building with all its varied internal and external features. Its various materials have different hardnesses, elasticities, densities and strengths. Internally, it is mostly cavity, but those cavities each have unique shapes. There is much regularity in the structure such as evenly spaced perimeter columns, but an aircraft comes along and knocks an enormous jagged hole in one side, some smaller holes in other sides, and does unknown but presumably irregular damage to internal structure. Fire breaks out, heating and thus softening columns irregularly. The top section begins to tip and, as you have pointed out, rotate, so the columns are no longer straight. Then the top begins to fall…

            What is the upward force on the top section? This is an enormously complex question. Some column ends hit floor slabs. Others hit spandrel plates. Upward-pointing column ends get hit by the underside of falling floor slabs, Some downward-moving column sections grind downwards, with friction between them and the stationary floor slab edges and upward-pointing column pieces. All these forces are varying, and the total upward force is the vector sum of all of them, but it is not even consistent across the area of interaction. I shouldn’t really even have written “area”, because even that is a gross idealisation.

            There really is no good reason to assume constant downward acceleration, is there? And I think Chandler wants us to notice this. I think he over-simplifies deliberately to try and make us think. “…an R-squared value of 0.997” indeed!

            Sorry, I’ve no idea how long the Ronan Point collapse took, but it couldn’t have been long. The point is, it reached the ground which was 3 or 4 times the number of storeys that fell from above, and Chandler’s paper (which I’m pretty sure is a deliberate spoof) says that that can’t happen.

          • Nikko

            Irrelevant bullshit. You do not know how long Ronan Point took to collapse, but you pretend to know what happened. That is worse than crap science.

          • Nikko

            I do not doubt that from the point of view of someone trapped in the building the collapse happened quickly, but if you are claiming that the collapse was similar to the Twin Towers, then “quickly” is a meaningless term.

          • Clark

            Nikko, in your February 4, 20:54 comment you wrote “bullshit” and “crap science”; you’re descending into abuse. In your February 4, 09:38 comment you wrote: “In that one short paper Chandler’s done more calculations and exhibited more logical thinking than you have in the hundreds of posts on here. Chandler is specific and scholarly”.

            So please explain Chandler’s justification for assuming constant acceleration; my “bullshit” says we should expect varying acceleration.

          • Nikko

            Chandler tracked velocity vs time and found the determinance coefficient to be 99.7%. What did you find?

          • Clark

            I find the fact that he calculated a determinance coefficient at all confirms that he assumed constant acceleration. And that I find very silly. Don’t you?

          • Nikko

            WTC was five times taller, so if Ronan Point fell like WTC then its velocity was five times smaller.

          • Clark

            Nikko, 23:55; that’s a gross over-simplification. You forgot a squared term, even if you’re just assuming constant acceleration, for which there is no justification.

          • Nikko

            Clark, my comment at 23.55 was to Kempe’s comment (now deleted or otherwise “disappeared) that basically said that both collapses were the same. In the context of that comment my comment is correct, but of course I was pointing out the sloppiness of Kempe’s language and the meaninglessness of the term “quickly” in the context of a scientific discussion.

          • Nikko

            Kempe’s comment you have linked to is not the one I was replying to. I checked again and it is not to be found, although I remember it being just one or two positions above my answer to it.

            You have not seen Kempe’s comment and you are misquoting me – that is what should be troubling you.

        • Kempe

          ” The building was badly designed, made from prefabricated concrete, devoid of structural steel and building regulations were changed because of it. ”

          How does that affect the laws of physics which were apparently defied on 9/11?

          • John Goss

            The laws of physics were anything but defied. First of all there was an explosion (uncontrolled). Secondly the floors where most damage was done were 17 to 22 (the explosion was in 19) and those flats had their bedrooms destroyed too. All lower floors only had their living rooms destroyed due to deplorably bad design and bad workmanship. The outer walls which in the case if the twin towers were the strongest were the weakest. The floors did not pancake and the damage was less to the base than higher up. This is consistent with Newton’s third law. This aerial view demonstrates.

            http://www.highrise.eca.ed.ac.uk/collapse_top.html

            The paper Kempe links (actually dated 2005) below is very good and the conclusions it draws, that the 19th floor caused the collapse of the 20th up to the 22nd, then these fell on the 18th and so on downwards. It is not the only theory that could be drawn. Architect Sam Webb discovered “One of the simplest tests was to get a sheet of paper, tear a strip off, put it against the skirting board, and let it go at one end. The loose end was coming out at ceiling level in the apartment below. Another basic test was to put a coin up against the wall and let it go. It fell through the gap as if going into a slot machine” That being so a build up of gas could have blown out the whole side from the explosion. Remember the roof was still intact after the explosion. It is presumed that the gas was natural gas which is lighter than air. Nevertheless with expansion it would have to go somewhere.

            How Ronan Point collapsed we don’t know. Everybody was sleeping it appears. So it cannot be compared with the twin towers. Anyway, let me emphasise for the last time there was no structural steel in the building and if there had been this collapse coould never have occurred. And it was a house of cards.

          • Clark

            But what happened to Newton’s third law that you’re always on about? My crank version of physics says it applies just as much to concrete as it does to steel.

            The obvious reason there was less damage at the bottom was that the falling material could spread laterally, unlike the Twin Towers, where the perimeter columns tended to confine the falling material.

          • Clark

            But Ronan Point was a twentieth of the height of the Twin Towers. With Steel, could we build a tower to the moon? And at Ronan Point, the falling material was a fraction of the weight of the top sections of the Twin Towers. Can Steel never fail?

            Come on John, either it’s Newton third, or it’s Steel’s strength. You can’t keep fudging like this. It’s time you wrote a formula to substantiate your claims. After all, you ARE an engineer. Aren’t you? And I’m just a crank, as you keep telling me.

          • John Goss

            Do you want the formula on stress, strain and Hooke’s Law? Buckling? Stress and deformation? Or Mohr’s Law?

            And would you understand them?

          • Clark

            Just write the formula that shows that the topmost intact floor assembly – floor assemblies were made mostly of concrete – could resist the dynamic load imposed by falling top sections.

          • Clark

            You really don’t need any properties for the steel. It’s the weight of entire components and the forces they can take that matter,

          • Clark

            Glenn, good to see you on this thread after all this time. I hope you can see what I’m up against here and haven’t come back just to give me another ear-full.

          • glenn

            Taken a good bit of time away, most of it down in Portugal and Spain (in our modest campervan), besides testing our hardiness for a decent frost through colder parts of Europe before coming back,. It was good being away, in all senses of the word – not overjoyed to be back to be honest. Might be wise to get underway on a much longer term basis.

          • Kempe

            ” That being so a build up of gas could have blown out the whole side from the explosion. Remember the roof was still intact after the explosion. It is presumed that the gas was natural gas ”

            The enquiry support states that it was town gas, conversion to natural gas only began the same year and was to take ten years to complete. Town gas is still lighter than air so it could only have spread upwards so there is still the unavoidable fact that the floors below the 19th were demolished by the kinetic energy of floors 20 to 22. Anyway examination of the building afterwards only found evidence of a gas explosion (burn marks etc) in Flat 90.

          • Clark

            Oops, mistake. Myself, February 3, 23:58:

            “But Ronan Point was a twentieth of the height of the Twin Towers”

            No, it was nearer a fifth. I think I confused storeys with metres.

    • Kempe

      Note the following quote in the wiki article:-

      ” it was not adequate in a fire—a significant fire could lead to bowing of the structure, followed by collapse as above “

      • Clark

        Kempe, note also the citation and date for the section you quoted:

        Beyond Failure: Forensic Case Studies for Civil Engineers. Reston, Virginia, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers Publications. 2009. p. 418.

        It’s almost certainly valid, but considering the source and date, probably a response to the 9/11 building collapses rather than a conclusion of the original investigation.

          • Clark

            Kempe, thanks. Yes, here’s the original report:

            https://archive.org/details/op1268013-1001

            or the text-only version:
            https://archive.org/stream/op1268013-1001/op1268013-1001_djvu.txt

            148. Two further points arise. The first, and the most important, relates to the
            possible effects of a fire in one of the flats at Ronan Point. The probable per-
            formance of individual components of the building, such as wall and floor slabs,
            was discussed with the Fire Research Office at the time the building was designed,
            and was deemed satisfactory. But the point now raised concerns the effect on the
            flank walls of the expansion of a ceiling or floor due to the very high temperatures
            that can arise even in a fire in domestic premises. It is estimated that a fire could
            so expand and ‘arch’ the floor slab, and bend the wall panel, as to displace and
            rotate an H.2 joint to a dangerous degree. It seems essential that this possibility
            should be studied in any modification of the H.2 joints.

            The floor slabs were reinforced concrete. The wall sections were unreinforced.

  • Paul Barbara

    Well, well, well! A&E can’t be quite such dumbos as some folks seem to think!

    ‘Southern US Architects Earn Continuing Ed Credits with AE911Truth’:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/338-news-media-events-southern-us-architects-earn-continuing-ed-credits-with-ae911truth.html

    Wow! A&E give 9/11 Education courses courtesy of AIA, and the attendees get AIA-approved credits!!
    ‘Credit is provided to Institute members who take the course because AE911Truth is an AIA CES-approved provider of continuing education. Its seven registered courses can be found at AE911Truth.org/Continuing-Ed.
    !Tres interesante!

    • Clark

      Paul, I object to this constant innuendo, in this case “can’t be quite such dumbos as some folks seem to think”.

      If you’re going to criticise me, do it by name and do it fairly. I didn’t call them stupid; I said they were unreliable and need to put their house in order because of misleading material on their site. I have ALSO said, REPEATEDLY, that I don’t know how Building 7 collapsed, and that all the data should be released. I have also once pointed out the wide discrepancies between the FEMA and NIST reports.

      I hope there is further investigation, but you have a problem there; who are you going to trust? According to John Goss with whom you apparently agree, virtually the entire global physics and engineering academic and professional communities are turning a blind eye to the corruption of their field which is overlooking gross violations of physical law. I can trust my understanding of physics to determine whether a theory is feasible or not, but other folks are less well placed.

      A suggestion I hope you will follow which I don’t have time for myself. The membership and oversight of the NIST team which investigated Building 7 should be compared and contrasted with that which investigated the Twin Towers. My guess is that significant differences will be found, with tighter governmental control over the Building 7 team.

      I do wish people here would stop treating me as if I were an enemy; it is corroding my soul.

      • Paul Barbara

        ‘.. I can trust my understanding of physics to determine whether a theory is feasible or not, but other folks are less well placed….’
        Yes, but you pitch your basic understanding against certifird architects and engineers, and find them wrong.
        I’m not going to go back and find comments where you’ve slagged them off – you know you have.
        You are not qualified to find them in error, otherwise challenge them with a paper, to which I am sure they will respond.
        My point is, the AIA find them competent to give lectures about them, which gain educational credits from AIA.
        You don’t appear able yet to grasp the significance of AIA’s trust in their teaching ability enough to give credits for people that attend. AIA have confidence in them, but you don’t. Penny dropping?

        • Clark

          “you pitch your basic understanding against certifird architects and engineers, and find them wrong”

          Well over a hundred times as many certified architects and engineers do not support them.

          As for slagging them off, I did say that Meet the Experts is one of the most tedious videos I’ve ever attempted to watch and is suspiciously highly edited, and that some of their videos misrepresent matters in a propagandistic manner. I stand by these criticisms.

          Paul, I think you should read more widely. I suspect (though I’ll doubt you’ll discuss this) that you select whether a site is trustworthy by whether it supports pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers or not. But those two collapses have been widely and deeply discussed in the structural engineering community, and acceptance of structural failure followed by global collapse under gravity is very nearly unanimous.

          A&E9/11 need to make it very clear that they accept that the global collapses of the Twin Towers do NOT contradict physical law without explosives. To do otherwise just puts off those who can do some physics for themselves.

          As for AIA accreditation, why should you trust that though you condemn the entirety of most other institutions? Your only criteria appears to be that it supports demolition theory, which is circular reasoning.

          • Clark

            “you pitch your basic understanding against certifird architects and engineers, and find them wrong”

            I don’t find them wrong about Building 7. And if you listen to Meet the Experts, more of them are concerned about Building 7, too. And Danny Jowenko.

            Try to understand my criticisms. This is not about “two sides”.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 3, 2017 at 12:19
            ‘…Well over a hundred times as many certified architects and engineers do not support them….’
            The fact they may not openly support them does not mean they oppose them – it would not be a good career move to oppose the government narrative, with so many government and private company jobs dependent on government funding or contracts – I’m sure you understand that.ht the
            People can, and have, lost their jobs because they spoke out about the problems with the government ‘Conspiracy Theory’.
            38 A&E members took that Alabama training course, but odds are you haven’t even looked at it.Remember that wise men and women for thousands of years maintained the sun went round the earth; they were the majority, but they were WRONG.
            Any accredited Architect or Engineer could challenge A&E at their seminars or courses. Do they? No. But you, in your wisdom, do.

          • Clark

            “it would not be a good career move to oppose the government narrative”

            What, in Venezuela? In Russia or China? You repeatedly ignore this point.

            “People can, and have, lost their jobs because they spoke out about the problems with the government ‘Conspiracy Theory’”

            This is not about the US Government’s tale of 9/11. It’s about how buildings collapse. Denial of physical law is generally fatal to an engineering career.

            Paul, you’re still fighting me. I’m trying to do you a favour. Explosives make no sense as regards the Twin Tower collapses following initiation; it would have been close to impossible to produce the effects seen, and utterly reckless to attempt it without a full-size rehearsal – reckless in the sense that the explosions could have proven to be visible and audible, and therefore undeniable.

            Reckless and pointless. Anyone with access to the building plans of the Twin Towers could have predicted the global collapses by using FEA simulation. If the top sections started to fall, explosives were unnecessary.

          • Clark

            And in any case, if I had the choice between a career and making the entire world of structural engineers and physicists and all their university departments and professional organisations look like utter idiots, I’d go for the latter; I’m sure someone would employ me once I was world famous for that…

          • Clark

            John Goss, above: – “…those who keep repeating crank theories”.

            Name me when you criticise me, or your claim to not engage with me is dishonest.

          • Kempe

            AIA as an institution have no relationship with AE911. This is different from a handful of their members attending an AE911 conference. If you’re a member of the AA (for example) and attend a meeting of the Boy Scouts it doesn’t mean the AA has any type of formal links with the scout movement.

            This is not difficult.

          • Kempe

            In September on 2013 Ae911’s petition was described on their website as having 2,000 names. The current figure is 2,783. Hardly a spectacular increase in just under two and a half years.

            During that time the US alone produced around 250,000 new engineering graduates so the take up has hardly been spectacular.

          • John Goss

            The other thing you don’t seem to understand is that the recent surge has been very sharp. You gave a period of roughly 3.5 years to claim that there had only been a roughly 750 increase in members (that there is any increase in members should tell you something). But the surge, in less than three months, has been half of that already in the previous 3.25 years. Draw the graph and you will see a constant increase with a near vertical peak near the end.

        • Clark

          Paul Barbara, February 3, 11:30:

          “My point is, the AIA find them [A&E9/11Truth] competent to give lectures about them, which gain educational credits from AIA”

          I’ve e-mailed AIA

          to: infocentral at aia.org
          cc: cessupport at aia.org
          Subject: Education Credits

          Dear recipients,

          I recently encountered the following page:

          http://www.ae911truth.org/news/338-news-media-events-southern-us-architects-earn-continuing-ed-credits-with-ae911truth.html

          Quote:
          >>
          Credit is provided to Institute members who take the course because AE911Truth is an AIA CES-approved provider of continuing education. Its seven registered courses can be found at

          http://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/
          <<

          Is this so?

          Sincerely,
          Clark Killick (UK)

          Their system has auto-responded:

          From: infocentral at aia.org
          Subject: Ticket #5310-10529529 Routed

          Dear Clark,

          Thank you for contacting the American Institute of Architects, Member Services Department. One of our associates will respond to you as soon as possible. Our goal is to respond to your email within 24-48 hours.
          For your records, please retain your ticket number for future reference.
          Thank you for your patience and understanding.
          You may also wish to contact us at 800-AIA-3837, Option 2.

          Sincerely,
          AIA Member Services

          Ticket Information:
          Ticket #: 5310-10529529
          Date Created: 2/03/2017 05:22 PM EST

          We shall see if anything comes back…

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 3, 2017 at 22:40
            Great! Why don’t you write a scholarly rebuttal of all A&E’s ‘theories/statements with which you disagree, and send it to them? Maybe they’ll agree with you, maybe not.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 4, 2017 at 02:44
            Thanks for the link – very interesting. That would account for the burnt-out cars, and the strange ‘partial burnings’ that Woods (whose theories I have zero time for) mentions, if I’m not mistaken.
            But I don’t know what you else you are referring to – what is it?

          • Nikko

            @ Clark: “Try to ignore Chandler’s hypnotic suggestions, and see if you can see what I see.”

            What do you see?

          • Clark

            In that video Chandler draws attention to an object that changes direction. He suggests painted-on nano-thermite – ignoring Occam’s razor rather spectacularly, because there’s a far more mundane explanation “In Plane Sight”, to make a Truther pun. He even captures it from two angles. Watch carefully.

            If we go with the nano-thermite paint explanation, we need to add a whole host of complexities. How did a team strip out all the plasterboard on the exterior walls of working offices, paint on the explosive paint, and then put it all back without anyone noticing? How was it detonated? Little radio-controlled boxes? Why were none found? There would have to be thousands of them! OK, objects within the perimeter were crushed out of all recognition by the hail of floor-slab rubble, but such detonators would have to be attached to the perimeter, and so would have fallen outside the footprint, dispersed all over the area – and yet not one turned up? How come only steel from the aircraft impact sites showed any sign of having been blasted?

            Chandler’s an odd fish, I tell you. He repeatedly stresses the primacy of observation, saying “see what’s there, not what you’re told to see” and then spends the rest of such videos telling you what you’re looking at, as if he’s testing your ability to follow his initial advice by resisting his later suggestions. Well, he is a teacher…

            Just watch carefully. You can see what made that piece change direction.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you are waffling again and not making any aense. I see metal beams hurled laterally at great speed and trailing white smoke. Gravity does not explain the former and metal does not normally give off white smoke. Chandler’s explanation is in the realm of possibility

          • Clark

            I take it the general silence means the Truthers have spotted the other object that converges from above-left and now realise it was a collision…

            …and Nikko therefore moves the goalposts onto “white smoke”, which is pretty obviously dust from concrete or plasterboard, knocked loose by the collision. Note that the trail hangs in the air, and does NOT blast off in the opposite direction, as it would have to if it was reaction mass producing a rocket effect.

            OK, here’s another of Chandler’s rather blatant clues. See if you can spot the presumably (hopefully!) deliberate massive blunder beginning at about 4:35, and tell me which fundamental law of physics Chandler is contradicting:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

            And there’s more where that came from…

          • Clark

            It’s really quite ridiculous. Truther opinion-formers tell us that NANO-thermite was used because it’s explosive rather than incendiary, But then, as evidence, we’re prompted to observe trails. Well trails imply progressive burning, whereas an explosive would produce a very brief ejection rather than a trail.

            But only “official contradictions” carry any significance for Truthers, whereas Truther contradictions ALL get rubber-stamped.

          • Nikko

            @ Clark: ” “white smoke”, which is pretty obviously dust from concrete or plasterboard, knocked loose by the collision.”

            Plasterboard – LOL – you are getting ridiculous.

            Nobody is moving the goalposts as you did not mention the (possibly) colliding object and I discounted the possibility that two objects moving in a roughly similar direction can result in a 90 degree change of direction.

            Thanks for posting this video
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
            The tracking is done to the same 0.2 second time scale and clearly shows the deceleration due to the impacting floors after approx. 1.1 seconds of falling. Nothing like this is observed for the Twin Towers. And do not forget that the Balzac building was helped on its way by a massive application of external force. Perfect proof that you are talking bollocks.
            Nothing wrong at 4.35.

          • Clark

            The inner faces of the perimeter were finished in plasterboard or similar – look it up, but obviously the designers wouldn’t have just left naked steel box-columns.

            You SAW the other object but “discounted” it? It impinges from ABOVE, consistent with knocking the other piece DOWNWARDS, but you IGNORED it? Where’s your integrity?

            At 4:35 Chandler claims the falling material would have been “consumed”, contradicting the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MASS.

          • Kempe

            ” Plasterboard – LOL ”

            If instead of just “LOL” you went away and checked you’d discover that there was a large amount of plasterboard (wallboard as it’s known in the US) used n the WTC for lining the walls and internal partitions.

            The external columns of the WTC failed by buckling so material would’ve been ejected sideways.

          • Nikko

            Clark: “You SAW the other object but “discounted” it? It impinges from ABOVE, consistent with knocking the other piece DOWNWARDS, but you IGNORED it? Where’s your integrity?

            You ask where is my integrity? It is with what I learned at school in my physics O’level. I did not ignore the other object; I DISCOUNTED it for a good reason. As you are claiming gravity was the only force at play, I could have also discounted it on the basis that under a gravity collapse scenario it is impossible for the two objects to have collided the way you imply.

            Clark: “At 4:35 Chandler claims the falling material would have been “consumed”, contradicting the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MASS.”

            The video you posted was about the difference between the collapse of the Twin Towers and the Balzac building, proving that the Twin Towers were not a gravity collapse as you claim. As such, Chandler was talking in terms of Newton’s third law and the word “consumed” was not unreasonable in the context, although perhaps he could have used a better word. Only somebody trying to deflect from the message of the video would claim he got it wrong.

            I do not need to ask where your integrity is. Judging by the attack on JG and your dishonest debating tells me that you do not have any.

          • Nikko

            Kempe, I am quite happy to take your word that the Towers were lined with plaster board. I was laughing at the notion that a falling plaster board would trail plaster in the way seen in the videos. Throw one out of a window and see what happens.

          • Clark

            My “attack on JG”? Please explain what harm could come from my contacting the education authority?

            Chandler states: “At most, the top twelve floors might have destroyed an additional twelve floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building.

            So what becomes of all the mass and the weight it exerts? Does it vanish, or has weight no ability to crush? Or is Chandler indulging in subliminal suggestion?

          • Clark

            Nikko, 21:28: – “I was laughing at the notion that a falling plaster board would trail plaster in the way seen in the videos. Throw one out of a window and see what happens”.

            You seem to have subtracted the collision from the scenario – a collision with spinning object large enough to span several pixels on video at about a 1:1000 reduction. You have also neglected the collapse itself, which is more than likely to have damaged any plasterboard.

            I’m sorry you don’t like my style of discussion.

          • Nikko

            I have not subtracted anything. The notion that a plasterboard (no matter that damaged) would be trailing dust in freefall for the total duration of the fall is unrealistic

          • Clark

            Throw a steel box column attached to a piece of recently torn and shotblasted plasterboard out of a window, and when hit by a cannonball it wouldn’t trail any dust. It is far more likely that the entire interior of a busy building was secretly painted with postulated explosive paint, rigged with vanishing detonators, and escaped initial detonation but somehow detonated while in mid-air, causing the box-column to suddenly change direction without visible reaction motion in the combustion products.

            Fine. If you say so, then it must be so. Chandler couldn’t possibly have been taking the piss, and your thinking couldn’t possibly be the tiniest bit biased. And obviously, it’s me that’s ignorant of Newton’s third…

  • Paul Barbara

    Although only twenty minutes long, this video is dynamite. I spent hours checking out stuff the guy talks about.
    It links Hillary Clinton to convicted child trafficker, and to assisting American Baptist ‘Missionaries’ get let off after they were arrested in Dominica/Haiti trying to steal children and transport them out of the country, in some cases having spun a cock and bull story to their parents. Alefantis and others also linked to perps.
    ‘(2017) PIZZAGATE NEW SHOCKING CONNECTION – JAMES ALEFANTIS INSANE CONNECTIONS – MUST SEE!!’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t586Eube0dg

    Anybody know if Ben Swann is back at work, or had any contact with him?
    Last I can get is he was due to go back to work at CBS on January 30th. His Facebook page has diasappeared, and Tweets are ‘private’.
    Ben certainly got up a lot of noses with his welcome Pizzagate ‘Reality Check’.

    • Clark

      I downloaded and watched that video. Frustratingly, the text is too blurry to read (the vid is only 640×480). If you know the URL of the page he displays, please post it.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark February 4, 2017 at 02:20
        I searched for hours over that video’s contents the other day. I will send links re the video which I found when I have time.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark February 4, 2017 at 20:19
          I have to admit your ideas are not bunkum; they seem to go a bit further than that.
          But why can’t you (or ‘won’t you) present your brilliant analysis or critique or whatever, to the world, and obviously to A&E? Or are you afraid they will (understandably) laugh at you?

  • Node

    Clark to John Goss :I’m thinking about writing to the education authority. Your grandson shouldn’t be that hard for the authorities to trace, and it’s important that he and his classmates get a proper education, free from bunk.

    @Clark : You attack posters for being anonymous, then you make a threat like this. I don’t reveal my identity on the internet because there is a minority who will abuse my trust. I need to be anonymous because of people like you.

        • Clark

          You call it a “threat”. The dangers I see are that a teacher’s competence is in question, a solicitor may be incompetent when selecting expert witnesses, and John Goss claims to be indoctrinating a minor.

          Please outline the danger presented by my proposed action.

          • Clark

            Of course if you wish to engage in acts with deleterious consequences such as those I mention above, you will need to preserve your anonymity. And that’s precisely why I criticise anonymity.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 4, 2017 at 18:41
            And you stand in danger of exposing yourself – such a thing.
            It’s done, already!
            Next trick?

          • Node

            Please outline the danger presented by my proposed action.

            I really shouldn’t have to spell this out. You propose intruding into JG’s personal privacy, risking causing friction and mistrust in his family, and damaging a teacher’s career, all of which might impact on his grandchild. You justify it because you are certain that you are right and he is wrong in a matter which is literally open to debate.

            In another era, you might similarly report someone to the authorities for blasphemy.

            Take a step back, Clark. Gain some perspective.

          • Clark

            Remember that this started with John Goss relating his deception of his own daughter, with the prospect of indoctrinating her thirteen year old son. John Goss wrote:

            “I told his mother that when he learns the third law he will be able to understand why the twin towers could not have come down in almost freefall…”

            …apparently no room for debate there; John Goss presented this direct falsehood as a certainty. So it is John Goss who has already risked “causing friction and mistrust in his family” whether I take any action or not, due to his obsession with spreading a piece of political propaganda.

            You wrote, “you propose intruding into JG’s personal privacy”, but I expect to discover nothing about John Goss; I expect information to pass from me to the Birmingham education authority, and not vice-versa since the local authority is subject to the Data Protection Act. John Goss and his descendants are merely the means for the education authority to identify the teacher, since John Goss has decided to conceal this aspect of his story.

            That leaves the teacher’s career. Any teacher who states that collapse at less than free-fall defies physical law has demonstrated their own incompetence, but it is not up to me to correct that matter, it is the responsibility of the education authority. I expect – I very much hope – that they have procedures to check on teaching standards, and I certainly don’t expect them to seek my input when assessing that teacher.

            So what are you saying, exactly? That science teachers should be free to teach some modified version of science that is at odds with that agreed by academic institutions globally? How far should that be permitted to go?

            It seems to me, Node, that your obsession with promoting demolition theory overrides any concern you may have that hundreds of children are being taught by a teacher who seems incompetent.

          • Node

            You hold an OPINION which many people don’t share. You claim the right to force your opinion on others without regard for the consequences. Please think about it before acting.

            I’m going to stop discussing this now because I fear I may make matters worse by provoking you.

          • Clark

            It is nothing to do with any opinions I hold. Collapse under gravity can proceed at acceleration less than free-fall. That is a scientific FACT, not an opinion. Indeed, it is a fact that Truthers rely upon, or the 2.25 seconds of Building 7’s acceleration at around g would not carry any significance.

            And stop overrating your own importance.

          • Clark

            And reporting this is the OPPOSITE of the old blasphemy laws. Science is developed through application of scepticism. You’re saying that because a teacher’s lack of understanding happens to support your own opinion, scepticism should be suspended and no check on the teacher’s competence should be made.

    • John Goss

      Node, I don’t engage Clark for the simple reason he does not think like an engineer, his theories are cock-eyed, he does not pay attention to what others say unless it suits him and he cannot get his head round Newton’s laws (which are a starting point for further science). It is a waste of time. You see even in this “I’m going to report you to the teacher” rant he, and Kempe, have got the impression that the Science teacher who my daughter asked a question, is teaching 9/11. They are doughnuts. The teacher is teaching Newton’s Laws of Motion. My daughter asked him on a personal level if what I said to her was right.

      Is it any wonder they come out with all this bunkum science?

      • Clark

        If a teacher does not understand that a building can undergo accelerating collapse so long as that acceleration is less than g, their competence is in question – there is no action that can be taken against you, I’m sure you’re happy to note. But it seems you have more concern to indoctrinate political propaganda than you do for your grandson’s education, and that is most reprehensible.

        You claim not to engage with me John Goss, but you malign me in the third person relentlessly. That is a dishonest technique which places moderators in a difficult position. Your phrase above, “…those who keep repeating crank theories”, is clearly an ad-hominen attack against someone; since you don’t name who you aren’t exactly “playing the man”, but clearly you are not “playing the ball” either.

        My understanding of Newton is just fine. We were discussing this last night. You never did clarify what you meant; you just went silent, as you usually do:

        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-104/#comment-653774

        It seems to me time you admitted to readers that you can’t do it, and to yourself that your constant invocation of Newton is just a disguised appeal to authority. Engineering integrity demands nothing less.

        • Clark

          John, you seem to be having trouble so I’ll explain. Calling an argument “crank” or “bunkum” is not engaging with it; it is merely slagging it off, and therefore implicitly slagging of the person who advanced it. It is, essentially, a disguised ad-hominen attack. Adding such slyness to unpleasantness just makes matters worse.

          It avoid this, you need to specify why the argument is crank or bunkum. Simply saying it “contravenes Newton’s third law” is not enough, either; you need to say how it does so, by pointing out that one thing exceeds another, for instance, or demonstrating that it implies some impossible result.

          And in scientific and technical discussions, if you cannot do that or the relationship you presented is shown to be in error, it demonstrates good faith if you acknowledge the point. It also enables the discussion to move on, as this discussion should have done months ago.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 4, 2017 at 20:19
            I have to admit your ideas are not bunkum; they seem to go a bit further than that.
            But why can’t you (or ‘won’t you) present your brilliant analysis or critique or whatever, to the world, and obviously to A&E? Or are you afraid they will (understandably) laugh at you?

        • John Goss

          This is the kind of nonsense that gets people’s backs up: “there is no action that can be taken against you, I’m sure you’re happy to note.” It is that kind of idiocy that drives people from the thread. I just think you are behaving in a cretinous manner over this, and you do it elsewhere. Two adults have a conversation one believes the Twin Towers came down in almost freefall and the other says that cannot happen. Somebody asks the person who said that could not happen, who happens to be science teacher, if the twin towers could have come down in almost freefall, and he, she, says no. That is defending his professional belief, just like more than 2750 architects and engineers are doing. Now if you carry on in this way you will get a big surprise through the post from my lawyers. Stop keep mentioning my name in your comments. I do not wish to engage with you on this thread. Here’s why.

          I have engaged with you in the past. I have tried to give you practical examples like Newton’s Cradle and the beer-crates. You ignore them. I showed you the tensile strength of structural steel in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster. You ignored it. You cannot ignore such things because they are integral to why the twin towers could not have fallen the way they did, integral to why no other structural steel building has ever fallen like that (that alone should tell you how wrong you are in your fanciful ideas). Richard Gage’s lecture, which convinced so many AIA members to support Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, has been presented to you more than once for over a month. Why don’t you want to address that? Why would a mechanical engineer question the hard research of a structural engineer? I don’t. I respect the peer-group findings of AE911 truth. There may be conflict among them but they are seeking to get at the truth.

          If you want to quantify in equations the stresses and strains of steel under certain conditions you would need a lot of input information which I don’t have. But you must think is easily available. You would also have to do a lot better than you have been doing with Nikko. But please go ahead. Here are some formulae to help you.

          http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Courses/MAE325_f99/Handouts_WWW/Strength_Summary.pdf

          I thought you might have realised that it was not possible to do all the calculations without known inputs on the back of a pizza package in such a short time. Now leave me alone, do not mention my name on this thread because I have had enough of the harrassment. Having said that you won’t drive me away.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    ╦─╦╔╗╦─╔╗╔╗╔╦╗╔╗
    ║║║╠─║─║─║║║║║╠
    ╚╩╝╚╝╚╝╚╝╚╝╩─╩╚╝

    GET SMART!

    “This episode stood out in my mind, even though I had not seen it in months. Funny thing, my family had been in a Get Smart mood and when I watched the “Mr. Big” episode last fall, the storyline really stood out to me, particularly when thinking about what went down in New York on September 11, 2001 (Read Dr. Judy Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go? for more on that).”

    http://www.reddirtreport.com/dust-devil-dreams/there-light-never-goes-out-hell-valley

    The Shaky Moral Foundation that AE911Truth is Built Upon

    We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything.

    http://healthwyze.org/tidbits/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon

  • lysias

    And here we have an explanation of why so many people refuse to express doubts about the official 9/11 narrative, indeed refuse to think about the matter, for fear that they might have unorthodox and dangerous thoughts.

  • Paul Barbara

    At the end of the day, it seems a few ‘folks’ are posting on this thread simply to ‘muddy the waters’.
    Genuine posters shold be aware of this, and hopefully won’t ‘rise to the bait”
    Yeh, I do have a pretty uncanny knack of sussing what is going on.

  • Paul Barbara

    In short, don’t waste your time. Don’t feed the trolls, ignore them.
    They may just wither on the blighted vine, or whatever.
    But essentially, don’t rise to the bait; Trust me – I was a trout in a previous incarnation.

  • Phil the ex-frog

    Threats of lawyers. Threats of reporting someone’s teacher. Endless bitching with everyone claiming victimhood. SHOUTING. More SHOUTING the same thing. Years of unbending opposing conviction.

    Much as I enjoy you making knobs of yourselves (takes the heat off the rest of us) may I suggest you consider taking a break from this thread for your own sanity.

    • Clark

      Phil, as a child, I was indoctrinated with anti-science by a “responsible” adult family member. Consequently, I take this matter quite seriously. There are a number of similarities. I had to sit apart in religious education, and was “discouraged” from taking biology because it contradicted creationism. In Scotland, I met two parents who were keeping their child out of school because one of them regarded education about climate change to be propaganda. Blair’s government institutionalised the problem with state approval of “academy” schools.

      In each case, the motivating belief issues from US “enclave”-type groups, now propagating their various dogmas through talk-radio and websites. In each case, their targets are the academic system globally, and ultimately rational inquiry itself.

      • Phil the ex-frog

        I wasn’t doubting the seriousness of the contributions Clark. Just suggesting you could spend your time a little less unproductively than on endless futile efforts of persuasion interjected with empty threats.. However, writing that down I see it is true for all of us here. Only matter of degree I guess. Probably I am projecting cause I often wonder what the fuck I am doing here.

        • Clark

          Phil, you’re right that I spend too much time on this thread. But some matters here fascinate me. Building 7 is a curiosity, of course.

          But I’ve developed a fascination with the process of false memes being amplified and popularised. A whole microcosm of the human problem can be seen from right here on this thread and its links. On the one hand we have mainstream propaganda and secretive government pronouncements, and on the other our very own alternative media demonstrating the myth-creation instincts of the human animal, which seem to be quite ugly too.

          Now you say it’s hierarchies that corrupt, and without them people would resume their natural harmonious behaviour, whereas I’ve been saying that all of us have aspects of our motivation which lead to trouble.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    ╔═╦╦╦══╦══╦╦══╦══╦╦╦═╗
    ║╔╩╩╩══╩══╩╩══╩══╩╩╩╗║
    ║║╔╦╦╦═╦╗╔═╦══╦══╦═╗║║
    ║║║║║║═╣║║╔╣╔╗║║║║═╣║║
    ║║║║║║═╣╚╣╚╣╚╝║║║║═╣║║
    ║║╚══╩═╩═╩═╩══╩╩╩╩═╝║║
    ║╚╦╦╦══╦══╦╦══╦══╦╦╦╝║
    ╚═╩╩╩══╩══╩╩══╩══╩╩╩═╝

    Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.

    Richard Gage is NOT a qualified forensic scientist. Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist. AE911Truth is calling for a new investigation. This implies an admission that they are NOT qualified to conduct such an investigation of what happened. Otherwise, why are they calling for a new investigation instead of conducting one themselves — unless the intention is to knowingly distract its members and others away from the new investigation that has already been conducted? AE911Truth wants a new investigation? They already have one. It’s contained in a book called “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn’t AE911Truth submit their so-called “thermite evidence” to NIST? – Oh, that’s right. It’s a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn’t AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven’t blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn’t they support Dr. Wood’s Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? * — I guess they really didn’t want such a case to go forward. So they want “respect and compassion for all people” except for those named “Dr. Judy Wood.”

    AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control” ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought. That’s why the Ministry of Truth issue their thought police (Thinkpol) here and elsewhere. 😉

    • Clark

      Mr Potter, you are supposed to maintain a single identity within a thread. Obviously you are not attempting sock-puppetry, but it is more convenient to reply to a name which remains consistent, and it is part of this site’s moderation rules:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/

      Some points:

      “Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist”

      Please link to her articles regarding 9/11 that she has submitted as a forensic scientist, on the websites of the academic institutions or publications that received them. Please include those relating to the building collapses.

      “…Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report”

      Please link to this, and any other RFCs that she has submitted, preferably on NIST’s site or an archived version of it.

      “That’s why the Ministry of Truth issue their thought police (Thinkpol) here and elsewhere”

      Whatever you may think, I am just a member of the British public with a reasonable understanding of and interest in science, and I object to the misrepresentations of evidence, and of physics itself, being promoted by A&E9/11″Truth”.

      • Emmanuel Goldstein

        You don’t need someone to hold your hand as if you are a small child crossing a busy street with daddy. Don’t you have Internet access? If you take the time to look you will find what you are looking for on your own. 😉

        Richard Gage & His Mysterious Money Machine

        http://imgur.com/a/qJ9fP

        • Clark

          But you could save me that time. Of course if the documents you refer to were never submitted, you’d be sending me on a wild goose chase and my time and effort would be entirely wasted. Since the front page of Wood’s website is plastered in bunk, I shall assume this to be the case unless you post the requested links.

          So which matters more to you, Mr Potter? Judy Wood’s message, or her book sales?

          • Emmanuel Goldstein

            Book sales? What’s the inquisition for? Don’t you have a public library or do you live in a backwoods cave? 😉

  • John Goss

    CRANES AND CRATES
    (Another comment likely to be ignored)

    CRANES
    There is a very good reason for building cranes out of steel. It is the same reason that the twin towers were made out of even stronger structural steel. Strength of materials matters. Sometimes cranes, much more often than buildings, fail. It is not usually the steel that fails. High winds can be responsible. So can the fact that they often have no foundations and have to be moved from place to place. I have watched dozens of videos of crane failures. Do you know what? Not one of them has collapsed in the way the twin towers did. This is a recent and fatal crane disaster not far from where the twin towers stood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qoUjMBbbhQ

    All crane failures I have seen have their steel structures very much intact. There are multiple reasons for failure, lack of equilibrium, trying to hoist too heavy a weight. Three big differences between the twin towers and a crane is that the structural steel was much sturdier in the towers, its integral strength was vertical and its base was built on very strong foundations. There is no way any downward pressure would destroy the structural steel. You can see what happens to much flimsier cranes.

    CRATES
    They build stacking crates, milk and beer, usually out of plastic. They do not build skyscraper towers out of crate plastic though some composites are used on some buildings. When you stack crates one on top of another they are quite strong because all the weight is borne in a vertical direction, one crate resting on top of another. I suspect that if the crates were full they could be stacked higher because of this vertical strength and the extra stability.

    The vertical strength of buildings is always overdesigned to take much more load than it would ever experience. The pancaking idea is absolute nonsense to an engineer. Take a look at this tower made out of beer crates.

    http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/Watch-Stacking-beer-crates-into-towers-and-climbing-them-is-a-thing-now/368680.htm

    It will give you some idea of the downward strength of crate on crate. And yet again gain Newton’s immutable third law can be seen. My estimate is that the crates at about 18 stacked together would be a similar height to the twin towers (give or take). What you should imagine is instead of somebody climbing on them that a person is hoisted above the tower who then drops a crate a crate’s height above the tower. If it landed square it would not push the other crates into the ground. If it landed awkwardly and the tower collapsed it would collapse lopsidedly like the cranes. You can fill it full of beer bottles if you like, full beer bottles. You would never get it to collapse like either of the twin towers. Any engineer would tell you that. But if you doubt it try it for yourself.

    Of course there is a big difference between beer crates and a solid structure, especially a steel structure, especially a steel structure which is bolted and riveted together, especially a steel structure which is anchored soundly at the base, with even stronger girders and wider support towards the base. The twin towers could not have fallen in the way they did without their structure having been compromised lower down. It is an engineering impossibility. Hope this gets through all the nonsense.

    • Clark

      “There is no way any downward pressure would destroy the structural steel”

      You have just asserted that the strength of structural steel is infinite. I refer you to your own link:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_materials

      “What you should imagine is instead of somebody climbing on them that a person is hoisted above the tower who then drops a crate a crate’s height above the tower”

      Why should readers imagine that? The floor assemblies of the Twin Towers were predominantly concrete, and rated for a small fraction of the support of the steel frame (core and perimeter). Visibly, the collapse front proceeded down through the floor assemblies, within and constrained by the perimeter.

      And why do you repeatedly refer to the “solid structure”? Office buildings are very much hollow – or they would be of no use! “Strong” and “solid” have different meanings.

      How do you hope to get through nonsense by constantly posting more of it?

      • John Goss

        “And why do you repeatedly refer to the “solid structure”? Office buildings are very much hollow – or they would be of no use! “Strong” and “solid” have different meanings.”

        Cranes are totally hollow. But they do not fall in on themselves. You still cannot see it even when it is demonstrated with a demonstration that cannot be faulted or disproved. Poor man.

      • John Goss

        The I-beam structural steel was solid.

        There was no way that the downward pressure of floors above could have destroyed the structural steel. Because you have no answers you invent ideas to play on words. Address the practical demonstrations. Anything practical frightens you to death. Disprove what I have said about cranes and crates. Because that is the reason the twin towers could not have fallen the way they did from an impact from above.

        Can you see it? Can you see what I see?

        • Clark

          Steel is indeed very strong, and the structural steel of the vertical frame wasn’t destroyed. Most of it wasn’t even bent much, though a few pieces were folded right back on themselves. The steel perimeter and core ended up broken into pieces of various sizes; much remained in enormous sections.

          It was largely the concrete floor slabs that were rubblized and pulverised, and the lightweight trusses onto which the concrete had been poured ended up twisted and tangled among that. The large floor areas of mostly concrete, with only lightweight steel, was the weakest link in the Twin Towers’ design, and as can be seen from the videos, the initial collapse wave proceeded internally, bypassing the vertical strength of the steel perimeter and, apparently, a considerable portion of the core.

          “…imagine […] a person is hoisted above the tower who then drops a crate a crate’s height above the tower. If it landed square it would not push the other crates into the ground”

          This analogy is similar to the scenario considered in Bazant and Zhou 2002, which I agree is not realistic – but that scenario was never meant as a realistic collapse sequence. Its use of simplifying assumptions is more physics than engineering. The paper’s intention is to show that a one-storey drop of the smaller of the two top sections would be sufficient to destroy even the least vulnerable parts of the whole tower:

          The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor. This purpose justifies the optimistic simplifying assumptions regarding survival made at the outset, which include unlimited plastic ductility (i.e., absence of fracture), uniform distribution of impact forces among the columns, disregard of various complicating details (e.g., the possibility that the failures of floor-column connections and of core columns preceded the column and tube failure, or that the upper tube got wedged inside the lower tube), etc. If the tower is found to fail under these very optimistic assumptions, it will certainly be found to fail when all the detailed mechanisms are analyzed, especially since there are order-of-magnitude differences between the dynamic loads and the structural resistance.

          I’m not particularly impressed by their “drop of one storey” approach because it gives an impression of justifying global collapse. A more probing question to ask would have been; what is the maximum descent velocity of the upper section that the lower structure could have withstood? That would have provided a metric of strength by which buildings’ vertical frames could be compared. But it makes no odds because the leading collapse wave went past the vertical steel frame, passing instead through the lower resistance offered horizontal concrete floor slabs.

          “The twin towers could not have fallen in the way they did without their structure having been compromised lower down. It is an engineering impossibility”

          Here I disagree. The Towers’ weakness was the wide mostly concrete horizontals spanning between the strong steel verticals. The design itself was compromised from all the way from bottom to top by the eighteen metre horizontal spans without vertically supporting steel.

    • Kempe

      Difference between the WTC, the crane and the tower of beer crates is that both the crane and the beer crates toppled, neither suffered a structural failure. I would dispute that the crane is made from inferior steel to the WTC but that is a minor point. The biggest difference is that the crane’s structure is triangulated so it is inherently rigid whereas the WTC relied on the stiffness of the joints between vertical support columns and floors to maintain it’s structural integrity. It was these joints that failed, allowing the columns to bow and ultimately collapse. The beer crates had solid sides and a cellular structure (for the bottles) which again provides much greater stiffness than the WTC. Had the towers been built the same way there’d have been very little room inside for the occupants and it would probably have been to heavy for the foundations.

      One simple example of Newton’s Third Law is sitting on a chair, you exert a downwards force on the chair and the chair exerts an upward force to prevent you falling to the floor. Fine. The chair can support your static mass indefinitely because that’s what it’s designed to do but what would happen if you jumped on the chair from a height? Would it be able to resist the dynamic force of your falling mass? The simplistic mantra of truthers would suggest that it would but fortunately we don’t have to speculate as diverse idiots have done the experiment for us:-

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNzW-9AhcI

      That’s as clear a demonstration as you need.

      • John Goss

        Thank you for trying to dismiss it but what you say is not true. First of all crane towers are not triangular, they are square. And crane towers rarely collapse and certainly none that I’ve seen. They can topple. I never said that cranes were made of weaker steel. But their cross-sections are much flimsier. If you mean the cross strutts are laid at about 45 degrees, that’s true. That would be much weaker than substantial vertical beams two foot apart and welded together.

        http://www.oshatrain.org/courses/mods/820m1.html

        Think about what you said concerning beer crates. If they were that robust they would build towers out of them. No, the twin towers were much stronger than beer crates but stacked in a similar way with external and internal steel structures. They had to be stronger. They could not have failed in that way without explosive help.

        As to fire the fuel, if there was a plane, would have all but burnt out after 1 hour. There was nothing in the building that could have burnt with enough heat to compromise the steel I-beams in so short a time (unless something had been put there like nano-thermite).

        I have not watched your vid yet but I will. My guess is that the chair is wood or something weak like that. But what if it was supported by vertical steel legs a few inches apart all they way round with more legs in the middle and cemented firmly in the floor. I think you would break a few bones before you would break the chair. Believe me the twin towers could not have collapsed as they did without explosives. It has never happened before. It has never happened since. That is because it cannot happen. I know. I’m an engineer. Still as I said thanks for trying to disprove it.

        You can have all the formulas in the world. But in the end it is what happens in the practical construction and failure that give the yield and break points for mathematicians. You have seen how much more substantial were the I-beams of the twin towers compared even with a crane tower, let alone the gib. I can’t believe you guys still can’t see it. One day you might. Hopefully.

        • Clark

          “But what if it was supported by vertical steel legs a few inches apart all they way round with more legs in the middle and cemented firmly in the floor”

          John, your idea of the Twin Towers is unrealistic. If we scale down the Twin Towers by a hundred to one, we have a 60cm by 60cm metre cage over four metre tall, made of closely-spaced 4.6mm square-section uprights, themselves hollow, made of and laterally connected by steel foil about the thickness of human hair or paper. If we scaled it down to the size of a chair, the steel would be almost invisible edgeways on.

          Don’t take my word; scale it for yourself.

          • Clark

            Each relative to their own weight, a chair is much stronger than the Twin Towers were. A chair might have a mass of 6kg and support a 60kg person – supporting ten times its own weight, with strength to spare. The Twin Towers’ vertical redundancy was much less than a factor of ten.

          • Clark

            Can we really imagine something like the Twin Towers surviving if something ten times its weight just, like, sat on it?

          • Kempe

            ” But what if it was supported by vertical steel legs a few inches apart all they way round with more legs in the middle and cemented firmly in the floor. ”

            Unless it was heavily over-designed the results would’ve been the same. You only design a chair to support the static weight of a human with a suitable factor of safety, any more would be a waste of materials. There are several British and International Standards for furniture design, max design load of a normal chair is 21 stone (134 kg approx.).

          • Clark

            Nikko, fair enough. Do the scaling and I’ll include it in future; I don’t see why I should have to do all the work. Do please remember that the box columns were not solid!

        • Kempe

          ” I’m an engineer. ”

          Well the fact that you clearly don’t understand what is meant by triangulation disproves that. Here is a simple guide:-

          http://www.galileo.org/tips/structures/frames.html

          It’s incredible that we should still be discussing the fires but a normal domestic or office fire will burn at between 800 to 1,000 degrees Celsius which is enough to weaken any steel by 50 to 90%. You heat things up, they go soft. Most children understand that; all engineers do.

          The chair, as you’ve seen, was plastic but that’s irrelevant. It was designed to be fit for purpose and designed to be safe. That is to support the weight of an adult sitting it in. It was not however capable of withstanding the dynamic force of some twit jumping on it. Same applies to the walls or supporting columns of a building.

        • John Goss

          Kempe a chair serves a purpose. A building has a different purpose and needs to be strong. If you look at the construction video in my blog you will see that there were huge cranes and other machinery supported by what you think are flimsy floors. One of these flimsy floor sections is seen being raised in the video.

          They were extremely strong buildings. Even if the concrete floors had collapsed onto one another they would not have taken the steel with them through every floor, the progression if there was any would be slowed and finally halted. Also the south tower was going off tilted to begin with. It could never have been brought back to cause the damage your imagination imagines. So it had to have been a controlled demolition. Look at the cranes and you might understand. There were no floors in the cranes.

          Your fire theory is utter tosh. Even NIST knew what that the temperatures to make steel glow could not be reached by an ‘aircraft’ fire. Whatever you may think about Judy Wood she gives sound reasons why the buildings could not have fallen in almost freefall.

          • Clark

            “They were extremely strong buildings”

            Evidence please. I’m horrified by the design.

            “Even if the concrete floors had collapsed onto one another they would not have taken the steel with them”

            They didn’t take the steel with them. As can be seen from the videos, both steel perimeters and cores fell shortly after the internal collapse wave had passed,

            “the progression if there was any would be slowed and finally halted”

            Maths on that, please. All my estimates indicate acceleration of collapse. Don’t just call me a crank. Show me your workings if you’re an engineer.

            “Judy Wood […] gives sound reasons why the buildings could not have fallen in almost freefall”

            Her billiard-ball model makes assumptions that contradict observation, and ignores conservation of momentum. If you have the competency you claim you should see this. I’m just a crank, and even I can see it.

          • Nikko

            Point 1– “They were extremely strong buildings”
            Evidence please. I’m horrified by the design.

            Clark’s expertise in structural engineering is world renown so we’ll have to take his word for it, but whether they were strong or weak makes little difference to the manner of the collapse which could not have happened with gravity only.

            Point 2 –“ “Even if the concrete floors had collapsed onto one another they would not have taken the steel with them”
            They didn’t take the steel with them. As can be seen from the videos, both steel perimeters and cores fell shortly after the internal collapse wave had passed, “

            The fact of the matter is that the outer perimeter (load bearing) structure as well as the 46 inner support columns were torn apart and flung sideways with great force. There is no conceivable mechanism involving falling floors under gravity that can do that.

            Point 3 – “ “the progression if there was any would be slowed and finally halted”
            Maths on that, please. All my estimates indicate acceleration of collapse. Don’t just call me a crank. Show me your workings if you’re an engineer.”

            It is a bit rich for Clark to call for a mathematical proof when he himself refuses to get involved in any maths concerning his “theory”. Anyway, the proof is in the video posted by Clark himself of the Cite Balzac gravity demolition.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
            Just study the graph showing acceleration vs time. For very good reasons verinage demolitions are only used on concrete and short buildings. The video below shows the difficulty of sustained gravity collapse in taller buildings more clearly, if less scientifically.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTVXH9dJjhU

            Point 4 “– “Judy Wood […] gives sound reasons why the buildings could not have fallen in almost freefall”
            Her billiard-ball model makes assumptions that contradict observation, and ignores conservation of momentum. If you have the competency you claim you should see this. I’m just a crank, and even I can see it.”

            Her billiard ball model describes why the pancaking scenario is impossible. As such it is an idealized model with zero resistance – in reality the collapse times would be even longer had they been due to pancaking. The case 4 scenario is spot on.
            http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

          • Clark

            You can see what went wrong with the vérinage demolition. Watch the top right of the building as it starts to fall. First note the slender beam or flue-pipe that emerges from the top, followed by what looks like the brown top of an entire lift shaft or chimney stack. Conversely, daylight can be seen through the left side of the building before collapse. Support was obviously asymmetric.

            Of course the steel perimeters of the Twin Towers would have helped to centralise the collapse from tipping to one side, and their steel cores were central so that support was symmetrical.

            It doesn’t seem honest of Nikko to say that we didn’t go through any numbers.

      • John Goss

        I’ve watched it now. I could have broken that with a karate chop! Let alone jumping on it from ten foot away.

        You seem to have the impression that the top portion was a long way from the rest of the tower. It was not. When it fell it should have met with the upward resistance of a very strong building. When Richard Gage modeled, or had modeled, Building 7, the steel structure was still intact, and that was much lower in relation to the height of the building than either of the twin towers.

  • Clark

    I have a reply from AIA:

    Breia Claggett

    Dear Mr. Killick,

    Thank you for contacting the American Institute of Architects.

    If they are an AIA provider, their certificates usually will display our logo or AIA approved will be shown. In our system we are not showing a company name of AE911Truth but it is possible that they are listed under a different company name.

    Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at 1-800-242-3837, option 3. Or, simply reply to this email and we will respond as quickly as possible.

    Thank you for being an AIA member!

    Best Wishes,

    AIA Continuing Education Member Support

  • RobG

    I’m sure that many on this thread would have seen the latest admitted news about Fukushima…

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown

    These insanely high radiation levels show that nuclear fission is still occurring within the three reactor cores that went into meltdown in March 2011. The insanely high radiation levels also show that we are post-science here: ie, no one has any clue what the feck is going on. Well, I can tell you one thing that’s going on as a result of this, and that’s the death of the Pacific Ocean.

    What with 9/11 as well, the early 21st century is a bit like living in a lunatic asylum.

    • Kempe

      Well the fissile material is still decaying, it wouldn’t do anything else, but the Pacific Ocean is safe from any further harm proving the containment buildings remain intact.

      • Clark

        “Well the fissile material is still decaying…”

        Uranium decays very slowly. If it decayed appreciably faster, there wouldn’t be any left on Earth by now, and we wouldn’t have any nuclear power stations. I think you must mean that the fission products are still decaying.

        “…it wouldn’t do anything else”

        well it could go critical… Or even prompt-critical.

        • Kempe

          ” Kempe, how’s your nuclear physics / engineering? ”

          Probably a bit rusty as I’ve had no need of it for while but ask away.

          Fissile materials decay, radiation is the product of this decay as is the heat which is harnessed in nuclear power stations. Criticality occurs when the chain reaction inside a reactor becomes self sustaining, it’s the normal operating mode and unlikely to happen by accident in a damaged reactor. I believe all the damaged reactors at Fukushima have now cooled enough for the fuel to solidify.

          • Clark

            Kempe, high radiation levels wouldn’t be caused by decay of fissile material ie. uranium or plutonium fuel, because their decay rates are too slow ie. nuclear fuels have long half-lives. High radiation could be caused by decay of products of the chain reaction that was occurring before the disaster – ie. fission products or transuranic isotopes.

            But how could the radiation level rise? Unstable isotopes decay, so their radiation falls, halving each half-life. That radiation has risen implies that something unexpected must have happened. Reactor contents may have moved about, exposing some hot-spot, but (admittedly intuitively) the rise seems far too great for that.

            “Criticality occurs when the chain reaction inside a reactor becomes self sustaining, it’s the normal operating mode and unlikely to happen by accident in a damaged reactor”

            Well it very likely happened at Chernobyl; after the entire core had been blown out of its vessel, the second explosion was a “criticality excursion” rather like a “fizzled” A-bomb. And it can happen if spent fuel rods are stacked too densely. And…

            One of the “safety features” of light water reactors is that the water is also the neutron moderator, which increases reactivity. The theory is, if the coolant water is lost the reactivity drops, halting criticality. But I assume that can also work backward. If water or another neutron moderating substance gets into a stricken core, reactivity can increase.

      • RobG

        The three melted cores long ago left the concrete reactor containment structure. You also don’t mention (quite deliberately) that 1000 tons of ground water runs beneath these reactors every day and goes into the Pacific Ocean (Fukushima was built on a river bed).

        I’ve had just about enough of little wankers like you who are paid to whoffle away the Fukushima disaster, which is the greatest disaster in human history.

        The lot of you are going to be put up against a wall and shot.

        This also includes the ‘9/11 official story’ brigade.

        • Clark

          Am I someone you’d like to shoot, Rob? Do please do so. It would be fitting.

          Kempe just lost a friend to cancer. A friend of mine just had a melanoma removed, and a friend’s brother killed himself on New Years Day.

          Happy New Year, Rob.

          • Clark

            You may get what you’re wishing for soon Rob. I am frequently suicidal and today has been particularly bad. I don’t want to overdose because I don’t want to slip off into a drugged delirium, so today I was trying to think of methods that seem fast enough to be painless.

            Shall I wish you luck and hope your wishes come true?

      • Clark

        Regarding the linked article, there are strong reasons why the Fukushima meltdowns could not have been caused by Stuxnet. Please carefully note, because the truth is worse. The Fukushima meltdowns did not require Stuxnet nor any other malicious action.

        Malicious action could be defended against, but that would not have stopped the meltdowns.

        The Fukushima reactors failed in exactly the way that campaigners against water-cooled reactors – including their inventor – had been warning about for decades. Loss of power leading to loss of cooling, leading to explosion and meltdown. The sequence was entirely predictable, and had been predicted decades earlier.

        What Stuxnet did do was to spark off an international cyber-arms race.

        • lysias

          What Stuxnet did do was to spark off an international cyber-arms race.

          And it was extremely stupid for the U.S. to spark off that race, because the U.S. depends on cyber far more than its potential adversaries.

          Well, nobody accused George W. Bush of having any great intelligence.

          But I would have thought Israel would have had more sense.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ lysias February 7, 2017 at 16:56
            Sure, ‘Morons R Us’ Bush is out of it, but with all their smarts, (and from whence?), Israel continues on it’s Armageddon course.
            Que sera, sara.
            And yep, .’Samson Option’, rules.
            Pays to have an insurance policy with the ‘Big Guy’ upstairs; or not, already?
            Go Jesus!

          • Paul Barbara

            @ lysias February 7, 2017 at 16:56
            But George H W Bush was no fool, nor were many other Neo-Cons; but he shared the apocalyptic ‘Samson Option’ with the Israeli hardliners. ‘W’ would hardly have been consulted; he took his orders.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark February 7, 2017 at 16:37
          Stuxnet was aimed at Iran; they were unable to ‘guard against it’.
          Iran had Siemens controls; that was what the Stuxnet virus/worm was intended to screw up.
          Fukushima also had (and still has) Siemens controls, as do many nuclear plants around the world.

          If meltdown was so inevitable, why was it denied for so long?
          Do you think Stuxnet has gone back in it’s ‘box’? No, it’s still out there, and yes, it has sparked an international cyber war.
          Smart meters, anyone?

          • Clark

            I agree; fuck “smart meters”. They’re a serious privacy risk.

            “Stuxnet was aimed at Iran; they were unable to ‘guard against it’”

            They were using Windows XP, the least secure multi-user operating system ever!

            “Iran had Siemens controls; that was what the Stuxnet virus/worm was intended to screw up”

            No, Stuxnet wasn’t intended to “screw up” the Siemens software; quite the opposite. Stuxnet systematically took control of the centrifuge controllers and covered its own tracks as it did so. It then over-drove the centrifuges, while sending back false telemetry to hide the fact. Stuxnet was carefully designed to identify centrifuge controllers and to affect them and nothing else, so as to avoid detection. It was the most carefully designed malware ever discovered.

            “If meltdown was so inevitable, why was it denied for so long?”

            Oh “they” always play down disasters. Britain did it at Dounreay, Windscale and elsewhere. Russia did it at Chernobyl and Kyshtym. And not just nuclear disasters. The lists go on and on.

            “Do you think Stuxnet has gone back in it’s ‘box’?”

            The Windows vulnerabilities have been “patched” (scare quotes because I expect Microsoft sold their knowledge of that vulnerability in the first place) and I fully expect that the Siemens universal, hard-coded password was changed to a randomised, user-alterable password in later releases – Siemens will have done that rather than suffer a dive in sales. Stuxnet’s “stolen” driver security certificates have been revoked. And the signature of the Stuxnet code itself has long since been added to anti-virus software databases. The original Stuxnet has been rendered obsolete by each one of those measures, but the cyber-war it started rages on.

    • John Goss

      I keep posting this to see if anybody here has seen what I have seen. But I won’t be cryptic. What I have seen is a suspension bridge where the horizontal road sections are swaying violently in very strong cross-winds. Look at the vertical columns which sustain the weight. How much are they swaying?

      There is absolutely no way the vertical columns of the twin towers could have been brought down by natural vertical or horizontal forces. Do you get it yet?

      • Clark

        I’ll get it when you quantify it. I already ran through some maths with Nikko, guestimated the available energy from the measured acceleration’s difference from g and converted to TNT equivalent. There was more than enough energy for destruction.

        I already have figures. You’ll need figures rather than remote comparisons to change my mind.

        • Nikko

          My recollection is that we proved the exact opposite. We calculated how much energy is available in the IDEALISED case for a collapse at 64% g and free fall and found it be very little in the early stages of the collapse.

          Clark, on the one hand you demand detailed proof from others (often beyond what is reasonable); on the other you are happy to take the most simplistic and inappropriate calculation in support of your own theory.

          Chandler has tracked the acceleration of one of the towers and found it to be constant at 64% of g (determinance coeff of 99.7%) for the first 3s before dust obscured it. Chandler has also tracked the acceleration of the Cite Balzac building collapsed by the technique of verinage and found it shows a jolt (a deceleration) at the point of impact – in other words the progress of the verinage collapse was very different to the progress of the towers collapse.

          The technique of demolition by verinage involves cutting up and weakening all vertical supports half way up the building, such that a “push” will set off the upper section into downward motion with minimum resistance. The impact of the upper section on the lower one and the ensuing jolt destroy the lower section. This technique works on buildings 6 to 16 floors. Often, the lower 2 or 3 floors of successfully collapsed building remain standing as the collapse has run out of energy.
          Sometimes, a loss of symmetry results in an imperfect collapse.

          The verinage demolition technique is only suitable for concrete buildings on account of concrete’s brittleness, such that an impact will produce total fracture and failure. The buildings need to be very elaborately prepared (weakened in the right places) such that the collapse starts symmetrically.

          The WTC towers were the most unlikely buildings to have undergone a completely symmetrical gravity collapse through the entire 415 metres because
          a) the initial damage was highly asymmetric
          b) the load bearing structures were ENTIRELY steel, which is highly ductile
          c) no observable impact jolt has been recorded

          The Tacoma bridge video shows perfectly how steel behaves

          • Clark

            “My recollection is that we proved the exact opposite”

            No. In a very conservative guestimate we found total energy equivalent to tens of kilos of TNT. You pulled some very short timings out of nowhere and without any justification insisted they followed from the laws of motion, and you also denied that energy of deformation released by conservation of momentum could actually do any deforming. I find your approach intellectually dishonest.

          • Nikko

            Well, in my recollection you calculated the kinetic energy of a falling slab and said that it was sufficient. That is not a conservative estimate – quite the opposite. When it was pointed out to you that that energy is not available unless the object is slowed down or brought to rest, you waffled on about nobody being sure what happened inside the towers as it was hidden from view, but that you were satisfied that it was enough. As you did not estimate the energy needed to tear the building apart you are in no position to know whether it was enough?

            That is hardly good science, would you not agree.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I already knew the top sections fell at well under g. I’m sorry if I overestimated your ability in physics and I’ll spell things out more explicitly in future. I tend to chat like I’m discussing with someone who already has a feel for the dynamics.

            I’m sorry that I’m vague about the top section-bottom section collision zone, but none of us can see what went on in there. The only engineering approach to that is FEA simulation. Without it we can only do physics – gross properties like roof-line displacement, approximate mass of the moving section etc.

            My estimate was conservative in that I deliberately underestimated the mass quite a lot, and overestimated the average acceleration a little at 2/3g as opposed to 0.64g.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you certainly overestimate my ability to accept your anti-science waffle. Do not forget I have a physics O’level!

            Your estimate WAS NOT conservative because you compared a collapse at 2/3 g with freefall. But according to your “theory” there was pancaking of floors inside the tower so freefall velocities cannot be reached due to conservation of momentum.

            If you did some proper calculations using a pancaking collapse as the reference, you would find that the energy soon turns negative, meaning that your collapse at 2/3 of g was proceeding faster than the fastest pancaking scenario allows.

          • Clark

            2/3g is conservative because it is slower than the average measured decent acceleration of the roof-line.

            We can’t see how destruction proceeded in the zone where the upper and lower blocks were colliding, but consideration of the difference between g and the actual acceleration of the roof-line gives us the energy of destruction, and it is plentiful.

            Rates of descent that can be measured are the fall of the roof-line, and the internal collapse. Crude consideration of the disposition of mass within the structure indicate that both are easily within the maximums permitted by the inelastic collisions that must have been occurring.

            It would make more sense to start working in the opposite direction, using measurement of descent rates to estimate the masses involved, especially for the internal collapse.

            Look, I don’t want to pfaff about, constantly sparring with you. It should be obvious to you by now that from the perspective of physical dynamics, there is nothing immediately suspicious about the collapses of the Twin Towers; such structures could collapse in those ways at those rates. If you really want to we could go through some more guestimates, but accepting inelastic deformation as part of energy of destruction, surely you can see which way it’ll go? The margins we’ve estimated have each been ample.

          • Nikko

            You completely ignored my point that you cannot compare the actual acceleration with the acceleration of unhindered free fall. Your theory involves colliding floors which increase mass and reduce velocity (conservation of moment), therefore that is your reference point for comparison.

            I have explained to you previously that a pancaking collapse results in acceleration which is not constant and depending on your starting conditions, a pancaking collapse will at some stage be overtaken by a collapse at a constant 64% of g. The energy available for destruction becomes negative at that point.

            Spend a few minutes with a spreadsheet to see for yourself that from the perspective of physical dynamics, there is EVERYTHING immediately suspicious about the collapses of the Twin Towers

          • Clark

            Comparison of actual downward acceleration with g gives us the upward force of resistance to descent. For the duration measured by Chandler for WTC1, downward acceleration was about 2/3 of g, so about 1/3 of the energy was dissipated. Making a guestimate of this showed it to be plenty for destruction.

            You say to compare not with g, but with the expected acceleration after compensating for conservation of momentum. But inelastic conservation of momentum dissipates kinetic energy into deformation of (ie. damage to) the colliding masses, and thus contributes to the energy of destruction.

            We’ve been through this already.

          • Clark

            Is that how you’ve set up your spreadsheet formulae? To just forget about the kinetic energy dissipated in inelastic collisions?

            It’s like Judy Wood with her “energy can only be used once” argument. No, energy is conserved, transforming again and again toward the most entropic form. Her argument is like saying that the water flowing through a hydro-electric power station can’t run your cooker, because the energy has already been “used” to spin the turbine.

          • Clark

            OK, in your spreadsheet, at each collision calculate the loss of kinetic energy, and add it to an accumulating total. When the total is complete, convert it to TNT equivalent and tell me what you got.

          • glenn

            Clark: “ For the duration measured by Chandler for WTC1, downward acceleration was about 2/3 of g, so about 1/3 of the energy was dissipated. Making a guestimate of this showed it to be plenty for destruction.

            Couple of points, if I may.

            Clark, I think you’re neglecting inertia. The resting mass of anything wants to remain where it is. It cannot simply assume the velocity of whatever falls on it, it has to be brought up to speed – conservation of momentum (cf with your absolutely correct point on conservation of energy a bit further down). There is absolutely no way something not _already_ substantially falling and offering tiny resistance could fail to slow collapse, as an increasingly dense structure fell in on itself. The acceleration with which this building collapsed is beyond my credulity for a simple top-down progression.

            It’s not clear to me why the 1/3rd of energy you say was dissipated had to be – somehow – put into the destruction of the building. As if it were there for the taking, so naturally it’s going to pulverise the construct. If that were true, 3/3rds of this supposed energy is now available in every building standing! Why doesn’t this 3-times energy (which you claim is “plenty for destruction”) make everything, particularly the WTCs, collapse immediately upon construction, even if – by some miracle – they made it that far?

            Take care, and hats off for plodding away at this. I’m certainly seeing two sides to it now, and considering possibilities more strongly.

          • Clark

            Glenn: – “There is absolutely no way something not _already_ substantially falling and offering tiny resistance could fail to slow collapse”

            Absolutely true. And it slows the collapse by dissipating kinetic energy – into the colliding masses, deforming them, damaging them. So kinetic energy dissipated by conservation of momentum has to be counted towards energy available for destruction, not discounted from it.

            “It’s not clear to me why the 1/3rd of energy you say was dissipated had to be – somehow – put into the destruction of the building”

            Not all of it did go into destruction. Much will have been lost as harmless intensities of sound and heat. But there was easily an excess, and enough of it did enough damage to continue the collapse, releasing yet more potential energy into kinetic energy.

            “Why doesn’t this 3-times energy (which you claim is “plenty for destruction”) make everything, particularly the WTCs, collapse immediately upon construction”

            In a word, order. Every car hurtling down the motorway has sufficient kinetic energy to mash itself into a wreck, but careful continual readjustment of the front wheels keeps it from hitting anything. In the case of a building, the vertical support components have to remain aligned, or disaster ensues:

            http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/diag.png

            Most of the pulverisation happened last; on the videos, watch the big clouds of dust well up as the collapses hit bottom. There was certainly some pulverisation along the way, but it was very minor compared with that enormous cloud at the end. Judy Wood has all the pulverisation happen preferentially before anything else at each floor-to-floor collision, and thus she has no energy available to continue the collapse. But the videos don’t show the Towers “turning to dust in mid-air”; if they did, I’d suspect explosives. But the vast majority of dust emission happened as the collapses hit bottom. As they say, “Earth’s gravity never hurt anyone; it was when they stopped…”

          • Clark

            Afterthought:

            Glenn, February 13, 01:13 – “…as an increasingly dense structure fell in on itself”

            Only the vertical support components were increasingly dense. The floor assemblies were all the same, and the internal collapse proceeded through the floor assemblies, effectively bypassing the increasing strength of the perimeter and core.

            But the floor assemblies performed another function beyond supporting office contents; they kept the perimeter parallel with the core. With the floor assemblies smashed away downwards, the upper perimeter was left balancing upon its lower sections, so it only took the “nudge” of the trailing internal debris to start it toppling outward. It is true that the perimeter was very strong, especially in compression, but it was also very dense and thus very heavy. It was never designed to remain upright without the floor assemblies tying it to the core every four metre of height.

          • Clark

            Nikko, various comments of yours are at odds with my own reckoning of limitation of acceleration due to conservation of momentum; I’ll just reference this one from February 10, 22:58:

            “…a pancaking collapse will at some stage be overtaken by a collapse at a constant 64% of g”

            We can’t see into the collision zone, so for argument’s sake I’ll take Chandler’s argument that twelve falling floors could destroy a further twelve below. I’ll also, very conservatively, assume that all 24 floors-worth of resultant rubble/debris was brought just precisely to rest as the lowest floor was destroyed or decoupled. Take the mass of a floor as m, inter-storey gap as d…

            …so 24m accelerates through d gaining velocity v, and hits the next floor down of mass m. The mass breaks through the floor (ignore mechanical resistance beyond the floor assembly for simplicity) and conservation of momentum occurs, which gives a falling mass of 25m (ignoring losses) at velocity 24/25v.

            v has been decreased by just 1/25th, and the loss is going to be even less at the next collision.

            I confess I’d assumed that overall acceleration would continue, because the velocity decrease is small, and decreasing. But thinking about it, under gravitational acceleration v is proportional to t, but the interval between collisions is decreasing proportional to 1/v, so I think this implies some terminal velocity. Care to share your figures?

          • Nikko

            A pancaking collapse does not imply terminal velocity but terminal acceleration. Considering the effect of conservation of momentum only, it is 33% of g. But in reality the collapse was constant at 64% of g, so depending on what the initial falling mass was compared to the mass of one floor, sooner or later the real collapse overtakes the idealised collapse. To me pancaking is incompatible with the observed nature of the collapse.

          • Nikko

            So, starting with a falling mass equivalent to the mass of 24 floor slabs, the velocity of a pancaking collapse after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 15th and 16th impact points would be 8.3, 11.5, 13.8, 26.1, 26.7, 27.4 m/s respectively. For a collapse at a constant 64% of g the velocities at the same points would be 6.9, 9.8, 11.9, 25.8, 26.7 and 27.6 m/s. So the 64% of g collapse starts overtaking the pancaking collapse after the 15th impact. If the initial falling mass was equivalent to 10 floor slabs it would be after 5 impacts.

          • Clark

            Niko, thanks for that. Sorry, but I have to dispute this:

            “But in reality the collapse was constant at 64% of g”

            That only applies to the first three seconds, and only to the descent of the roof-line of WTC1. We have no basis to apply it to the internal collapse, and less still to apply it all the way down.

            And we can’t even say that the first three seconds of acceleration of the roof-line was constant. It appeared roughly constant, but just because some data points approximate a straight line does not imply an underlying linear relationship. Some examples: The New Age concept of “ley lines connecting spiritual sites” turns out to “work” just as effectively for public telephone boxes. And the distance travelled by a vehicle passing through Central London sampled at ten minute intervals may look like uniform velocity, but we’d have no justification for drawing a straight line through the data points, and finding R squared to be nearly unity wouldn’t disprove the existence of traffic lights.

            I’m going to be busy for a while. Hopefully I’ll try to figure some algebra when I get time. And we need to do some tracking measurements from the videos, preferably with better resolution than Chandler’s, to get the actual advance rate curve of the leading ejections.

          • Nikko

            You are disputing Chandlers 64% of g constant acceleration confirmed through video tracking for the first 3 seconds and with an R^2 value of 99.7%. Chandler used a 0.2s interval so had 15 samples.

            You are a master at using completely inappropriate and wrong comparisons – your example of the car in London would not prove that there are no traffic lights but it may have proved that there was no traffic and all lights were on green.

            I have already explained that in the initial stages of the collapse there were 5 sample points to the first collision and 2 to the second. Any jolts would have been visible. As velocity picked up the measurement point kept changing with respect to the distance travelled and to the positions of the floors so again the chance of missing a jolt is pretty negligible. For most the evidence of the first 3 seconds is pretty strong.

            By all means do some tracking measurements with a smaller sampling interval. Please start a new comment when you get some results as I will not be coming back here to check.

          • Clark

            Nikko, an R squared value relates a dependent variable to an independent variable.

            Downward acceleration of the top section was not dependent upon time. It was dependent upon details of its collision with the structure beneath. Drawing a straight line through the data points is therefore entirely inappropriate, and so the R squared value is meaningless. Chandler know this and is having you on.

          • Clark

            “I have already explained that in the initial stages of the collapse there were 5 sample points to the first collision and 2 to the second”

            You’re assuming that only floor-to-floor collisions produced any upward forces, but (1) Aircraft had knocked jagged holes in the perimeters and (2) mashed up a lot of floor structure, (3) the top sections tipped before falling and (4) the fall of the top sections were initiated by buckling. These all complicate matters considerably. Buckling columns produce variable upward forces; columns may break at unpredictable lengths and then encounter floor structures. Jagged holes mean that column ends may encounter floor structures or other frame components at unpredictable times. Tipping means that clean floor-to-floor collisions don’t occur. This list is not exhaustive.

            You seem to be expecting well defined jolts, but the wiggles in Chandler’s graph presumably represent the effect of the sum of unpredictably timed upward forces from effects listed above.

          • Nikko

            “Downward acceleration of the top section was not dependent upon time.”

            Clark, you are talking bollocks again. Chandler’s graph is of velocity vs time and as such R^2 value is perfectly meaningful for the relationship. Acceleration is the slope and is constant since the relationship is a straight line.

          • Clark

            Nikko, it is impossible for me to know whether you genuinely do not understand, or if you are playing a role in the hope of misleading less technical readers.

            OK. You claim acceleration was constant. Please explain how this might have occurred.

          • Nikko

            Clark, I genuinely do not understand your logic and thinking as it goes against accepted physics and engineering.

            I do not claim that acceleration was constant – Chandler’s measurements show that it was constant, at least for the first three seconds. That rules out pancaking as the mode of collapse. A controlled demolition is not incompatible with constant acceleration but how the towers collapsed is for a proper enquiry to establish

          • Clark

            Constant acceleration at g would be consistent with controlled demolition, but that is not what the video shows. Constant acceleration at 0.64 of g would not be consistent with controlled demolition, but the video doesn’t show that, either.

            But there is no reason to assume constant acceleration, because Chandler’s data points are not in a straight line. Just because some data points are in a roughly straight line does not imply a truly straight-line relationship, with “measurement errors” responsible for “deviations”.

            By definition, we do not know which direction measurement errors act in; the “line” may equally well be even less straight. Why are you assuming that the line should be straight?

          • Clark

            “…but how the towers collapsed is for a proper enquiry to establish”

            But you accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” paper, so you must believe that the only way anything can fall down through a structure that previously supported it is by controlled demolition. So what are you hoping for from a “proper enquiry”?

          • Nikko

            I am not assuming that the line (i.e. the relationship between time and velocity) is straight, it has been found to be straight with an R^2 of 99.7%. In the real world that is plenty straight enough. Also, in the real world materials do not fail instantaneously so there is no reason that a controlled demolition could not proceed at 64% of g, if that is how it was programmed to happen.

            A “proper” enquiry needs to determine who was responsible. And in order to do that it is important to establish exactly what happened. If it were proved that it was a controlled demolition the will to bring the culprits to justice would be unstoppable.

          • Clark

            I’m chuckling to myself, because you’ve come up with the most elaborate controlled demolition theory I’ve encountered so far.

            “…there is no reason that a controlled demolition could not proceed at 64% of g, if that is how it was programmed to happen”

            The descent rate of an object cannot be “programmed”. Someone has some explosives. The only control they have is where to place them, and when to detonate them. Upon detonation each charge removes support within milliseconds, so structure above falls at g until encountering resistance from below.

            Most Twin Tower demolition theories propose one bank of explosives per floor, with detonation of each bank timed to produce the descending wave of ejections witnessed. But you are proposing “programming” that produced constant acceleration of the top section at 0.64 of g. I really cannot imagine how explosives could be placed such that sequencing of detonation times could produce such an effect, let alone why anyone would bother. Just destroy support at the damaged zone (somehow also producing the buckling of the perimeter caught on video) and let the top section fall at whatever rate it will; what could be more convincing than that?

            Ah, but of course you believe that it can’t just fall, because of Chandler’s bunkum “Downward Acceleration” paper. If Chandler were right, US universities would be a laughing stock the world over.

            “If it were proved that it was a controlled demolition the will to bring the culprits to justice would be unstoppable”

            Indeed, but that relies upon the collapses actually having been controlled demolitions. Otherwise, all the propagandising of the demolition theorists amounts to barking up the wrong tree, a noisy distraction that both muddies the water and discredits the cause.

          • Nikko

            Clark, we are dealing here with structures 450m high and the descent rate can be controlled by controlling the rate at which the structure is broken up with external forces. Instead of chuckling to yourself, study case 4 in Judy Wood’s billiard balls paper and model it in Excel. I did not mean to imply that the collapse was designed to happen at 64% of g precisely, but that there is no reason why it could not have happened at less than full g – after all the application of force and overcoming of resistance is not instantaneous.

            I have no idea what your problem with Chandler is. Care to spell it out in a scientific way?

          • Clark

            Nikko, the internal collapse fronts observably progressed at less than g (falling perimeter sections can be seen overtaking the face-wide lines of ejections), so there is no point considering Judy Wood’s Case 4.

            “I did not mean to imply that the collapse was designed to happen at 64% of g precisely”

            But that is precisely what you have been arguing, with Chandler’s “R squared of 0.997” stuff. Maybe you need to look up the meaning of the R^2 value and what it is used for; it is a measure of correlation. Effectively you’ve been saying that those points are so close to a straight line that if we could measure perfectly it would BE a straight line, so some process must be causing uniform acceleration – which implies a constant upward force upon the top section. Well, that can’t be done with explosives.

            Chandler is very good at maths. He must understand that he’s misapplying R^2, because downward displacement and hence velocity and acceleration are all independent of time, and R^2 has no meaning between two independent variables. What they are actually dependent upon is whatever mechanical processes are happening in the collision zone. Chandler is too competent to be ignorant of this, so he must be taking the piss to try and make people think. Just like his “rocket effect” video that’s really a collision. Chandler frequently insists that observation must take precedence over what you have been told to see. I do not believe that he failed to notice the impinging object, or the lack of reaction motion in the supposed “combustion products”. He’s doing what any good teacher does. He’s setting a task, “ignore suggestions, observe carefully, and apply reason”, and then setting us a test.

            “…there is no reason why it could not have happened at less than full g”

            Explosives just knock out support, instantaneously when compared to video frame rates. Whatever was being supported then falls at g until resistance is encountered (“sudden onset of free-fall acceleration is characteristic of controlled demolition”, as A&E9/11Truth correctly point out). Chandler’s sample rate was 200ms, so Chandler’s proposed demolition charges would have to be being detonated more frequently than that (and you can also calculate the minimum vertical spacing of the charges). If he were serious about trying to demonstrate action of explosives, the obvious thing to do would be to shorten the sample period until the jolts could be seen on his graph – video typically goes down to 33ms between frames – so why didn’t he do so?

            The theory in Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” paper is very general. It makes no reference to size, shape, density, materials, or internal structure, so supposedly it applies regardless of those. He makes it seem specific to WTC1 by drawing a WTC1ish diagram, but in fact it’s a one dimensional model, the single spacial dimension being the vertical. It is probably actually applicable to something homogeneous like two blocks of polystyrene but it doesn’t apply to buildings, in which vertical support is very unequally distributed about the horizontal cross-section, as becomes immediately obvious even in a grossly simplified two-dimensional model:

            http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/diag.png

            Chandler is right that support has decreased by about 90%, but it hasn’t been “removed by explosives”, it is just being bypassed because the vertical support columns no longer line up.

            It is true that all this makes it more difficult to force a deeper investigation. Maybe the team in Alaska can force some progress with their WTC7 project. I hope so, but I doubt that the truth of 9/11 is as simple as most in the Truth Movement seem to expect. I think 9/11 was a Big Money collaboration rather than a straight-forward false flag by the US government. I think a lot of disparate entities knew in advance, and thought they could use it to advance their own agendas. But that collapse of the Twin Towers was possible without pre-rigged demolition is not all bad news. At least it means that the global physics and structural engineering communities are not entirely corrupt.

          • Nikko

            Judy Wood’s Case 4 is about timing the destruction of the building in the IDEALISED situation with zero resistance and zero time lags. Real world behaviour is not like that. There is nothing stopping you adding resistance to the model to make it more realistic.

            Regarding the R^2 value you are twisting what I said. I am not saying … “Effectively you’ve been saying that those points are so close to a straight line that if we could measure perfectly it would BE a straight line, so some process must be causing uniform acceleration”…. but I am saying that the measured points are so close to a straight line that we can take the relationship to be linear. And that is definitely not compatible with a pancaking collapse as has been explained before.

            As for Chandler, he found that for that particular collapse the velocity was dependent on time with a 99.7% determinance coefficient and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that analysis. Your argument makes no sense so I am not going to waste time responding to it.

          • Clark

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination

            “In statistics, the coefficient of determination, denoted R^2 or r^2 and pronounced “R squared”, is a number that indicates the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variable(s)”

            http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-a-coefficient-of-determination/

            “The coefficient of determination, R^2, is used to analyze how differences in one variable can be explained by a difference in a second variable”

            The descent of the top section depended upon the resistance encountered as it fell. If we’re considering structural failure, that resistance depended upon the colliding structures. If we’re considering explosives, that resistance depended on changes in the structures caused by explosives. In neither case did the resistance depend upon elapsed time; it merely varied as time progressed, as does everything. So Chandler’s calculation of R squared is inappropriate and hence without physical relevance; it is meaningless.

            I’m not sure what you mean by a pancaking collapse, but I’ll have to get back later…

          • Nikko

            Glad you posted the definition of determinance coefficient, because there is nothing in it to prevent it to be applied to the relationship between time and velocity. If Chandler found R^2 to be 99.7%, then 99.7% of the variation in velocity is accounted for by the variation in time.

            Since g is constant and velocity is a function of resistance, so resistance must also be a function of time whether you like it or not.

            I have used the term “pancaking collapse” to describe your theory whereby the collapse is initiated and sustained by floors pancaking on top of each other.

          • Clark

            If acceleration were constant, it would imply that the upward resistive force was also constant, ie. invariant with time.

            It’s really quite amusing. You seem to be arguing merely for the sake of it, presumably because you see my arguments as a threat to your favourite theory that collapse was impossible without explosives, because the stronger the case for constant acceleration the weaker the case for explosives, which by their nature would produce sudden changes of upward resistive force.

            My theory is not that collapsing floors initiated collapse. Collapse appeared to begin when the top sections began to fall, when gradual bowing of the perimeter at the damaged zones became sudden buckling. These initial collapses each appeared to initiate a rapidly descending wave of destruction within the perimeter.

          • Nikko

            Chandler’s graph is the best evidence we have for the rate of collapse so why not accept it with all of its implications?

            I have explained before that I do not have a theory per se, except that what we are seeing is incompatible with a gravity collapse. This is because your theory involves floor on floor impacts in the direction of the collapse to create the necessary forces and these would produce visible jolts. In an explosive collapse such impacts are not necessary and so the descent can be more uniform.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I DO accept Chandler’s measurements. His graph has wiggles in it. If the resolution were finer, greater wiggles may be revealed. Wiggles in the acceleration plot mean changes in velocity, ie. jolts.

            “…floor on floor impacts in the direction of the collapse […] would produce visible jolts”

            Chandler’s graph already HAS jolts, but you insist upon smoothing them out by promoting Chandler’s straight line through the data points! “If the data conflicts with the preferred theory, massage the data”.

            “In an explosive collapse such impacts are not necessary and so the descent can be more uniform”

            Ha! With explosives, the descent rate could be uniform at g, but the top section was measured to fall slower than g. Do, please, describe a physical process whereby explosives could produce such an effect!

            Do you not yet see that Chandler is taking his followers for fools? He plots a line showing some jolts, smooths it to a straight line justified by an inappropriate statistical concept, and uses all this to promote explosive demolition which would display even stronger jolts than the ones he smoothed out!

          • Nikko

            Clark, this conversation is getting tedious. You say you accept Chandler’s measurements but then you go on to accuse him of smoothing them out to a straight line using an inappropriate statistical concept. As far as statistics is concerned, there is nothing inappropriate about using linear regression analysis to explore the dependence between variables and finding the R^2 value to be 99.7%. That is NOT smoothing anything out.

            As the R^2 value is ONLY 99.7%, yes, there are some tiny “wiggles” in Chandler’s velocity vs time line. If these are the impact jolts that brought the Towers down as you appear to be suggesting, care to calculate how much energy could be released? I guess not, as you prefer to avoid maths in favour of waffling on about you being satisfied that the amount is sufficient without giving any proof. And if you believe that Chandler’s measurements did not have sufficient resolution to reveal the massive jolts that your theory demands, then there is only one thing for you to do and that is to do your own measurements.

            You are the one who needs to prove his theory as gravitational collapse like this has never been witnessed before. On the other hand, there are many examples of controlled demolition collapses (using explosives) similar to the Towers’.

            Physics is not a descriptive subject but a mathematical one. Every idea needs to be supported by calculations and unless you come up with something convincing you will not be taken seriously. Up to now you turned down every opportunity to substantiate your theory.
            You can start by:
            1) Calculate the theoretical time of collapse assuming conservation of momentum between floor impacts and no resistance to break joints
            2) Add resistance (after all the Towers were real buildings from real metal) to estimate the time of collapse and compare with the actual time taken
            3) Estimate the energy released due to floors colliding using the velocity profiles established above. Compare to the energy needed to tear apart the whole perimeter with sufficient energy left over to eject material sideways, e.g. material from WTC 1 impacting top of WTC 7.

          • Clark

            “yes, there are some tiny “wiggles” in Chandler’s velocity vs time line. If these are the impact jolts that brought the Towers down as you appear to be suggesting, care to calculate how much energy could be released?”

            No, I’m not suggesting that; why are you? That’s a question; please answer. C’mon Nikko, stop playing dumb; since when have jolts represented quantities of energy rather than variations in resistive force? The whole potential energy of the Towers is “how much energy could be released”, and it WAS released. What’s the TNT equivalent? Don’t be shy.

            “there are many examples of controlled demolition collapses (using explosives) similar to the Towers”

            Really? Please show me some examples of explosives causing around three seconds of descent varying between, say, 0.5 and 0.8 of g.

            I’m not doing any maths right now; it’s too late at night. You can work out the TNT equivalent of the PE while you’re waiting.

          • Nikko

            “C’mon Nikko, stop playing dumb; since when have jolts represented quantities of energy rather than variations in resistive force?”

            Since time immemorial. They are dependent on each other. It is you playing the idiot as that is what we have been talking about for the last few months.

            “The whole potential energy of the Towers is “how much energy could be released”, and it WAS released.”

            Absolutely not. The potential energy of a freely falling body only becomes available to do external work if it is slowed down or stopped. We have been through that before. Who is playing dumb?

            “Please show me some examples of explosives causing around three seconds of descent varying between, say, 0.5 and 0.8 of g.”

            When you get around to redoing Chandler’s measurements on the Towers, do also include some known control demolitions. In the meanwhile talk is of a gravity collapse.

            “I’m not doing any maths right now; it’s too late at night. You can work out the TNT equivalent of the PE while you’re waiting.”

            Working out the TNT equivalent of PE is easy to do but a completely meaningless exercise – the collapse model is a lot more complex than that. Take your time with your calculations but until you come up with something substantiated by proper calculations using accepted science you will not be taken seriously.

          • Clark

            The entire potential energy was available. Why not calculate and post it as TNT equivalent; save me the time? It’ll be immediately obvious that it was huge. You’re just embarrassed about its magnitude, aren’t you?

            If you want to get something more representative of the actual energy of the internal collapse, find some appropriate collapse videos, and track and graph the descent velocity of the wave of ejections. Taking the mass as the sum of the masses of the floor assemblies, calculate the kinetic energy as the descent reached ground and subtract from the total initial potential energy of the floor assemblies.

            You could even draw up and post an overall energy budget (with workings, please), and then we could all have a good laugh at how you’d maximised and minimised everything selectively to “disprove” gravity collapse.

            Look, I have nothing to prove, because the worlds’ physics and engineering communities are not jumping up and down shouting “impossible”! I’m with the vast majority, who saw huge aircraft flying very fast knock huge holes and start huge fires. Then the buildings’ tops fell down and the whole lot was destroyed. Big deal. Buildings CAN collapse, no matter what some obsessional beardy weirdo says. You lot said “but it happened at g!”, and we said “no, you can see that it didn’t”. Then you said “but it still happened too fast” and tried to discount the energy dissipated through conservation of momentum instead of counting it in. Then you said “but it still, still happened too fast” and tried extrapolation from the first three seconds. Then you say “but there are no jolts”, and then “but the jolts aren’t big enough” and then “our theory wouldn’t produce jolts” and it’s just obvious that you’ll go on and on forever, because it isn’t a scientific theory at all, it’s politically motivated.

          • Clark

            Please post corrections if any of the following are grossly wrong.

            Overall height = 415 metre
            Number of storeys = 110
            Height per storey = 415 / 110 = ~3.77 metre

            110 + 1 = 111
            109 + 2 = 111
            108 + 3 = 111
            …etc. Repeat 55 times to include all floors;
            Total number of inter-storey drops = 55 * 111 = 6105
            Total drop = (55 * 111) * (415 / 110) = ~23000 metre.

            What shall we take as the mass of a floor assembly? Shall we include some contents or not?

            This video gives a good view of the progression of the front of ejections, to get an estimate of the velocity:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F5Tw2ITMF8

          • Clark

            Look, it’s obvious that were working on a non-problem, or A&E9/11Exaggeration would have the energy deficit blazoned across the front page of their website. That, or they’re “controlled opposition”.

          • Nikko

            Clark, the entire potential energy was NOT available, at least not for external destruction. For a start, a very big junk of it was needed to accelerate the collapsing mass at 64% of g.

            You have everything to prove because you and NIST are alone in arguing for a gravity collapse.

            OK, you have attempted some numbers
            Sorry, but your thinking appears to be wrong. The reality of the situation is this:
            1 floor of mass M fell 3.8 m and impacted a floor (i.e. floor 110 hitting 109)
            2 floors of mass 2M fell 3.8 m and impacted floor 108
            3 floors of mass 3M fell 3.8m and impacted floor 107
            etc

            At each impact point conservation of momentum applies, velocity reduces and some energy is released.

            When you have done the calculations you will see that in the initial phases the velocities and mass are small and, therefore, the energy available for destruction is tiny. Furthermore, conservation of momentum means that acceleration cannot be constant as was the case in reality. Anyway, do not take my word for it but do your own calcs. Take the mass of one floor as 1,250 tonnes – that is concrete (10 cm thick) plus 30% extra for steel and the rest.

          • Clark


            – The reality of the situation is this:
            1 floor of mass M fell 3.8 m and impacted a floor (i.e. floor 110 hitting 109)
            2 floors of mass 2M fell 3.8 m and impacted floor 108
            3 floors of mass 3M fell 3.8m and impacted floor 107
            etc

            I assume that’s your description of your spreadsheet model; you’ve no business claiming it’s “reality”. Does your model check displacements for impact between the accreted floors the floors falling from above? Presumably not, if you’ve started from floor 110.

            “the entire potential energy was NOT available, at least not for external destruction. For a start, a very big junk of it was needed to accelerate the collapsing mass at 64% of g”.

            It was available, but unneeded. Had the structure provided more resistance it would have fallen slower. And then as kinetic energy, it became available to do other damage over the next few seconds.

            “You have everything to prove because you and NIST are alone in arguing for a gravity collapse.”

            Many structural engineers and physicists have discussed the collapses in acceptance of gravity collapse. The vast majority don’t consider it worth arguing about; it’s a non-issue. Go look for yourself.

          • Clark

            Using your figure of 1250 tonne, the sum of potential energy is about 280 gigajoule, equivalent to about 67 tonne of TNT; is that what you get?

            What should we take as the velocity the internal collapse hit ground? Don’t extrapolate from Chandler; observe.

          • Nikko

            The “reality” of the situation I have described is YOUR theory of floors impacting – that is what we have been talking about these last two months. Are you now pretending it is not?

            You wrote; “Does your model check displacements for impact between the accreted floors the floors falling from above? Presumably not, if you’ve started from floor 110.”

            This makes no sense. My spreadsheet can start at any point.

            The potential energy of all floors is as you indicate. The velocity of the collapse hitting the ground is irrelevant as by then the buildings would have been totally destroyed. You give a very clear indication that you do not understand the difference between potential energy and the actual liberated energy as the collapses progressed.

          • Clark

            “The “reality” of the situation I have described is YOUR theory of floors impacting”

            Putting words in my mouth, Nikko? No wonder we’re making so little progress. That’s what’s called a “straw man argument”; misrepresent the challenger’s argument, and then proceed to knock it down.

            No, I start from observation. The perimeters were seen to fail by buckling at the damaged zones, and then the top sections began to fall. This apparently initiated internal collapses as indicated by the sequences of ejections seen descending the faces of the buildings.

            “My spreadsheet can start at any point.”

            Not if it’s going to model the building collapses it can’t.

            “The velocity of the collapse hitting the ground is irrelevant…”

            Not if I want to subtract its energy from the potential energy it isn’t; haven’t you been bothering to actually read the comments you dismiss?

            Thanks for the confirmation on my PE figure. Your mass per storey; what does it include? It’s more than just the floor assemblies, isn’t it? What do you take as the mass of each floor assembly?

          • Nikko

            “Putting words in my mouth, Nikko? No wonder we’re making so little progress. That’s what’s called a “straw man argument”; misrepresent the challenger’s argument, and then proceed to knock it down.
            No, I start from observation. The perimeters were seen to fail by buckling at the damaged zones, and then the top sections began to fall. This apparently initiated internal collapses as indicated by the sequences of ejections seen descending the faces of the buildings. “

            Does not the last sentence above imply that floors from the top of the building fall through the building taking the lower floors with them? If not, I have not got a clue what you are on about.

            In my spreadsheet I can start the collapse at any point, say at floor 100, such that the mass of 10 floors starts falling through.

            I repeat that the velocity of the collapse hitting the ground is irrelevant and meaningless. If you compare the difference between the total PE and the total KE at the point of hitting the ground, you will calculate the AVERAGE energy that has been released throughout the whole collapse. It is you who is not reading the comments carefully because I have said it many times that you need to consider the situation at each impact point and that in the early stages of the collapse the energies involved are tiny.

            About the mass of the floors I have written “Take the mass of one floor as 1,250 tonnes – that is concrete (10 cm thick) plus 30% extra for steel and the rest.” Does that not answer your question. I could have added that the density of concrete is 7,500kg/m3.

            How does one do italics please?

          • Clark

            “Does not the last sentence above imply that floors from the top of the building fall through the building taking the lower floors with them?”

            Yes, but with complications initially. Each of the Twin Towers failed at the damaged zone, and the top section began to fall. In WTC1’s case, NIST took floor 98 as the failure zone, so we could imagine that as the upper section began to descend, the descending floor assembly of floor 99 was brought into collision with the stationary floor assembly of floor 98. Presumably both will have been destroyed and/or decoupled from their sections of frame to some extent, but we can’t see. But greatly simplified, we can envisage something like the doodle on the right:

            http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/diag.png

            We can’t see what happened in the damaged zone, but the top section continued to fall so collisions of floor assemblies must have continued. Precisely which floor assemblies destroyed each other we cannot see, but eventually enough debris must have been liberated to initiate a descending cascade of failures of floor assemblies; this is consistent with the size of the top section, the load capacity of the floor assemblies, and the descending front of ejections from within the perimeter.

            “I repeat that the velocity of the collapse hitting the ground is irrelevant and meaningless”

            Not if the pro-explosives argument is that the collapses happened too quickly to be natural. If the collapses happened too fast, there would have been insufficient energy to perform destruction – that’s the meaning of “too fast” in this context. So let’s cut directly to the chase – calculate the initial PE and subtract the final KE of the internal collapse, and see if we’re short of energy.

            “…in the early stages of the collapse the energies involved are tiny”

            Not if we consider the descent of the whole top section. The energy of the early individual floor assembly collisions may be relatively small, but the top section continues to descend; the destruction or decoupling of its lowest floor assembly isn’t likely to stop it. In the early stages of collapse, it’s the energy released from the whole top section that needs to be considered rather than the energy of individual collisions between floor assemblies.

            Your penultimate paragraph doesn’t quite answer my question. Did you include core and perimeter steel? Because I was after a mass for just a floor assembly rather than one entire storey.

            I don’t know how to demonstrate how to do italics, as the WordPress software will turn my demonstration into actual italics, so please excuse the following messy description. To start italics you need “em” (which means “emphasis”) enclosed within a less-than and a greater-than symbol, so four characters in all. To end italics you need “forward-slash em” (with no space) enclosed in within less-than and greater-than symbols, making five characters in all.

          • Nikko

            Thanks for explaining about the italics.

            As for the mass of 1,250 tonnes, that is basically one floor slab without perimeter or core steel

            Clark, your explanations are long on words but no matter how many times I read then they make no sense. Let’s simplify things. Let’s go with you description that the collapse started with floor 99 impacting on floor 98. Does not matter how floor 99 got going but as I understand your theory it was the impact with floor 98 which released enough energy to detach 98 and destroy the perimeter. The building underneath floor 98 is still standing intact. Very simple now to calculate the energies involved.

          • Clark

            If you don’t understand something I write, please quote the phrase and say what you want clarified.

            “Let’s go with you description that the collapse started with floor 99 impacting on floor 98. Does not matter how floor 99 got going but as I understand your theory it was the impact with floor 98 which released enough energy to detach 98 and destroy the perimeter”

            Grief, I’m going to have to do a load more writing.

            No, the collapse started with the failure of the vertical frame. In the case of WTC1, the first thing to drop was the antenna, so it looks like the core failed first. The perimeter visibly buckled at the level with the aircraft damage. I haven’t compared the movement of the antenna with the buckling of the perimeter, so I don’t know for certain which happened first, but I reckon that the core failed first, increasing the load on the perimeter, causing the bowed section of the perimeter to buckle rapidly.

            Presumably the core must have failed, or when the top of the building started to drop the core would have remained poking up out of the middle of the roof, like the lift shaft did in the lopsided vérinage video you linked to.

            So. Core and perimeter both failed, and the top section of the building started to descend. If NIST got it right, this will have brought floor assembly 99 into collision with floor assembly 98. That collision could not have stopped the descent of the whole top section, so one or both floor assemblies would have been damaged and stripped from the frame. This process would continue until there was enough unsupported material to initiate the internal cascade of floor destruction.

            In the building as designed, the floor assemblies provided lateral support to the perimeter, but now the internal cascade has destroyed the floors, leaving the perimeter without lateral support. Whatever was left of the top section would fall mostly within the perimeter, so it’ll push outward as well as downward, and with lateral support destroyed the perimeter has relatively little strength to resist the outward push. So the perimeter “peels away”, and then breaks off into sections.

            I’m sorry it’s a long answer, but it was far more than the energy of floor assemblies 98 and 99 that destroyed the perimeter.

          • Nikko

            Clark, I invited you to do some calculations, not to write another essay. If I understood what you wrote and the implications

            1) The core and perimeter failed first, causing the whole section of the top 12 floors (WTC 1) to start descending
            2) Collision of floor 99 (including debris from the upper section) with floor 98 starts an internal collapse which causes the perimeter to “peel away”., presumably allowing the upper section to fall with very little resistance.

            So for your theory to be accepted, all you now need to do:

            a) Prove where the energy to destroy the core columns and perimeter came from in point 1) above. Remember, that the building perimeter was damaged only on one façade and that there were 46 core columns; very few, if any, would have been damaged. Also, the core is the strongest part of the building. Also, unlike WTC 2, WTC 1 top section did not first start to rotate, but went straight down.

            b) Point 2) brings us back to the energies released from floors falling on top of each other. Presumably, in your theory the floors are falling intact rather than as rubble in order to act as “pistons” to be able to eject air and debris. The energies released must have destroyed the core and the perimeter in front of the collapsing top section so that it could fall at the rate of 64% of g measured by Chandler The energies involved are very easy to calculate.
            Please do not write another long winded description that proves nothing except that you have a fertile imagination.

            Keep it short, bullet point like, with numbers and assumptions. I will the check the numbers and we will take it from there.

          • Clark

            Nikko, sorry about the “essays”. It’s difficult in blog comments. My face-to-face style would be to sketch diagrams, illustrating and explaining as I go, but here I have little more than text. I’m about to head into London, so I’ve insufficient time to reply properly right now, so just three points:

            I don’t know why the core failed, but various possibilities should be considered.

            A mass of very rapidly falling rubble like that will displace air very nearly as effectively as complete floors, because it’s all moving so fast. See this comment:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-105/#comment-657522

            “The energies released must have destroyed the core and the perimeter in front of the collapsing top section so that it could fall at the rate of 64% of g measured by Chandler”

            That’s the “Pile Driver theory”, but it’s not necessarily the case. It’s tempting to think of the core as a tall, thin block, but looking straight down, its vertical members occupy a small fraction of its overall area; the falling members could proceed in between / alongside the standing members. Also, half or more of the core of WTC1, and an unknown amount of WTC2’s core briefly survived the overall collapses.

          • Clark

            Hello Nikko. I never got to London for Craig and Chomsky’s talks. It turned out the trains weren’t running, and the replacement bus service was too slow so I gave up. Here are my further thoughts:

            “Collision of floor 99 (including debris from the upper section) with floor 98 starts an internal collapse which causes the perimeter to “peel away”., presumably allowing the upper section to fall with very little resistance”

            Yes, that’s the principle, except that we don’t know quite when the internal collapse got started, and very likely there was more floor assembly material involved than just 98 and 99. I seem to remember a helicopter shot which gives a good indication of when the internal collapse began. I was looking for it last night but failed to find it.

            “The energies involved are very easy to calculate. Please do not write another long winded description that proves nothing except that you have a fertile imagination”

            Energies are indeed easy to calculate. The point of both visualisation and description is to identify relevant calculations and avoid irrelevant ones.

            As to what happened to the core, we may never know because the debris is no longer available. In the case of WTC1, the initial descent of the antenna suggests that the core failed first. The sudden buckling of the perimeter would therefore be a response to the extra load imposed by core failure, rather than the cause of initiation of collapse.

            Issues relating to core failure that have occurred to me: The centrality of the core within the fire zone leading to greater heating of core members. Likewise possible convection-driven updraughts through lift shafts. Pre-rigged explosives would have been susceptible to both displacement and pre-ignition by both aircraft impact and fire. Placing of pre-rigged explosives would have required unreasonably dependable foreknowledge of aircraft impact height. Post-rigged explosives therefore possibly more likely. Post-rigged explosives more likely to be rigged just below or even above the fire zone.

          • Nikko

            Sorry you did not make it to the talk due to bad train service

            We do know that the collapse started between floors 98 or 99, so we can take it that there were 12 floors above the initial collapse zone. If we assume that somehow they all ended up on top of floor 99 and it was the combined mass of 12 floors that then started to fall and initiated the collapse, we can calculate the energy released. It is completely improbable that this would have happened as the buildings was not damaged above the plane impact zone, but let’s go with this for now as it represents the maximum potential impact to get the collapse going.

            Assuming no losses, the velocity of the falling slab would increase from 0 to 8.6m/s in 3.8m and at the point of impact with floor 98 the velocity will reduce to 7.9m/s. Taking the mass of one floor slab as 1,250 t and applying conservation of momentum, the energy released is 42MJ equivalent to 10kg of TNT.

            Not only is this scenario improbable but the amount of energy released seems completely inadequate to sever the central columns and the perimeter on at least 3 facades, particularly as losses were excluded and most of the energies would be absorbed in deformation of the colliding masses rather than being available to act externally.

          • Clark

            Assuming descent at 2/3 of g for simplicity, the obvious approximation of energy made available for destruction up to any given moment is 1/3 of the total decrease of the potential energy of the top section. So 3.8 metre down that energy is:

            1/3 times 3.8 times the weight of the top section.

            What does that come to?

          • Clark

            And taking Chandler’s measurements at face value, how much potential energy has been released by the top section by the end of his measurement period? It”s given by

            (loss in PE) minus (nominal KE of top section)

            This figure will represent an upper limit, since we can’t be sure that all the internal material has fallen as far as the exterior.

          • Clark

            Any idea of the mass of a typical demolition charge? Descent at 2/3 of g (for simplicity) together with the weight of the top section will give us the power, which can be converted to an equivalent rate of detonation of demolition charges.

          • Nikko

            Before the whole top section of 12 floors could have started falling, its entire support must have been removed to the extent to allow descent at 2/3 of g. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves calculating the potential or kinetic energy of the whole of the top section because in our analysis it has not started to move yet.

            The videos show that from the outside the whole building stayed intact until the top section started collapsing, so we have assumed that the energy to destroy its support structure came from a collapse of the internal floors above the plane point of impact. To maximise that impact we have assumed that all 12 floors started falling as one. Even with this best case but unrealistic scenario, the energy released by the impacting floors is only 10 kg of TNT equivalent.

            ” Any idea of the mass of a typical demolition charge?

            Good question and I do not know. I do know, however, that demolition charges release energy in a highly focused manner, whereas the energy released by the falling slab would be spread over the whole surface are of the slab. Also the rate of release of energy by the slab would be much slower compared to an explosive charge.

            Need we go on?

          • Clark

            “…so we have assumed that the energy to destroy its support structure came from a collapse of the internal floors above the plane point of impact”

            I have not assumed that. I start from observation and the obvious explanation. An aircraft destroyed a considerable portion of the support structure, damaged considerably more of it, and must be presumed to have shocked, warped and weakened all of it, particularly at the storeys impacted. It also started a huge fire which proceeded to soften much of the remaining support structure, and caused visibly increasing degradation.

            As I understand it, but without having checked transcripts, people trapped in the top section continued to communicate until the onset of collapse, and did not report failure of floors. The large ejection of flame and smoke at onset of collapse would also indicate that floors were still intact as the top section began its descent.

            There were reports of floor collapses (whether from WTC1 or WTC2 I don’t recall), but they came from firefighters who were just below the damaged zone.

            If there had been a collapse of floor assemblies in the upper section before its visible onset of descent, it would seem very likely that ejections between the perimeter columns would have been witnessed, of the type seen at the collapse fronts in the lower, standing parts of both Towers.

            Therefore I accept NIST’s account of onset to be roughly correct, that gradual perimeter bowing became rapid buckling and the whole top section began to descend as a unit. Whether damage followed by softening of the steel was sufficient to permit that is a matter more complex than I can assess, but it has been addressed in various technical papers.

            However, assuming that the top section did begin to fall as a unit, my rough estimates of the energies and masses of materials released seem more than sufficient to initiate the subsequent destructive effects.

          • Nikko

            I am glad we can dismiss falling floors from the upper section as the cause of the start of the collapse. But we end up where we started; namely trying to identify and quantify the gravity force that caused the building to tear itself apart while ejecting massive debris sideways. Looking at WTC 1, I see no “gradual perimeter bowing turning to rapid buckling”. I am not aware that you have calculated anything meaningful.

          • Clark

            WTC1:

            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-200-3
            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-201-3
            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-202-3
            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-203-3

            Looks like inward bowing to me, and there are also witness reports. Hell of a fire, too.

            Regarding WTC1, about twelve storeys began to drop. I’ve seen various figures to how much load a floor assembly could withstand; six, ten and (from John Goss) eleven times its own weight, as a static load. All are less than just the twelve descending floor assemblies (ie. not even counting other structure and contents), and much less than the dynamic load they would exert. MEANING that if the top section began to drop, the standing structure beneath could not stop it.

          • Nikko

            The photos are very clear. When you say “bowing inwards”, I imagine the perimeter sides folding inwards under a compressive force. This is clearly not happening as what we see in the SW corner is a section of the perimeter pushed inwards without any compressive effects in evidence.

            Why would a section of the perimeter wall approx. 2 or 3 floors high be pushed in? Seems at odds with expectation as the plane hit from the North and, therefore, at the SW corner any impact forces would be expected to be outwards.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3shmfKOZ9g

            It also looks as though the perimeter on the West façade has been cut through to a large extent. There are photos showing the East façade similarly damaged. A 767 has a wingspan of 48m and the Tower width is 64m. Strange?

      • Kempe

        I can’t see any similarity between the support towers of a suspension bridge and the WTC. The deck of the Tacoma Narrows bridge was badly affected by sidewinds and collapsed due to fatigue. The towers didn’t collapse, there’s no reason why they should, but they were damaged beyond repair and had to be demolished.

          • Node

            Kempe’s defence of the official narrative is damaged beyond repair and his subconscious mind is rebelling. This isn’t the first time. Not long ago, he ‘proved’ that the Twin Towers weren’t secretly strengthened before 9/11.

          • Clark

            Node and John Goss attempt to malign Kempe’s mental health, but ignore RobG’s stated wish to commit murder.

            What a lovely bunch Truthers are.

          • Clark

            John, Kempe was obviously referring to the towers of the suspension bridge.

            Sorry, it is Node maligning Kempe’s sanity. You’re just occasionally hostile and rude to Kempe.

          • Node

            Kempe : “The towers [….] were damaged beyond repair”
            Node : “Kempe’s defence of the official narrative is damaged beyond repair ….”
            Clark : “…it is Node maligning Kempe’s sanity”

            Lighten up, Clark.

          • Clark

            RobG – “I’ve had just about enough of little wankers like you who are paid to whoffle away the Fukushima disaster, which is the greatest disaster in human history. The lot of you are going to be put up against a wall and shot. This also includes the ‘9/11 official story’ brigade.”

            From Node, not a word about that. Instead:

            “[Kempe’s] subconscious mind is rebelling”

            Fucking lighten up?

          • Clark

            There is a homicidal nutter in our midst, but you prefer to encourage ganging-up to malign the mental health of one of the very few who challenge false claims and bunk science.

          • Clark

            There is a homicidal nutter in our midst, yet you chose to encourage that nutter by further maligning his target! From where I stand, it looks like extremely unpleasant gang behaviour.

          • Node

            I’m not responsible for what RobG says to Kempe (especially after the sun has gone over the yard arm) and I’m not responsible to you for what I say to Kempe.

            Stop trying to control everything. Lighten up.

        • John Goss

          The bad part of bringing down the twin towers, if they were damaged beyond repair, is the fact that there were still many people inside them. Would it not have been better to wait until they had been evacuated, as with Building 7.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss February 8, 2017 at 11:35
            Not at all! THEY needed lots of deaths (as at Pearl Harbour). Moloch is a hungry ‘God’.

1 102 103 104 105 106 134

Comments are closed.