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

1 103 104 105 106 107 134
  • Clark

    There are vital questions about 9/11, but it is pointless speaking about them with people I meet because they assume I must be a Truther, promoting anti-science and urban myths.

    You seem oblivious to the damage you’re doing with your gang-forming and enforcement. You ARE the controlled opposition. You have less reach than the corporate pro-war propaganda, but you disparage independent thought and judgement far more personally and vigorously. Thinking for myself is as lonely and barren as an Arctic waste, and the cruel irony is that when I talk of 9/11, people think I’m one of you and dismiss me as a crank.

    “Oh you are alone because the majority are with us”, some of you will lie.

    • Node

      …. when I talk of 9/11, people think I’m one of you and dismiss me as a crank.

      It suits you to pretend that all Truthers hold identical beliefs because then you can point to any inconsistency in any theory and use it to ‘prove’ that all Truther theories are illogical. It’s why Kempe likes to talk about ray guns from space. But you doubt the official explanation of the collapse of WTC7 therefore you fit this definition ….

      A person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist

      …. therefore you ARE a conspiracy theorising Truther crank nutjob whether you like it or not.

      phrase; idiom
      be hoist(ed) with/by your own petard :
      to suffer harm from a plan by which you had intended to harm someone else

      • Clark

        That does not address the problem I describe.

        “It suits you to pretend that all Truthers hold identical beliefs because then you can point to any inconsistency in any theory and use it to ‘prove’ that all Truther theories are illogical”

        Very occasionally, driven by frustration, I have descended to conflating incompatible Truther theories, though mainly to point out Truther gang mentality. By and large, I deal with specific pieces of evidence, “evidence”, and physical theory, and on this thread, so does Kempe.

        Any member of the public newly interested in 9/11 will find themselves descending into a morass of fakery, exaggeration and anti-science. Truthers alienate the audience because the vast majority of us refuse to hold each other to basic evidential and scientific standards.

        • Node

          That does not address the problem I describe.

          OK, explain why you say I’m a ‘Truther’ but you’re not.

          • Clark

            Oh, the vagaries of words. You failed to notice my phrase “…the vast majority of us refuse to hold each other to basic evidential and scientific standards”

            Look, who’s a Truther and who isn’t is just an ego / self-image issue. What matters is whether evidence and science are dealt with rigorously or not, and at present they’re not, and a load of people are enforcing that lack of rigour by ganging up to denigrate any who attempt better…

            …and this has to do with attachment, most notably attachment to demolition of the Twin Towers, which would have been deemed highly speculative years ago if any standards were being applied. Instead it has become a dogma by which newcomers are judged, even to the extent of obviously wrong physics being parroted to support it.

  • John Goss

    This is from the current thread posted yesterday by Tony-Opmec. It is a Voltairenet article by Thierry Meysson. It defends Donald Trump and is well-argued. I still have strong reservations about Trump but if he does allow a proper inquiry into 9/11 and makes friends with Russia and stops the US making war in the Middle East, Ukraine and other places he might well become a respected president. He will be what we call in the trade a one-off.

  • Node

    How were the sections of the vertical columns in the Twin Towers joined? If I understand correctly, the core columns were welded with deep fillets, but how about the perimeter column sections? I can’t find diagrams but from photos it looks like they were ‘socketed’ together and bolted.

    Anyhow, it seems clear that the joints supporting the floors were separate to the joints joining the vertical sections. If we go with the official scenario of the accumulating weight of falling floors breaking their trusses, what caused the vertical steelwork to break up? Why wasn’t it left standing, or at least peeled outwards like a giant banana?

    I realise this is a pretty basic question which the official narrative must have covered, but I would be grateful if one of our resident Believers would explain it to me.

    • Clark

      I think end-plates were welded onto the box-columns, which were then bolted end-plate to end-plate. A hole was left in one box-column face for access to tighten nuts and bolts.

      There is no official scenario for the global collapses. The NIST report stops after initiation, when buckling started the descent of the top sections. Beyond that, NIST merely referred to Bazant, but Bazant did not specify a collapse mechanism.

      It looks to me as though the descending internal mass (which can be presumed to have been following the collapse front) pushed the perimeter outward as it passed, initiating toppling. The perimeter indeed “peeled outwards like a giant banana”, breaking into variously sized sections as it fell away. This was greatly obscured by dust, but many instances of it can be seen anyway.

      In some places, the perimeter was violently forced outward by the top section still acting as a unit.

      • Node

        I think end-plates were welded onto the box-columns, which were then bolted end-plate to end-plate.

        Thank you, that rings a bell now you mention it.

        The perimeter indeed “peeled outwards like a giant banana”, breaking into variously sized sections as it fell away.

        What CAUSED the perimeter walls to break into variously sized sections?

          • Node

            What leverage? If the walls were pushed outwards by accumulating debris, the force was applied very close to the fulcrum, ie where they were/had been joined to the building.

          • Clark

            The perimeter columns were broken off by the leverage of their own weight.

            You need to think of the dynamics. We saw the face-wide lines of descending ejections. This was the internal collapse front, where floors were being destroyed or decoupled from the perimeter and air/dust/rubble was being ejected between the columns. The bulk of the destructive mass followed behind (ie. above) this. It only had to nudge the perimeter outward, and the perimeter began to swing out and then increasingly down under its own weight. But lower down, just ahead of the collapse front, the perimeter was still being held upright by the floor joists.

          • John Goss

            “The perimeter columns were broken off by the leverage of their own weight.”

            That is not how leverage works. It works from a fulcrum point. Remember moments about? You’re looking for another word. A jemmy uses leverage.

          • Clark

            Well if you want to consider a fulcrum point, the corner between the outer box-column side and its welded-on end-plate would be the obvious place, especially if we’re considering failure of the bolts.

            But leverage doesn’t necessarily need a precise fulcrum point like that. Consider holding a bar horizontally with one of your hands at each end, and then bending it. For the same gauge of bar, a longer bar bends with less effort than a shorter bar, because with the longer bar you have more leverage. It’s still a consideration of moments f times d, and more d still means you need less f, but the maths is more complicated because there isn’t a point fulcrum.

          • Clark

            As for the lack of resistance, it was the internal collapse front through the mostly concrete floors that descended quickest. The steel perimeter was left standing as it passed; not for long, but the peeling of the perimeter was visibly slower than the internal collapse.

          • Nikko

            Are you able to see through the buildings to know that the floors descended quickest?

            If you are right and they did, does that not mean that there was no build up of material higher up for the perimeter to start breaking up.

          • Clark

            No, I can’t see. I’m taking the visible, generally horizontal, descending line of ejections of air/dust/rubble as the leading edge of the internal collapse.

            I assume that the internal descending mass was a few storeys high. Maybe FEA could give us an estimate of its height.

        • Clark

          Leverage would have broken off the sections along their horizontal edges.

          To the extent that the upper block survived as units during descent, upper block and lower block perimeters could have sliced each other’s spandrel plates.

          I don’t know to what extent bolts were stripped or sheared as opposed to box-column ends breaking. But remember that the Twin Towers’ perimeters were constructed from steel more brittle than the typical A36.

          • Node

            If I am correctly envisaging your scenario, I am picturing a mass of falling debris which occupies a larger horizontal cross-sectional area than the building, and thus exerts enough lateral force to break the vertical walls into relatively small pieces. However it doesn’t get much advantage from leverage because it is always acting near the descending fulcrum.

            If the debris was fairly loose, the walls would channel it through the course of least resistance, ie away from themselves. The only way that such huge lateral force could have been generated would be if the debris was so compacted that it couldn’t be deflected inwards. So how does this solid mass of debris which is bigger than the space it is falling into still manage to accelerate?

            I have to go out for the night now. I’ll get back to this tomorrow.

          • Clark

            “…a mass of falling debris which occupies a larger horizontal cross-sectional area than the building”

            Well it would occupy a larger area but the perimeter constrains it.

            “…and thus exerts enough lateral force to break the vertical walls into relatively small pieces”

            No, the debris mass just pushes outward, starting that part of the perimeter moving outwards, but falls downwards (both following and driving the collapse front) almost immediately. The parts of perimeter pushed outward also start hinging downward, and continue under their own weight which gains leverage advantage the closer they get to horizontal, causing them to break off from lower parts of the perimeter.

            I guess that the internal descending mass was about a few storeys high. According to the pile-driver theory, of course, it was the entire top section acting as a unit, which would also have had accumulating debris ahead of it. But I don’t take pile-driver theory as gospel.

          • Nikko

            What Node was getting at is how is channeling a volume of debris greater than the available volume such that it results in lateral forces powerful enough to rip the building apart compatible with the rate of descent of this mass of debris at near freefall. Friction?

          • Nikko

            If I understand correctly this part of your theory is work in progress but you feel that if the towers were designed as rubble shute they would still be standing today.

          • Clark

            No, I mean that rubble chute designers could probably give you some relationship between the degree of resistance to rubble falling through a chute and the amount of outward pressure it exerts.

        • Clark

          The box-columns were made of different thicknesses of steel, thinner gauge used higher up where there was less weight load.

          So I would predict that sections of perimeter would likely have broken off with horizontal edges where the change of gauge was, ie. where the strength changed. I’d expect the bottom of the weaker section to break, rather than the top of the stronger.

          • Clark

            Well I don’t see lines of charges carving up the perimeters into the sections they eventually fell in. Rather, I see a generally horizontal line of ejections which goes right across the faces of the buildings, and descends very rapidly, and the perimeter seems to peel away and outwards from some height above that line.

            You could argue that those ejections were the work of explosives, but the eventual shapes of the perimeter sections seem too big to bear any relationship to the pattern of ejections.

        • Nikko

          Node asked: “What CAUSED the perimeter walls to break into variously sized sections?”

          Not only that. What caused sections of the perimeter wall to be ejected laterally with such force that some hit WTC 7 at 200m away?

          • Clark

            I take it you mean from the South Tower. I revised my opinion about that when I heard Hess’s account of events with Jennings inside Building 7. The power went off when the South Tower fell, which is why Hess and Jennings tried to get down via the stairs rather than the goods elevator. So it was debris from the nearer North Tower which hit WTC7 when Hess and Jennings were on the sixth floor landing, and they were plunged into pitch darkness because that’s when the emergency lighting system got clobbered.

            But demolition charges don’t produce big lateral ejections anyway, and their energy is trivial compared with the fall of the top sections. It was the “peeling outward” effect that flung huge pieces sideways, plus some from the bowing at collapse initiation.

          • Nikko

            There is no getting away from the fact that WTC 7 was damaged, so if it was not from WTC 2 then it was from WTC 1 at 110m away. Consider an object ejected at floor 100 in WTC 1 and hitting the top of WTC 7, i.e. a vertical drop of about 50 floors * 3.8m = 190m. In order for the object to complete this trajectory I calculate its initial velocity to be 18m/s. (Assumptions: initial vertical velocity = 0, Cd = 0.82, object made of steel, mass = 68kg, area (for air resistance) = 0.15m2). Calculations involve standard equations of motion.

            For steel objects to achieve a velocity of 18m/s requires significant amounts of energy so it is still necessary for you to explain where this energy came from.

          • Clark

            I think that most debris that moved considerable lateral distance was either flung by, or became detached from, or just was, the big outward-swinging perimeter sections. Like a tree being felled, they start with little lateral velocity, but it pick up speed as they topple. The energy comes from the fall in the “tree’s” centre of mass, but it is the top which gains most lateral velocity.

            Simply the great height/length of some of the sections was enough to move their tops a long way from the building’s footprint. But bits could also detach and get flung even further. And any debris falling from above could get batted by perimeter sections – a big mass can bat a smaller mass to a much higher velocity, just like cricket.

            None of these processes require any energy from the internal collapse of floor assemblies. The energy all starts as potential energy in the perimeter.

            There was also some material sort of “pinged” sideways at initiation as the bowing/buckling peaked through its critical failure; this is also visible, but it looks relatively minor compared with the big out-swinging perimeter sections.

          • Nikko

            We have already established that using a toppling tree falling around a fulcrum is not an appropriate analogy for a free falling object, but I guess you do not have anything better so you come out with this bullshit again.

            As for the last three paragraphs of your post, this is the worst kind of anti-science waffle imaginable. Have you no shame?

          • Clark

            No we did NOT establish that. Watch the collapse videos. YOU are ASSUMING that the bottom of the perimeter sections were blasted free by explosives, and thus you imagine a “free falling object”. Visibly, the internal collapse wave passed downward, so the top of each perimeter sections was freed before its bottom was, so the bottom acted as the fulcrum until the section broke off at that point under its own weight.

            On the videos the perimeter sections are seen to topple. If they were freed at all points by explosives, they’d just fall and wouldn’t topple.

            Bullshit. Yeah, right.

          • Nikko

            Toppling (as in tree toppling) means rotating about a fixed fulcrum. A panel that would topple around a fixed base would go vertically down.

            What you see in the collapse videos is panels falling in a parabolic arc, in some cases 100s of feet away from the building. You need to go to Specsavers.

          • Clark

            “A panel that would topple around a fixed base would go vertically down”

            Eh? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

            “What you see in the collapse videos is panels falling in a parabolic arc”

            Are you claiming that the panels remained roughly vertical, parallel with where the building was? Because it really doesn’t look like that to me; the tops seem way further out than the bottoms.

          • Nikko

            A panel that would topple around a fixed base would go vertically down. No contradiction- after the rotation finished and the panel became free it would fall vertically down if gravity was the only force.

            The orientation of the panels as they fall is not important. What is important is their lateral distance from their original position

  • Paul Barbara

    @ John Goss February 8, 2017 at 11:46
    There is NO WAY he would order a ‘proper’ inquiry into 9/11. The fact he is ‘bringing back torture’, and he has threatened to make the tortures even worse, shows he is pretending to believe 9/11 and most all the other ‘False Flags’ and hoaxes were really committed by Muslims, as does his Muslim travel orders.
    Obviously I hope I’m wrong, but his choice of important posts says it’s going to be much as always, apart from his apparent opening to Russia. And I suspect that is not real, or won’t hold.
    A ‘Deep State’ ‘False Flag’ blamed on Russia could upset his plans, even if he wanted better relations.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss February 9, 2017 at 00:12
      I’d avoid following any of their links. We are searching for truth, not playing silly b*ggers with ‘cryptic comments’.
      If there’s anything to it, it will surface soon enough.

      • glenn

        PB: If you really are “searching for truth”, may I suggest following the points Clark’s been saying. I find it very hard to accept, actually, but even more difficult to actually dispute.

        • Clark

          Glenn, big thanks. It took a lot of watching videos very carefully, and thinking on a scale I’m not accustomed to.

          I find it hard to believe they actually built the fuckers. Twenty-five thousand people – people – in each, balanced on a stack of concrete slabs nigh half a kilometre high. Ten thousand shock absorbers in each to stop them getting too seasick on windy days. And all just to make money. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

          • Nikko

            Using dampers (shock absorbers) in high rises is a common and necessary technique to reduce oscillations. It is your knowledge of engineering that does not bear thinking about.

            (if the Tacoma bridge was better damped, it may still be standing today)

          • Clark

            Yes, sorry, I should be more specific. It’s the extent the design relied upon damping rather than its own stiffness that I find disturbing, so much flexibility in structures so high and supporting so much concrete; it really doesn’t look nice to me. The perimeter could flex away too easily, successive floors letting go like a zip fastener opening.

          • Nikko

            “It’s the extent the design relied upon damping rather than its own stiffness ”

            Flexible objects are able to absorb shock and vibrations and nothing wrong with that if they are suitably damped. Stiff objects also vibrate – just at a different natural frequency. Strength and flexibility are not mutually exclusive. There are many ways to achieve a desired result.

            Without a proper analysis of the design your statement is meaningless.

          • Clark

            Yes, all designs balance some things against others. Looking at the design, I feel that the Twin Towers were too ambitious; attempted too much with too little. Reports of computers falling over in windy weather would seem to confirm that, but they did stand there OK until major damage was inflicted.

            Tell you what, instead of continually propagandising for pre-rigged demolition, why not do some comparisons with other buildings? Or is that a really stupid idea?

          • Clark

            And I think the question needs to be asked; what is the point of building so high in the first place? It IS just for money really, isn’t it?

          • Nikko

            If you read my posts more carefully you’ll find that I am not really propagandizing for anything but having a hard time to square what you are saying against the physics I have been taught at school.

            I thought we have done comparison to other buildings, eg we’ve looked at the Cite Balzac verinage demolition and saw that that collapse with measured decelerations progressed very differently to the Twin Towers.

            Why they built the Twin Towers so high is no longer a relevant question – why they are continuing to build higher still is more so. Are you campaigning against sky scrapers?

          • Clark

            I mean, compare the Twin Towers with other very tall buildings, particularly older ones, because the Twin Towers were the very first of the “framed tube” designs. Compare: mass of steel per unit volume, mass of steel per unit height, overall density, degree of reliance upon damping, degree of tapering – lots of tall buildings are narrower towards the top, which seems sensible. I must say I don’t like the look of that “mobile ‘phone” shaped building in London; it seems reckless to build overhangs like that. OK, it can be done, but surely you’d get a more robust structure if it wasn’t done.

            The clear jolt in vérinage demolitions is due to the careful preparation which drops the top section almost parallel onto the bottom section – the two sections collide almost perfectly floor-to-floor. This permits the top section to be minimised, slowing energy release for maximum safety. A larger top section could be dropped at an angle which would smooth out the jolt, but there would still be enough energy for demolition.

            Looking closely at vérinage demolitions, they don’t always weaken the building mid-way up. Rather, they seem to arrange for about six to eight floors to drop onto the rest. Taller buildings are initiated from above the mid-point; six dropped onto nine with two for the initiation zone, for instance.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn

          I do not want to ‘chase my tail’, or Clark’s. His posts go against 2,750+ Architects and Engineers, so I’ll follow them.
          I have a pretty good idea what is going on in the world, having been a Human Rights campaigner since the early 1970’s; though I now concentrate on ascertaining the truth, and getting the truth out.

          Incidentally, there is a TOTALLY FIXED ‘White House Petition Site’ petition; nowt wrong with the petition, but the tally of signatures is totally rigged. It has stood at 561 signatures for about three hours; absolutely ridiculous. Just from the networks I have contacted, it should be way, way more than that: someone told me of a lot of ‘likes’ on his Facebook page when he spread the word, yet the stats don’t move.

          Seems it’s not only the elections they nobble!!!

          • Kempe

            ” His posts go against 2,750+ Architects and Engineers, so I’ll follow them. ”

            So you admit you can’t decide for yourself?

          • Clark

            “Clark’s […] posts go against 2,750+ Architects and Engineers”

            You should be careful about assuming that. You should look for internal discussions or poll results from within A&E9/11. Sure, everyone may want all the collapses reinvestigated and fuller data released. But I’d be interested to know just how many are that concerned about the Twin Towers. Most must certainly realise that the collapse rates didn’t breach the laws of motion without explosives. At some point along the way, they decided that Chandler’s paper shouldn’t be so prominent.

            Fancy some digging to see if I’m right?

          • Clark

            It’s general Truthers that make the biggest fuss about the Twin Towers. Read and listen to A&E9/11 carefully, and you’ll see that they place considerably greater emphasis on Building 7.

            Someone should go looking for mainstream academic discussions, too.

          • John Goss

            The reason they do this Clark is because Building 7 is easier to prove. The fires were much lower down in the building even though almost burnt out by the time of the destruction. It does not mean they don’t believe the towers were brought down too. Think about it.

          • Clark

            Find a survey, John, or count up the opinions actually stated on Meet the Experts. If I want a mind-reader I’ll go to a seance.

      • John Goss

        Quite right Nikko, and against potential earthquakes. They have to be there. I doubt even NIST with its record of compliance with its remit would argue against shock absorbers.

        Perhaps we should take them out of all vehicles on the road. 😀

      • John Goss

        Paul, Vault 7 is being pushed by Wikileaks. To have all those seeds stored in a permafrost area. Knowing about it is a weapon against those who intend to go into the great subterranean cities when they enact the nuclear holocaust. That would supposedly be the elites future food supply.

        That the 9/11 truth is seen as a weapon against this holocaust may be integral. I just wanted to find out what others thought.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein


    What is “dustification”??? College freshman Brittany Austin knows and she isn’t treading the dark murky stagnant water here with what if or what could be the method of destruction.

    Has anyone here read Dr. Judy Wood’s legal appeal? The court did not sanction Dr. Wood for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to court. In other words, she presented the court with hard evidence and not speculation.

    • Kempe

      The actual court judgement makes more interesting reading:-

      ” We have considered all of Wood’s arguments bearing on the adequacy of the pleadings in the Amended Complaint and Wood’s request for leave to amend. We find them to be without merit and, as such, the district court’s dismissal of Wood’s claim with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) is AFFIRMED. ”

      Note “without merit” and “with prejudice” the latter means she won’t be allowed to re-present the case; ever.

      • Thomas Potter

        And I sure APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., Science Applications International Corp., Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc., Datasource, Inc., Geostaats, Inc., Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, Hughes Associates, Inc., Ajmai Abbasi, Eduardo Kausel, David Parks, David Sharp, Daniele Venezano, Joseph Van Dyck, Kaspar William, Rolf Jensen Associates, Inc., Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., Simpson Gumpertz Heger, Inc., S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc., Skidmore Owings Merrill LLP, Teng Associates, Inc., Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., and United Airlines, Defendants-Appellees. Boeing, Nustats, American Airlines and Silverstein Properties are all grateful co-conspirators.

        Let’s celebrate fascism with parades, dance, and song! 😉 Here comes the master race!

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Kempe February 10, 2017 at 01:31
    ” His posts go against 2,750+ Architects and Engineers, so I’ll follow them. ”

    ‘So you admit you can’t decide for yourself?’

    Not at all, Kempe. It’s just that as I am not an architect or engineer, and have never studied those disciplines, I leave the issue to them. If two groups disagree, and I find one far more credible by my judgement, and it is very clear that the opposing side has a very strong self-interest in pushing a palpably contradictory and nonsensical narrative, I use my judgement to decide who I will believe.
    It’s not rocket science (and I’m no rocket scientist either!).

    • John Goss


      So what does all of this mean?? The obvious answer seems to be that Assange is trying to ensure that the Ecuadorian election will not be rigged by those that might have the power to do so (FBI, State Dept., CIA, the Clintons, Alphabet, Inc./Google/Google Ideas, Jared Cohen). Everything else seems to be information Assange can use to ensure that doesn’t happen. So what is this information? Theories include:

      • Clark

        The main method of rigging elections is perception management via media. These days that includes targeted messages through social media.

    • John Goss

      Saying Julian Assange does not believe 9/11 was an inside job may well be wrong. He may well have all the evidence that shows it was an inside job.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ John Goss February 10, 2017 at 11:17
        We should worry, already! The PTB are stupid,, granted.; but not SO stupid as to expose the 9/11 ‘False Flag”

        • lysias

          What better way is there for Trump to discredit his predecessors and their institutions than to expose the truth about 9/11 (and the JFK assassination, while he’s about it)?

  • Clark

    This thread is just like living in a shared house. Everyone else just has a laugh however they like, and I end up doing all the cleaning.

      • glenn

        Nonsense, this is great stuff Clark – dialectics at its best (at times, anyway). Appreciate your responses to my post yesterday.

  • Paul Barbara

    The ‘Masters of Bent Elections’ use the same tactics in petitions (and I’m sure in ‘polls’:
    ‘Data provided by the NTSB through the FOIA does not support the narrative offered by the 9/11 Commission’:

    Though it’s only been up today, it has ONLY 1 signature; Pilots for 9/11 Truth are up in arms about it. many of course having signed it.

    But not as bad as this one, which has been up for four weeks, and has only 618 signers:
    ‘Open a new investigation into the events of 911 and incorporate the forensic evidence offered by’
    Created by K.W. on January 23, 2017…d-ae911truthorg

    Do any of you believe they are genuine figures?

      • Clark

        I see no point in asking the US government to order another investigation – why would it be any more convincing than the first two? Maybe that’s why not so many have bothered signing it. Why even post the petition on a site the US government controls? The petition organisers should at least be running a parallel signatory count.

        • Clark

          Paul, I didn’t address it because I have no idea of the answer. Maybe A&E9/11 and Pilots9/11 members are just busy with work and will sign it at the weekend. Maybe some agency tweaked the spam filters so that members haven’t seen the alert e-mails which have been diverted to their Junk folders. Maybe the government website only updates the totals once a week or waits until some identity check has been made. That’s just me; I try not to jump to conclusions.

          I did say that “the petition organisers should at least be running a parallel signatory count”.

        • Clark

          Paul Barbara, I saw your comment to me and replied to it, but my reply didn’t appear apparently because your comment got deleted. But here’s what I wrote:

          Paul, I didn’t address it because I have no idea of the answer. Maybe A&E9/11 and Pilots9/11 members are just busy with work and will sign it at the weekend. Maybe some agency tweaked a spam database so that members haven’t seen the alert e-mails which have been diverted to their Junk folders – which can also happen accidentally. Maybe the government website only updates the totals once a week or waits until some identity check has been made. That’s just me; I try not to jump to conclusions.

          I did say that “the petition organisers should at least be running a parallel signatory count”.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark February 13, 2017 at 23:55
            Yes, my comments are increasingly getting deleted.
            My specific question was: ‘..Do any of you believe they are genuine figures?’
            If you ‘..didn’t address it because I have no idea of the answer….’, why bother responding?
            You come up with ‘…I see no point in asking the US government to order another investigation…’; point is A&E and Pilots DID see a reason, and included it in their petition. Nobody asked you to sign the petition.
            The numbers now are Pilots still just one signature; A&E, up for more than four weeks, is just 647. Apart from their own 2,750+ members, many or most of whom will have passed it on to people they know, it has been on Facebook and Twitter, and reported on by ‘No Lies Radio’, and passed around 9/11 Truth sites around the world. Yet you still don’t find anything odd in such a low number?
            I believe I agreed with you on ‘…I did say that “the petition organisers should at least be running a parallel signatory count”…’ in my deleted post.
            ‘…We stand with the numerous other growing organizations of Firefighters, Medical Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Military Officers, Veterans, Religious and Political Leaders, along side Survivors, family members of the victims — family members of soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice — including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11….’

            Here is one of the ‘Pilots’ comment boards where this problem is being discussed:

          • Clark

            The numbers may have been suppressed, or possibly it’s constructive incompetence; the US government doesn’t exactly have the best reputation for running its own computers, does it? Ask Gary McKinnon. Even their “super-secure” drone control consoles picked up a keylogger they couldn’t get rid of for months.

  • Node

    So to pick up where I left off 6 days ago (sorry, busy week) …. the story so far:

    • Node suggested that for the sake of argument we assume that accumulating debris smashed/dislocated the joints supporting each successive floor.
    • Node noted that this scenario doesn’t explain why the walls and core steelwork were broken into many pieces.
    • Clark suggested leverage.
    • Node pointed out that this infers that the debris mass occupied “a larger horizontal cross-sectional area than the building”
    • Clark said no, the perimeter constrains it, and “the debris mass just pushes outward, starting that part of the perimeter moving outwards, but falls downwards (both following and driving the collapse front) almost immediately.”
    • Nikko correctly summarised Node’s position : “how is channeling a volume of debris greater than the available volume such that it results in lateral forces powerful enough to rip the building apart compatible with the rate of descent of this mass of debris at near freefall. Friction?”
    • Clark suggested that a rubble-chute proves there IS such compatibility.

    OK, let’s go with your analogy. What would it take for rubble to burst the sides of a vertical rubble-chute?

    If the rubble is uncompacted the individual pieces are channelled by the chute walls and drop at near freefall speeds. Some of the debris ricochets from the chute walls at a shallow angle resulting in a small lateral force. If there were a LOT of lateral force, the debris couldn’t be falling at freefall.

    We pour in rubble at a faster and faster rate until the rubble is compacted into a ‘plug’ of exactly the same cross-sectional area as the chute and its compression state is ‘neutral – it is not pushing outwards but it would do if you tried to compress it any more. There is still very little lateral force but the entire outer surface of the plug is in contact with the internal walls of the chute so the increasing friction is progressively slowing the debris.

    At this point we can’t pour in the rubble any faster. In order to compact the rubble enough to exert a lateral force, we would have to force it in, and then it would no longer be falling due to gravity alone.* But let’s say for the sake of this thought experiment that somehow the debris did manage to become so compressed that its ‘trampoline effect’ exerted enough lateral force to deform the chute walls. The friction would be enormous. A huge amount of kinetic energy would be converted into heat, noise and deformation. Do you reckon it would still be accelerating at near freefall?

    * the only realistic way of increasing the compression would be to impede the progress of the falling debris by attaching regular baffles (or floors!) which under normal physics would further slow the descent.

    • Clark

      Yes, that covers the way I’ve been visualising it, particularly these bits:

      “If the rubble is uncompacted the individual pieces are channelled by the chute walls and drop at near freefall speeds. Some of the debris ricochets from the chute walls at a shallow angle resulting in a small lateral force. If there were a LOT of lateral force, the debris couldn’t be falling at freefall

      – the only realistic way of increasing the compression would be to impede the progress of the falling debris by attaching regular baffles (or floors!) which under normal physics would further slow the descent”

      The rubble acts almost like a fluid, especially on the scale of the Twin Towers. If the chute is a gauze with an inner lining of fragile film like the Towers’ perimeters effectively were (gauze = perimeter mesh, film = windows), you get puffs of dusty air at the leading surface of the rubble as each baffle is broken.

      And the baffles are the main source of tension preventing the gauze from rupturing outward, making this a single-use rubble-chute.

      What is needed to quantify all this is the actual advance rate curve of the leading surface.

      • Node

        Yes, that covers the way I’ve been visualising it

        Then if you agree that ….

        the rubble mass can’t create enough lateral force to “peel the banana” (never mind break the “peel” into pieces) without converting much of its kinetic energy into heat, noise and most importantly, non-elastic deformation energy.


        that “the only realistic way of [creating this lateral force] would be to impede the progress of the falling debris by attaching regular baffles […] which [….] would further slow the descent”

        …. you must agree that your visualisation is incompatible with the debris dropping at near freefall speed

        • Clark

          I repeat, what is needed to quantify all this is the actual advance rate curve of the leading surface.

          Actually, I’d expect a terminal velocity, but I expect that velocity to be high enough for the collapses to complete as quickly as they did.

          Gotta go for a while…

          • Clark

            I have not found any consensus on the overall collapse timings. Each collapse was obviously slower than free-fall, because you can see lumps of perimeter overtaking the wave of ejections. Equally obviously, each collapse was very rapid. So the question seems to be, were the collapses too rapid? I’d say no, so long as they don’t break conservation of momentum, because conservation of momentum itself releases more than enough from the kinetic energy to do the necessary damage. I’m sure I’ve seen some curves plotted, with the collapses a little slower than required by conservation of momentum but again, I wouldn’t take their “actual collapse” curves as gospel.

            But the whole question of whether explosives were needed to drive the collapse front looks like a big distraction to me, for two reasons.

            Knowledge of the structure together with FEA simulation presumably permits the global collapses to be predicted, so long as the fall of the top sections is ensured. Why bother with thousands of demolition charges, radio controlled detonators and computer sequencing, with all the consequent risk of detection (doesn’t anyone in New York run a radio scanner?)? Could this be why NIST never released their global collapse simulation? That they are simply hiding that this vulnerability of “framed tube” skyscrapers is easily demonstrable?

            Multiple countries said that they had warned the US, the Twin Towers were considered a prime target, and hijacked-aircraft-as-missiles had long been considered as a scenario. Why was the WTC site not evacuated as soon as multiple hijackings were known of? At the very, very minimum the second Tower should have been evacuated as soon as the first was hit, but occupants were told to return to their offices. Many survived only because they disregarded that “advice”.

            If the demolition of the Twin Towers theory was seeded to distract and muddy the water, it has certainly been highly successful.

          • Clark

            Node, there’s a quantitative reason why I don’t go into great quantitative detail. Very small differences in the collapse rate make very big differences to the available energy, because the total internal collapse energy is huge. Without the collapse rate, we really can’t get much further. There’s not much point quantifying the ‘peeling’ energy if half a second variation in the collapse time will exceed it, because we can’t determine the collapse time accurately enough.

            In my scenario, the energy to break the perimeter into sections came from the perimeter’s own gravitational potential energy, not from the internal collapse energy, so this energy expenditure is irrelevant to the internal collapse rate.

      • John Goss

        “The rubble acts almost like a fluid, especially on the scale of the Twin Towers. If the chute is a gauze with an inner lining of fragile film like the Towers’ perimeters effectively were (gauze = perimeter mesh, film = windows), you get puffs of dusty air at the leading surface of the rubble as each baffle is broken.”

        Get real Clark. This is what disturbs me about your lack of knowledge of strengths of materials. You talk in terms of banana skins, doughnuts, gauze and so on with adjectives like flimsy. That’s what drives the rest of us away. It is total garbage. For God’s sake man drop a hammer on your foot and walk around on a couple of broken bones for a month or so. That’s what it’s going to take to get through to you. Then you might have some idea of the properties of steel. Drop a hammer on a hammer, you won’t feel a thing. Both hammer heads will still be intact. The shaft might break! Got it yet?

        • Clark

          You seem to have trouble scaling things. Bigger things need thicker steel. Why, John? Why not run Intercity trains on Hornby scale rails if steel is so strong? Scaled down to dimensions of a typical rubble-chute, the Twin Towers’ perimeters were indeed like steel gauze.

          Within the perimeter, concrete was impacting concrete at tens of metre per second, impact forces like explosions, but the steel perimeter withstood it, contained it, and kept it concentrated upon the concrete below. But deprived of their lateral bracing and pitted against each other, the vast areas of steel eventually succumbed to their own great weight, amplified by their own great leverage.

    • Clark

      Node, I should have been more critical:

      “We pour in rubble at a faster and faster rate until the rubble is compacted into a ‘plug’ of exactly the same cross-sectional area as the chute and its compression state is ‘neutral – it is not pushing outwards but it would do if you tried to compress it any more. There is still very little lateral force but the entire outer surface of the plug is in contact with the internal walls of the chute so the increasing friction is progressively slowing the debris.”

      This is wrong. The natural shape of a rubble pile is conical. Even rubble in a cylindrical bucket would exert outward force; if the bucket were teleported away the rubble would fall and spread into a cone.

      Even a cone of rubble would spread and flatten on a vibrating surface. All the rubble falling down a chute is also in chaotic motion to some extent, effectively producing its own vibration which keeps it acting rather like a fluid. And like a fluid it develops more “turbulence” as the flow rate increases, which increases resistance to flow leading to a terminal flow rate..

      • John Goss

        This again is nonsense. Sorry I have to keep pointing it out but get a skip, which really is thin in terms of steel (and I mean really thin) probably no more than 8 mm (I’m guessing).

        Fill it with rubble.
        Dance on the rubble.
        Pound the rubble down with lump hammer.
        Even get a vibratory compactor.

        You’ll be there all day and the skip is not going to give. Now then, for the last time again, think about Newton. Think about every pound with the hammer or compactor because it is that resistance, from the compacted material that is stopping further compaction. Every blow takes time. Every blow meets an opposite and equal reaction.

        Your imagination is very fertile. But it makes absolutely no sense. I’m sure even after this you will come back with more anti-physics.

        • Clark

          You seem to have misinterpreted my argument. The thousands of tonnes of rubble and debris just pushes outward slightly against the steel perimeter, causing it to start toppling. In the middle of a wall of a Tower, it’s thirty metre from the nearest corner, and if the internal collapse front is descending at, say, 25 metre per second, the area pushed will be 25 metre from any lateral bracing in a second. Pushed by the immense passing mass the flexible steel flexed outward, but now it’s angled over from upright, and it’s very heavy and that weight is gaining leverage advantage the further outward, and thus downward, that it leans. And it’s not A36 steel, it’s more brittle than that, so eventually it breaks off under its own weight, or strips the bolts at an end-plate connection.

          “…a skip, which really is thin in terms of steel (and I mean really thin) probably no more than 8 mm (I’m guessing).”

          Why that’s a millimetre thicker than the steel of the highest perimeter box columns! And a skip is only two metre by four or something; not sixty metre to a side. Steel does have its limits, John.

          • John Goss

            “You seem to have misinterpreted my argument.”

            Don’t know about that, but what you wrote below this sentence does nothing to convince me I have. You have seen the strength of structural steel in the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. The bridge was there long afterwards, long after the section that took such a long time to give way. It was not seconds for that small section of a bridge with a flawed design to fall, and when that section fell it did not fall vertically down. The vertical ‘towers’ on the bridge never even moved.

          • Clark

            John, the way you go on and on about the strength of steel is more like a snake-oil salesman than an engineer.

            Yes, steel is very strong, but any given project still needs enough of it. The Twin Towers’ design used 40% less steel than designs typical of the era, and concentrated it more, thus leaving large areas without vertical steel support.

            Yes, steel is very strong, but the collapses of the Twin Towers pitted steel against steel, as frame collided with frame, as steel levered against steel, and as thousands of tonnes of rubble swept steel structural members along with it faster than an express train.

            Get it yet?

          • John Goss

            Even so, if the upper floors were less substantial and therefore lighter, how could they penetrate lower and stronger floors?

            It is so simple. Unless you do not want to know.

          • Clark

            John, you claim to be an engineer, please try to show some understanding. You wrote:

            “…if the upper floors were less substantial and therefore lighter, how could they penetrate lower and stronger floors?”

            The floor assemblies at various heights were all the same (except the three mechanical equipment floors); all were mostly concrete. The steel vertical columns (ie. core and perimeter) varied, with uprights in the highest reaches of the Twin Towers being of lightest gauge steel (1/4 inch), increasingly heavier gauges used progressively lower in the structure.

            Obviously, steel uprights from above could penetrate any of the mostly concrete floor assemblies, including those from below, because steel is harder and stronger than concrete.

            You wrote – “It is so simple. Unless you do not want to know”

            John, my curiosity is genuine. You, in contrast, seem repeatedly to over-simplify and misstate, and always in such ways as will exaggerate the strength of the Twin Towers and encourage belief in their demolition. Corrupting the field in this manner really does it no favours, and can attract a following only from among the dull-witted.

          • John Goss

            “John, my curiosity is genuine.”

            It might be but it is so misguided. The steel could not penetrate the floors. It is resting on top of other steel. You claim it is of a lesser guage higher up which means it could not penetrate anything unless it toppled. If the outer perimeter had toppled outwards it would have destroyed numerous buildings. But as we have seen from what has been called the ‘spire’ it went straight down disintegrating as it went. You ignore this and carry on with your self-indoctrinated beliefs.

            You can’t even get your head round the skip analogy. You spent comment after comment asking for working things out formulaically but as soon as you are presented with the formulae you back away. As soon as you are presented with a paper you do not discuss it, unless others have done so first, yet you criticise those of us who do (without stating why we are wrong).

            As to the debris there should have been huge mounds of it. But because you cannot grasp the logic you carry on with your anti-science nonsense. And you have no respect for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That’s why so many have left the thread. If you were really concerned you would be fighting to get a proper inquiry.

          • Clark

            ” If the outer perimeter had toppled outwards it would have destroyed numerous buildings”

            Falling and toppling perimeter sections indeed destroyed or severely damaged numerous buildings including WTC6 and WTC7:


            “But as we have seen from what has been called the ‘spire’ it went straight down disintegrating as it went”

            That was the internal collapse of the concrete floors, which went straight down because it was constrained by the perimeter. The immense crushing as each collapse hit bottom pulverised much of the concrete, which then welled up as an enormous dust cloud.

            “As to the debris there should have been huge mounds of it.”

            There was. I have read that around four hundred trucks of debris left the site each day while the site was being cleared.

            Much of the rest of your comment consists of poor attempts at mind-reading interspersed with insults, demonstrating that it is you that wants me to leave the thread; indeed, on one occasion you declared that it was encouraging that I hadn’t commented for a while. For my part, I would be delighted if you’d start facing facts and stop amplifying falsehoods, whether you comment here or elsewhere.

            Truth, Justice, Peace.

      • John Goss

        Clark, this is for you. I have particularly extracted the following as to why practical mechanical engineers have to know more than their drawing office compatriots in many cases. In the past I have sent stuff back upstairs.

        “For design purposes, the application of the theoretical formula is too complex. Further, there is much difference between the assumptions made in the theory and the real characteristics of the beams. However, as the theoretical prediction is elastic, it provides an upper bound to the true strength of the member.”

        As a theorist there is much in here will interest you Clark. Page 7 starts the critical bending moment of I beams. From this you can theorise on what caused the collapse in your scenario and I and a few others should welcome your results. Thank you.

          • Clark

            Well you misjudged Kempe and you’ve misjudged me. I was never keen on formulae and my physics is much better than my maths (much to Nikko’s frustration). My favourite maths is analytic geometry where I can see the behaviour of formulae plotted out visually. Looking at formulae does nothing for me until I can feel how the material or energy behaves, and know why it behaves that way at a practical level. That’s why I got the bug for computer programming – numerical processing brings the formulae alive and turns them into behaviour I can animate on the screen and compare with reality.

  • Paul Barbara

    And now, just when you thought things couldn’t get more ‘Alice in Wonderland’ish’, the CIA honour Saudi Crown Prince a medal for ‘combatting terrorism’:
    ‘On The News Line::Awarding the Sponsor Of Terrorism::US Support for war on Yemen::Iran’s Answer to Trump’:
    It’s a wonder the USAF don’t give Hani Hanjour a ‘posthumous’ medal for superb flying skills.

  • John Goss

    Where to make this comment is difficult since none of the threads where it might logically fit are open though I did look for somewhere more appropriate. It concerns Pizzagate, something that is not going to go away any time soon.

    The above youtube video mentions that Trump took a trip on convicted paedophile Epstein’s Lolita flight to his private island. That of course does not mean Trump indulged in any of the alleged activiteis that took place there. It might have been an attempt to entrap him.

    I recall the Savile, et al, story was around in the alternative media long before anyone took any notice in MSM. Aangirfan did a lot on this. Aangirfan seems to be the nonly other site as well as this covering the following story which Craig broke. While searching for a more appropriate place to include this I came across this piece Craig wrote on Greville Janner visiting Bergen Belsen in the “Destruction of Evidence” thread and elsewhere. Janner wrote.

    “I was taken up to the Kinderheim, to the Children’s Home, where there were some sixty orphan children, most of whose lives had been saved by monasteries, by being out in the woods or by miracles in each case and they all spoke Yiddish and I didn’t speak Yiddish and it was very difficult to talk to them but we knew some of the same songs so we sang together in Hebrew they knew and I knew the songs and then one of them said to me the first Yiddish words I’ve ever learnt , he said “Gavreal”, which is Greville in Hebrew and (he) called me “Gavreal spishtie ping pong, ping pong” and he pushed back and forwards as though he was holding a ping pong bat so my first words in Yiddish were “ping pong” and I played Ping Pong with them and they taught me a few words of Yiddish and I found it such a moving experience that for the next eighteen months I went back to them every weekend… ”

    This was written before Pizzagate broke so at the time I never made the “ping pong” connection. I never knew it had anything to do with spanking. Now it stands out like a sore thumb or rather sore bottom. Look at the images of children in Tony Podesta’s art collection in the youtube video. They all have red bottoms.

    • Clark

      Note that Annie Machon said that “they are innocent until proven guilty”, and refers to them as alleged spies, and not even alleged perpetrators of 9/11, despite the title of that video. I like Ms Machon; she’s intelligent and logical.

      What’s your evidence that Mossad did 9/11, John Goss? There was none in the Bollyn video linked ages ago.

      • John Goss

        Perhaps I should have written got away from 9/11. But they were there at the time and their involvement or potential involvement should have been investigated.

  • Emmanuel Goldstein

    Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo/ 10/20/01 (Notice the combustible material that the shaft of sunlight is illuminating in the upper left corner. No visual evidence of high heat (Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy) destruction here! 😉

    Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo/ 09/27/01 (This better illustrates what is there and what is not there. Where did the middle of this 8 floor building go?)

    • Clark

      Well the building’s debris seems to be all over the ground, with the pieces of Twin Tower perimeter that smashed down through the building lying on top of the debris as we would expect.

      I see no mystery here, just a smashed building, and before you start spouting off in that most unpleasant manner you used previously, no I don’t support fascism 🙂

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark February 16, 2017 at 10:36
        So what’s more important, their testimony or the title of a video?
        Glad you believe they sound genuine.
        I also have a slight problem with the video title – it should have been ‘…BEFORE first plane allegedly hit’

    • Emmanuel Goldstein

      Everything that goes “boom” is not a bomb. This subject is covered in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, Chapter 7, Section 7, Pages 110 and 111.

      BTW, This image is found in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, Chapter 10, Section E, Page 206, Figure 203:

      This image is found in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, Chapter 10, Section E, Page 205, Figure 202(b):

      Both images are evidence of no high heat when the WTC 6 hole was carved out of its middle.

      • Clark

        There’s no reason to expect great heat from the fallen Twin Tower perimeter sections which can be seen on top of the debris of WTC6, as expected.

        According to your Judy, why did the perpetrators keep fiddling with the settings of their fantastic matter-control weapon? First great heat, then none, then toast some cars, then “dustify” some concrete… Were they just showing off? And are there any examples of battlefield use of this technology? Is it human technology, or extra-terrestrial?

        • Emmanuel Goldstein

          Oh really? Look at this image carefully. From the top right side go about a quarter of the way to the center and from the top count the 8 floors down to the bottom. There isn’t even enough debris to cover the first floor! A hole is a hole is a hole. 😉
          Where did the center of building 6 go?

          Here is a book review from Amazon UK:

          Because there is nothing at all anyone is going to do about it or wants to know about it in the first place. Oh they say do, but they’re full of it. Yet I have seen no other possible explanation that actually gets at the core of the evidence, Dr. Judy Wood undertook the first and to this date ONLY complete scientific forensic analysis of the events that took place on September 11th 2001 available in the public domain. For years Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) wanted, NO BEGGED for a complete thorough exhaustive, meticulous analysis of the EVIDENCE. Well here it STANDS.

          You will unable to see our society, national and international bodies of government in the same way. It will make your head spin because this time you know its real and there is no going back.You’ll put the book away in a drawer and pretend it never existed, but you can’t take pee out of the pool with a cup and you’ll always be reminded or know like a permanent stain thinking “yeah we’re living far below our potentials”.

          MSM will not touch real whistleblowers like Dr Judy Wood, and it is beyond UNFORGIVABLE to withhold information on the technology that was in these attacks for decades, that could be used for the betterment of humankind. What we have here is a textbook of staggering proportions, that is the equivalent of travelling back in time with laptop to prehistoric times and having the cave dwellers scatter fearing you to be some sort of deity. Except we’re the dwellers. You will not see Judy Wood appearing alongside Edward Snowden or Julian Assange in documentaries, for to give her exposure is suicide for those in power. She makes Assange and Snowden look like children splashing around in a paddle pool. I believe they’re let go as way as sort release valve to dupe others into believing they are freedom fighters of a sort with “their leaks”, yet have they revealed that is any worth? Truly? What Dr. Wood has on her hands here would shatter every single item on the world agenda for decades to come and yet not a single word or inquiry into her work by any in the MSM. Expect that if this book were to ever get traction for Dr. Wood to end up dead along with others before her who hung onto the truth like a lion savaging her prey after chasing it single minded for far too long.

          I felt I had to do something, so I started a youtube channel, promoting/sharing the sterling heroic work from IRREFUTABLE TV, in creating an abridged documentary version of what is in the book. It is woefully underseen and too important to have it buried on the Internet with only a few thousand views. I will share it and post your complied version to make sure the evidence, the truth never dies.

          Thanks to Richard D Hall, Dr Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson and many others, the media wouldn’t touch you because they can’t, but we don’t need them.

          The implications are beyond staggering, the deceit unfathomable. It sounds like fantasy that would make the most hardcore fantasists laugh you out of the room and yet its unfortunately, unbearably true. Human nature is the hardest thing to change. Get out engage in your communities, spread the evidence, Stop watching trivial things on both TV and Internet. I’ve discovered that fiction is a hell of less horrifying and than truth. Confront. Be brave. Be intellectually honest. But don’t let it consume you. Don’t let this knowledge get you down, even though you will feel down or don’t read it all. It may just be easier thinking that people were murdered because of the Arab world’s hatred of the West (not without reason) or that some part of the USA government did (it more than likely did). But if you read you’ll ask WHAT the hell did and why and why in this way?
          And when will it used again and when it does will we have the presence of mind to recognise it?

  • Paul Barbara

    A short, 11-minute video showing how the US has committed ‘False Flag’ attacks (or variations, like provocations which are denied or not passing on vital information of an attack (like Pearl Harbour), virtually since it’s inception:
    ‘USA Has A History Of Attacking Themselves To Go To War’:

    A VERY good short video to pass on to anyone who thinks ‘The Americans would never commit an atrocity like 9/11 on their own people’.

    • John Goss

      Yes, the history of the USA is shameful. False flags have always been a pretext for war. In 1931 the Japanese blew up a railway siding at Muckden, blamed it on the Chinese, and used it as an excuse to invade Manchuria. But the USA takes the biscuit.

      • Paul Barbara

        That video was only US ‘False Flags’ or variations. The USS Liberty’ attack was a joint US/Israeli ”False Flag’. whhich is why no Congressional investigation has been allowed to take place.
        But the video left out President Taft’s war against Mexico: ‘The Mexican War and Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions”’:
        Also ‘Operation Red Rock’ in Cambodia. I’m sure there are many others, some perhaps not even discovered yet.

        Here is a good video on Banksters and Wars: ‘All Wars Are Bankers’ War’:
        Good facts, but could do with a calmer presentation (45 mins).

  • Paul Barbara

    For those interested in Julian Assange:
    ‘ On Sunday 19th of February 2017 Ecuador has its Presidential elections. It is a significant point for the fate of Julian Assange political asylum since several currently opposition leaders have taken the position that if they win they will stop the protection Ecuador currently offers to Julian Assange and ask him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy, his refuge the last four and a half years.

    At this crucial moment we stand in solidarity with Julian Assange and in support of the brave people in Ecuador who have protected him in this long struggle for his Freedom and his Human Rights.

    This Sunday there are two solidarity actions organised:

    1. A presence outside the London’s TUC Congress Centre (28 Great Russel Street, WC1B 3LX, London – nearest tube station Tottenham Court Road) between 11:00-13:00 where voting is taking place for Britains ex-pat Ecuadorian community.

    2. A solidarity vigil outside the Ecuadorian Embassy (No 3 Hans Crescent, Knightbridge, London – nearest tube station Knightsbridge) between 14:00- 16:00.

  • Vronsky

    I was wondering if 9/11 was a coup d’etat – or more exactly, THE coup d’etat. When did US democracy (such as it was) fail – was there some other contrived incident before 9/11? If so, what? Where does 9/11 place on the trajectory?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Vronsky February 18, 2017 at 15:19
      There was a planned Fascist Coup in the States in 1933 (now known as the ‘Business Plot’) by Banksters and Corporations. They were impressed with Mussolini and Hitler, and though a similar system would be better for business in the US. So the instigators approached a very popular (among the military) retired Marine General, Smedley Butler and asked him if he would lead it. He played along for a while, till he knew enough about who was behind it, then exposed the plot to Congress. That, of course, stopped the coup planners in their tracks. But the plotters were so powerful, they threatened to bring down the Financial System if there were any recriminations, so no one was charged. Roosevelt caved to the threats.
      Essentially, the ‘Deep State’ began emerging with the ‘birth’ of the CIA, in 1947, but effectively took control in 1963, with the assassination of JFK. One of the reasons JFK was assassinated was he had said he was going to break up the CIA, and replace it with an ‘accountable’ intelligence service (there were many other reasons: his starting printing Government dollars (cutting out the Federal Reserve middleman), he was in contact with Castro by back-channel to ‘normalise’ relations, he was intent on stopping Israel getting nuclear weapons, he was going to start taxing Big Oil at a proper rate, rather than the more or less ‘ppeppercorn’ tax they paid via bookkeeping shenanigans, his brother was going to charge LBJ with serious crimes, the Mafia believed he had double crossed them, and the US-based anti-Castro Cubans hated him.
      JFK is, I believe, widely accepted as the end of US ‘Democracy’ amongst so-called ‘Conspiracy Theorists’.

      • Paul Barbara

        I should have said ‘….The assassination of JFK is, I believe, widely accepted as the end of US ‘Democracy’ amongst so-called ‘Conspiracy Theorists’.

        • lysias

          The assassination of JFK was without a doubt a severe blow to democracy in the U.S. But the CIA and the antidemocratic conspirators needed to do more to consolidate their power: Watergate and the October Surprise of 1980 got rid of two presidents whom they found troublesome. 9/11 was another such event.

    • Clark

      I think 9/11 wasn’t a coup d’etat. Look at the shenanigans to keep Bernie Sanders out.

      I think 9/11 was a collaboration by and a triumph for authoritarians, covert and surveillance operators, and the various War Parties the world over. I think many entities contributed, some of which have even escaped suspicion, and some of which are greatly disappointed by the actual results.

      Organise, organise, organise. No matter which entities contributed to 9/11, the remedies remain the same. International law needs to be extended and strengthened to control secret “intelligence” agencies and the covert foreign policies they implement. Freedom of information access needs to be extended into corporate and private sector activities. And for the sake of democracy, the privately owned news media cartel needs to be discredited by organisation of individual and small-scale reporting. People like us need to raise our credibility level, and that will require self discipline which is currently sadly lacking. We need to get so good that parroting a corporate media meme gets you laughed out of the local pub.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark February 19, 2017 at 01:41
        I also don’t believe 9/11 was a ‘coup’. The ‘coup’ occurred long before, when the ‘Deep State’ took control, which I and many believe was crowned in 1963 with the JFK assassination.
        But Wesley Clark did refer to 9/11 as a ‘Policy Coup’:

        ‘…and some of which are greatly disappointed by the actual results…..’
        I can’t think of any of the ‘Perps’ who is disappointed with the results – they got their ‘Patriot Act’; ‘excuse’ for massively increased snooping, never-ending ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘excuse’ for Afghanistan and all the wars and interventions since (none of which would have washed, like WMD, Libya etc without the umbrella of 9/11).

        We should be able to work towards the same objectives whilst disagreeing with each other on specific points, without going ballistic – of which most of us are guilty at one time or another.

        The ‘credibility level’ is why A&E are concentrating on WTC 7; that is, in their opinion as A&E’s, the easiest ‘smoking gun’ with which to bring down the whole ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’.
        If you don’t agree with them – fine. But no need to slag them off. I and many others believe they are doing a sterling job.

        • Clark

          Paul, I think a lot of Truthers make far too many assumptions about 9/11. A very common assumption is that it was all one event, planned and executed by a single entity. I doubt that. Quite a lot of other countries’ governments sent warnings to the US, and there are many media reports of US agency workers who filed warnings with their departments, and were ignored or told not to investigate further. There are also the notorious incidents like the “dancing Israelis” and Susan Lindauer’s (personal) testimony. Taken together, these indicate widespread foreknowledge of 9/11…

          …so I suspect an opportunistic bandwagon effect. To quote Craig’s original post:

          “I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”

          I’m very suspicious about the collapse of WTC7 and I await developments with interest. My physics is good enough to discount Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” and Judy Wood’s “Billiard Ball Model”, and I get annoyed with A&E9/11Truth for repeating false evidence and exaggerating, but I support their campaign (along with the group in Alaska) for greater disclosure. However, I have a strong suspicion that WTC7’s collapse was something of a sideshow, and progress on that front won’t reveal what many are expecting.

          I think it’s a mistake to dismiss the findings of the various official investigations en masse. Most people who work for government agencies are just doing their jobs. They’ll keep quiet about specific things if their superiors tell them too, but they don’t routinely fabricate whole stories. Really pressuring them to fabricate over something like 9/11, which millions of their compatriots are seriously angry about, would cause department-wide discontent, and even if outright rebellion were kept in check mutterings would leak out. So I expect that most official reports are mostly roughly true with a few very specific distortions and omissions, justified within departments as “matters of national security”. Take the Environmental Protection Agency as an example. Yes, they misled the public in the immediate aftermath. But it couldn’t hold, and truth was revealed bit by bit until major apologies were issued.

          So rather than rejecting entire reports such as the NIST reports as a fabric of pure lies, I suggest investigating the investigations, working out by elimination where the shadows are, and seeing whether certain more senior individuals repeatedly seem associated with those shadows. We cannot see the whole monster, but rather than letting our imaginations run away with us, we may be able to infer something of its shape from those fragments of shadow that we identify, and maybe we can fit some of those pieces together like a jigsaw. And like doing a jigsaw, the pieces we manage to assemble may help suggest the appearance of pieces that are missing.

          This is why I’m so critical of exaggeration and unsound evidence. The entire 9/11 event is vast and complex. We’re already drowning under a flood of information without magnifying molehills into mountains. Losing our sobriety and concocting stories that never happened just provides a cost- and risk-free cover-up service for the guilty.

      • Vronsky

        I was asking an open, and open-minded question. 9/11 was perhaps the defining incident of the 21st century. Sometimes I agree with Chomsky’s apparently silly remark: ‘it doesn’t matter who did it’.

        • Clark

          Vronsky, the indentation of comments seems to indicate that you’re replying to my comment of February 19, 01:41. I have no criticism of your “coup d’etat” question; I just think the answer is no, or the Clinton camp wouldn’t have had to work so hard to keep Sanders out.

          In terms of effects, it indeed matters little who did or contributed to 9/11. That’s how it is; violence be-gets violence, and degrading things is always the easier path. Thermodynamics.

  • John Goss

    I have been immersing myself in new Russian films in preparation for my trip to Russia, hopefully, during next year’s World Cup. This film is bang up to date (2017) and is called “Married to a bum” (Замуш за бомжа). Incidentally бомж is a word I learnt today and not in any of my standard dictionaries which admittedly are nearly 40 years old.

    The relevance to this thread, comes in the first minute. It demonstrates, in this case the properties and strengths of iron, and Newton’s inviolable Third Law about equal and opposite reaction. Less than a minute is all it takes to show why the twin towers could not have gone down like they did without interference at lower levels.

    If you understand some Russian you will enjoy this film, which is a film about loss: loss of dignity, loss of clothes, loss of memory but thankfully no loss of life. I highly recommend.

      • Paul Barbara

        Nazdarovya! Aeroflot personnel once had to chase me up in Moscow Airport , as plane was due to leave and I wasn’t on board!
        I was in a public area, sharing a bottle of Vodka I had picked up in Havana Airport (I was in transit in both cases, from Nicaragua in 1984. Unfortunately I did not go outside the airports in either Moscow or Havana.
        Can’t afford travel these days!

        • John Goss

          Yes, I need to watch the expenses. Last time I stayed in Moscow was 1980. I got a package tour for Moscow, Leningrad (St Petersburg) and Tallin. It was cheap because Thatcher advised people not to go, purportedly for the Russian ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan. We got the best hotels with colour TVs in the room. The Yanks and Brits have subsequently shown us just what the word invasion means.

          Knowing the west they will find some way to party-poop the World Cup. They so hate Russia. I’ve not bought my ticket yet.

          • Node

            Knowing the west they will find some way to party-poop the World Cup.

            Scotland want no part in this duplicity. That’s why we’ve deliberately thrown most of the matches in our qualifying campaign.

          • John Goss

            Thanks for the laugh Node. When you get your independence you might get to host it. 🙂 You may have to build a few stadia. Or borrow some of ours. 🙂

            In all seriousness I am so proud of Celtic fans who raised a very large pot for the Palestinian cause. Scotland might have thrown any chance to be in Russia but at least they have a collective heart. Well I guess the Hearts fans have.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss February 20, 2017 at 12:29
            In 1984 I went to Nicaragua via Aeroflot: £400 open return. Stayed there 3 1/2 months during the Contra attacks (once again the Empire hired bloodthirsty thugs to do their dirty work.
            Heathrow – Moscow – Cork – Havana, then change for smaller aircraft to Nica.
            Reverse on the way back.

      • Nikko

        Thanks for the recommendation – I’ll give it a go. Even though I have been through the Penguin Russian book a couple of times and can just about manage meetings without an interpreter, I find watching TV hard work particularly if the language is too colloquial or fast

      • lysias

        Sorry, I don’t have time now to use a Cyrillic keyboard: “bomzh” is based on the initial letters of “Bez opredelyonnogo mesta zhitelstva”. I suppose the fact that it is so close to English-language “bum” helped too.

          • lysias

            We call them “the homeless” here in the States. “Bum” is a word that doesn’t seem to be used any more. Poitical correctness, I suppose.

          • John Goss

            NFA is an acronym for No Fixed Abode applied to homeless people. And as bomzh is also an acronym it fits. Unfortunately you can’t make a word from it. 🙂

  • Clark

    I’ve just browsed into some apparently Australian sources (possibly fake) regarding Wikileaks, which seem to have gone dark recently; anyone know anything? A Twitter account which stopped updating in December, and a blog that seems to have been taken off-line:

    Raising my suspicion, at the root domian URL of the closed Timmy Holt blog (page cached above), there is a very slick looking page offering large cash rewards for information:

  • John Goss

    It does not mean that because no accredited physicist is willing to defend the NIST version of events does not mean it is totally wrong. I can remember a time when Clark had a theory that all the other American Architects and Engineers who had not signed up for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth were in favour of the NIST fairy-tale.

    But it has not been so for at least nearly two and a half years.

    • Clark

      Well you can’t blame the “conventional” physicists for not defending the WTC7 report, can you?

      “Unfortunately” (accidentally on purpose if you ask me), the way the debate was framed ropes the WTC7 report in with the Twin Towers report, so their refusal to debate tells us nothing about their acceptance or otherwise regarding the latter. Can’t imagine why A&E9/11 would set it up that way, can you? Naming the opposition’s proposition the “Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory” looks like it was chosen to discourage supporters, too; it’s not a scientific question, is it?

      • John Goss

        A bit devious that Clark. There were two options and you only gave one.

        “The laws of physics were broken by the official story, and we need a new investigation, or
        The laws were not broken; everything was explainable by the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT) put forth by the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports.”

        The first of these is most definitely a scientific question. Have you ever been to an academic debate? Sometimes the questions do have a strong slant designed to attract an audience. And despite that those debating against the slant win if they’re good enough.

        A thousand smackeroons and it couldn’t attract a single opposition scientific spokesperson from the most prestigious universities. That has to be because they are not stupid enough to put their reputations as scientists at stake in challenging Newton.

        • Clark

          Thanks for pointing out that it was far worse than I’d suggested. So anyone prepared to argue, specifically, that the Twin Towers underwent progressive collapse, was forced by A&E9/11 framing of the question to ALSO argue for NIST’s partly secret WTC7 report, AND would be implicitly declaring their acceptance of the 9/11 Commission Report, much of which, I shouldn’t have to remind you, is based on confessions extracted under torture.

          Arguing for a secret report would be unscientific, and accepting a report based on torture confessions would be unethical.

          “Sometimes the questions do have a strong slant designed to attract an audience”

          …and this had a very strong slant to repel challengers. They did very well to simply ignore it. I swear at people who treat me like that on this thread.

          • John Goss

            I think it puts to bed your former ideas that every architect and engineer who was not with AE911 truth was against it, which was largely what you and Kempe were saying. Have you moderated that opinion yet?

          • Clark

            Very many structural engineers and physicists have discussed the collapses of the Twin Towers, and the context for their discussion is progressive collapse under gravity. The vast majority don’t even consider explosive demolition to be worth arguing about. Go and look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. Lots of links and searchable text here:


            It’s A&E9/11Exaggeration who insist on attempting to polarise the matter, as their proposal for the debate you linked to makes abundantly clear.

          • John Goss

            I can see exactly how you were misled by that blog. It uses the same argument as you, in a nutshell, these engineers and architects do not question 9/11 therefore they support it. But they don’t. Despite the fact that it appears to be nearly a decade old with promises from the author to update it regularly. Show me the updates. Show me the engineers and architects who will stand out on a limb today and argue against a controlled demolition.

            Sorry I have to get back to my work.

          • Clark

            John, don’t rely on that blog. I linked there merely as a convenient hub, because it quotes dozens of structural engineering professionals and academics. You can follow links or search for names or text to find the professional and academic discussions of the collapses of the Twin Towers. You will find that the collapses have been extensively discussed, and that structural failure followed by progressive collapse is almost universally accepted.

          • Clark

            “…these engineers and architects do not question 9/11”

            You have no idea what any of them think about 9/11. You’ve probably never even heard of the majority of them, let alone know their political opinions. The quotes of them on that blog concern the building collapses, not the geopolitical event. You seem unable to separate those matters in your own mind.

          • John Goss

            “It uses the same argument as you, in a nutshell, these engineers and architects do not question 9/11 therefore they support it.”

            Please don’t lift a clause to make a totally different meaning Clark. Find me one engineer and architect today who supports the NIST version (or any other government official version). Find me ten and I will be amazed. But don’t please send me on a wild goose chase for those who may or may not agree with you. It is 2017 not 2007. Lots of things have changed.

          • Clark

            Well in 2011 the AIA voted 160 for versus 3,892 against A&E9/11Exaggeration’s motion for reinvestigating the collapse of WTC7:


            That’s 3892 who voted against – they didn’t just abstain. I don’t have experience finding academic articles, though I know it can be difficult without the appropriate logins, but I’ll see what I can do.

            And if I do, do you promise to take notice?

          • John Goss

            Yes I remember that 2011 ‘debate’ report. As the article says:

            “It’s clear that a majority of the people in that room were voting not based on a rational examination of what happened to Building 7 but on how they feel and what they want to believe about what happened on September 11th,” he observes. “They were more concerned with the reputation of the AIA and were not willing to commit the AIA to taking a position on anything as controversial as the collapse of Building 7.”

            They were trying to keep the official story in place because anything else was unacceptable. The truth when it comes out will hurt the whole of the US. Like I said, we are looking for current detractors from the Richard Gage exposure of the NIST version. Yes I’ll look at them if you can find them.

          • Clark

            Honored members of our Professional Advisory Panel of nationally renowned experts include

            Chief Andrew Casper (Ret.) former Fire Commissioner of San Francisco, CA
            Prof. Glenn Corbett, Fire Protection Engineer & Asst. Prof. of Fire Science, John Jay College, NYC
            Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn (FDNY Ret.) Acclaimed expert in fire safety & high rise building collapse
            Roger Morse, AIA, Architect & Forensic Building Investigator
            Jack Murphy of The Fire Safety Directors Association of Greater New York
            Jake Pauls, CPE, High-Rise Evacuations Specialist
            Dr. Jim Quintiere, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
            Norman Siegel, eminent civil rights attorney
            Michael Trencher, RA, Prof. of Architecture, Pratt Institute, NYC
            and many other valued professionals.


        • Clark

          And I was not in the least bit “devious” (John Goss, February 22, 19:54 above). A&E9/11Distortion gave their own side a scientific proposition, but gave their opposition an unscientific and politically loaded one. That was devious, and the mainstream academics were quite right to ignore it. But you fell for it, John.

  • Clark

    Imagine what happens on an undamaged floor as the collapse front arrives above. For a time in the order of tens of milliseconds the pressure of collapse debris above is increasing, and then it breaks through the ceiling. The air pressure rises very rapidly as material fills the space, pounding in all directions, down against the floor and out against the perimeter. The force that drives the visible external ejections also acts on the inside of the perimeter, pushing outward. At the same time, load on the floor is rising rapidly, causing the floor to pull inward on the perimeter, so that the local area of perimeter experiences a powerful torque. Then that piece of floor breaks or decouples from the perimeter, causing the net force on the perimeter at floor level to reverse to outward. A similar process happens at the core.

    The entire perimeter and core frames get torqued and shocked in this way as the internal collapse front passes down the building.

    • John Goss

      Still peddling the same old twaddle. “Imagine” is the right word for it and you need a fantastic imagination. It takes longer to read that nonsense than it did for the towers to fall. That should tell you something. All the stresses, torques, levers, forces have opposites it takes time. I posted a Russian film which within the first 45 seconds shows what Newton was getting at and I thought you might be able to understand why the ерунда you spout has not basis in physics. Apparently I misjudged you. Here is the link again. The iron (not even steel) has been weakened by heat. Do you get it yet?

      • Clark

        John, what I described had to happen whether or not explosives were used.

        Do you refrain from visualising physical processes? I cannot understand how anyone could be an engineer or physicist without imagination. Einstein said that he developed relativity by imagining what he would see if travelling along at the speed of light with a photon. Still, I’m sure you know better.

        • John Goss

          I am not arguing with Einstein any more than I am with Newton. That’s you. I am an engineer. The blacksmith hits a piece of hot iron with a hammer and it does not immediately mould itself to his intent. It all takes time – time you don’t have for a near free-fall collapse.

          This is the structure which in your imagination lightweight concrete can fall through and bring down with it.

          Perhaps they may help you to think like an engineer. And here is some additional information. Hope it helps. But I have my doubts.

          And remember, every hit with the hammer takes time! Every skip-full of rubbish has to fall through the next skip meeting resistance at every floor. Well it might pancake one or two floors.

          • Clark

            You have not yet posted any contradiction between progressive collapse of the Twin Towers and Newtonian physics, and my approximate but numerical, physical reckonings show them to be easily consistent, not remotely close to a contradiction. Please arrange a meeting between you, me and that science teacher you referred to; I’ll travel.

            Yes, you can see one of the lightweight floor trusses in the top photo on the page you linked to; it’s the thin zig-zag extending away from the heavy gauge core cross-beam to the perimeter spandrel plate. They had thin corrugated steel on top, and then four inches of concrete were poured onto that. They spanned eighteen metre without heavy-gauge vertical steel support. Since you claim I can’t think to your own high standards, please tell me how many times their own weight you’d expect such floor assemblies to be capable of supporting.

      • John Goss

        “Since you claim I can’t think to your own high standards, please tell me how many times their own weight you’d expect such floor assemblies to be capable of supporting.”

        Eleven. Then they might give somewhere. But not evenly, just at the weakest point. That would not be at a welded point because engineers know that welds are stronger than the material they weld together.

  • John Goss

    I hadn’t seen this video before so apologies if it has already been posted. There was definitely an explosion, a huge explosion (bomb?), which occurred before the first tower started to fall.

    It puts to doubt any other theories. The towers, as they had to be, were brought down from below. Still not sure of the whole procedure or what type of device but it really does need investigating. There are few companies capable of doing this, Controlled Demolition Inc being one, which was also involved in clearing away the debris from the WTC sites.,_Inc.

    • Clark

      Pointing the finger at Controlled Demolition Incorporated without a shred of evidence, John?

      “Peddling”, “twaddle”, “nonsense”, “the ерунда you spout has not basis in physics”; all words of YOURS, John, and never a physics-based argument to bee seen, and yet you repeatedly accuse me of trying to drive others from the thread. It’s pure psychological projection, John. It’s you who wants me gone; spend some time in quiet contemplation and you may become conscious of those feelings x

      • John Goss

        I don’t want you gone Clark. I want you to see reason. Newton’s laws are my physics-based arguments. I am not going to keep reiterating them because you cannot get your head round them. Sorry.

        Clark you are faithful follower of your beliefs. People question my belief too. Even me. But those arguments are in the realms of spirituality. What cannot be in engineering cannot be. It is as simple as that. It is why 2750 plus architects and engineers disagree with you. It is why nobody anymore will defend the theory you espouse. I cannot budge you anymore than the floors could budge the outer and inner structures of the towers.

        I don’t really want to say this but as it is true, I will. When I read your “Imagine what happens . . .” comment I burst out laughing. It is so comical to my mind. Perhaps you laugh at my comments too. Who knows? I want you to realise this for yourself, not for others to keep pointing it out to you ad nauseum. I am not trying to drive you from the thread but wish you would come to see reason instead of perpetuating ideas that have no basis in reality.

        As to Einstein he did think outside the box. His theories of special and general relativity are what they say theories (though widely accepted in the scientific world). I believe they have only been observed in small fast-moving sub-atomic particles. Newton’s laws are not challenged becase they are not theories. They are laws. They apply all the time even in outer space. I just wish you would try to look at the collapse of the twin towers through the eyes of Newton. 🙂

        • Clark

          Einstein’s relativity had to be considered to enable the GPS system used by satnavs to work properly; they proved to be too inaccurate without. Newtonian physics is good for about six significant figures, I think; relativity to about ten or more. You really don’t understand, John. Einstein’s work doesn’t contradict Newton’s; it confirms Newton’s work, explaining it and placing it in context. Newtonian physics is known to be a convenient approximation, and relativity defines Newtonian physics’ range of applicability.

          And you don’t understand me, either. I’m not “faithful to a belief”. I think for myself. I observe, research and reason. If new evidence is presented my position will change accordingly. This is also why I don’t take a definite position on some matters, for instance the collapse of WTC7. Much of the necessary evidence isn’t available, and what evidence there is is contradictory and inconclusive.

          Thinking for oneself is fun; you should try it.

        • lysias

          What Clark says about the relationship between Newton’s and Einstein’s laws is correct. They have both been proved correct for the situations for which they are appropriate. Newton’s laws turn out to be special cases under Einstein’s laws, good enough for all practical purposes under everyday conditions. However, Einstein’s laws have to be used rather than Newton’s for certain special conditions, e.g., very high velocities, very great masses.

          So Einstein’s laws do not contradict Newton’s, they supplement them.

          If Newton’s laws do not work for 9/11, that would mean some special conditions obtained there, for which the likeliest explanation is that there was a nuclear event.

          Increasingly apparent difficulties with cosmology suggest that Einstein’s laws must also be supplemented somehow by a still newer theory which has yet to be devised.

          • glenn_uk

            John: You are entirely correct, Einstein’s theories are just that – theories. Theories are there to be disproven, or strengthened by meeting a challenge. They have been strengthened by observations made so far, but are by no way a “law” of physics.

            Unfortunately, Lysias is in a massive sulk and refuses to talk with me right now, due to my quoting from the NYT for verifiable affirmation of a point I’m making. Doubtless, quoting directly from Herr Trump would be an unassailable reference at the other end of the scale. /cough/

            Sadly, as to the “nuclear event” – despite all the rather confused waffle Lysias produces here (or rather, because of it) – that’s simply rubbish. This is merely the prattle of someone trying to sound impressive when they have almost no idea of what they’re talking about (apart from picking up a few terms and poorly understood concepts).

            It’s a shame Lysias isn’t talking to me (such cowardice for a former military person, don’t you think?) because I’d love to know what he means by “special conditions obtained there” – it really sounds like a hoot!

          • Clark

            All science is theory, susceptible to disproof, the only alternative being dogma. I think “laws” are merely individual elements of theory. So for instance the “law of conservation of momentum” is an element of “the theory of mechanics”.

            The Jehovah’s Witlesses used the use of the word “theory” to attack evolution – “oh, it’s just a theory” they’d repeat, ad nauseum. But theory is the framework, rather like the “theory” of music.

          • Clark

            Lysias, thanks for the confirmation.

            There’s no need to invoke relativity for the collapses of the Twin Towers. Despite Chandler etc. and those who trumpet them, I have found no contradiction between progressive collapse and Newtonian physics. If someone shows me one I will of course take it seriously, but so far it’s just bluster.

    • Clark

      John, that video on Facebook is from STFNews, a Right-wing propaganda outfit. The video content isn’t necessarily invalid, but you really should be more discerning about the sources you permit to influence your thinking.

      • John Goss

        Clark, if I hear an explosion I hear an explosion. Unless you are going to prove that the video was tampered with I will accept it whoever posts it. And I never did like the discredit the source argument when there is no other defence. Like I say I would be happy to amend my view should the video prove to be false.

        • Clark

          Ah, I thought so. It’s the video with the explosive sound. I’ve seen it on YouTube. I don’t know what caused the sound, but the perimeters had been progressively bowing inward for several minutes before then.

          I warned you about STFNews because of the corrosive effects of such channels upon one’s thinking.

        • John Goss

          “I warned you about STFNews because of the corrosive effects of such channels upon one’s thinking.”

          I never did like the discredit the source argument when there is no other defence. Because of that I did a check. You must be right. I found all kinds of links to dubious sites like The Guardian, Reuters and Greenpeace and no initial evidence of click bait.

          However, one of the few links I have had removed from this blog is an Stranger than Fiction video on the CERN sacrifice. Snopes the witchfinder general. So this is quite evidently fake news.

          • Clark

            I wasn’t trying to discredit the video. If there was an explosion, there was an explosion. Nevertheless, that sound remains to be verified from other sources, and then the significance of the sound would need to be assessed.

            What I was saying about STFNews was independent of that. It’s like finding some report in Murdoch’s Sun. The report may even be factual, but one could still say “do be very sceptical if you’re going to be reading the Sun, because they’re forever trying to warp your political opinions”.

            You cite an appropriate example. STFNews is typically Right-wing anti-art and anti-science, so of course they ran an article trying to smear civilian research into particle physics as something sinister.

  • Paul Barbara

    Ah, yes, Controlled Demolition Inc.Interesting company; creamed $35 billion in the WTC ‘cleanup’, and were also contracted to ‘clea up’ the Oklahoma City Murrah Building, another ‘Inside Job’, with Timothy McVeigh a Patsy working for the ‘Deep State’.
    With sums like $35b, CDI can be relied on to ‘keep secrets’. The landfill site where the Murrah Building rubble was dumped reamians under armed guard!!! (I wonder why?):
    And ‘…DREXS demolition technology, which conveniently segments buildings and other structures into sizes that match their clientele’s removal equipment…’ Odd how a fire-fuelled collapse cut the beams into 30 foot sections – makes one wonder why CDI needed to develop DREXS…:
    ‘… Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] – the company that received a reported $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site – boasts on their website about their DREXS demolition technology, which conveniently segments buildings and other structures into sizes that match their clientele’s removal equipment….’
    ‘…CDI was also hired to level and remove the remainder of the Alfred P. Murrah structure in Oklahoma City. Former Attorney General Janet Reno ordered that the building be destroyed after they had established with the American public that Timothy McVeigh was the sole perpetrator of the OKC tragedy. Live television reports that day, however, told of the bomb squad finding two undetonated “military grade explosive devices” that were made by a “bomb expert” inside the building – in addition to the one what went off. Despite this, the entire site was taken down by controlled demolition – strikingly similar to the collapse of WTC Building 7 – and then buried in a landfill, which remains to this day under armed guard..’

    • lysias

      The hasty execution of McVeigh was a scandal. The federal appeals court found that McVeigh’s defense team had not been given access to vital evidence that should have been furnished to them under the Brady doctrine. This lawyer would have thought that this was sufficient reason for the appeals court to order that at least the penalty phase of McVeigh’s trial be repeated. But no, he was executed with indecent haste.

      Sure looked like a case of Dead men tell no tales.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ lysias February 23, 2017 at 22:51
        There were reports on the day of a bomb going off in the Murrah Building, and of two bigger bombs that had not exploded being removed from the building:


        Also, notorious CIA ‘psychiatrist’ Dr. Louis Jolyon West visited McVeigh in jail: his past ‘patients’ included Jack Ruby, Patty Hearst, Sirhan Sirhan, and he was involved in the Cathy O’Brien case.

        ‘Dr. Louis Jolyon West (expert on mind control) visited Timothy McVeigh in Jail?’:

        ‘…Dr. Louis Jolyon West was an expert on brainwashing and mind control. According to Gunderson, Dr. West visited Timothy McVeigh in jail many times. Furthermore, Timothy McVeigh wrote a letter to his sister saying he was selected to be a assassin for the CIA’…..’

        ‘Oklahoma bomber McVeigh was Mind Controlled’:
        Friday, 30 December 2011 23:44

        ‘…At the age of 29 West was appointed Head of the Department of Psychiatry, Neurology and Biobehavioral Sciences at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine. The establishment also allowed CIA programmer Dr. Louis Joyon “Jolly” West to examine Jack Ruby in his jail cell. He was the killer of the JFK murder patsy Lee Harvey Oswald, also CIA mind-controlled…’

        “A new documentary, A Noble Lie, has been released regarding the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, which shows with copious evidence that the bombing was not the act of one man, Timothy McVeigh, but that McVeigh was but a mind-controlled patsy for sinister forces within the U.S. government who wanted to use that event as a pretext to finally pass Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism bill, which would not have passed without something of that magnitude to spur it.”

        ‘…The Mind Controllers: Dr. Jolyon West, Political Assassination, Terrorism and the Drug War’:

        ‘…Dr. Jolyon West, Jack Ruby, Patty Hearst, Sirhan Sirhan, and Oklahoma City

        Among West’s other famous clients was nightclub owner and assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby. West’s examination of Ruby resulted in Ruby’s diagnosis of mental illness and prescription of psychiatric drugs, which Ruby charged were “poison.” Though West is hailed for helping commute Ruby’s death sentence, Ruby died in prison of cancer two years later, convinced that he was injected with malignant biological material by his captors.
        West examined Sirhan Sirhan, alleged assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, and widely suspected of being the victim of a method of brainwashing known as “psychic driving,” a technique made infamous by Dr. Ewen Cameron when he placed patients into long-term comatose states without their consent and played selected phrases continuously to the patient in loops in order to break down psychological barriers to “open the consciousness” of the “subject.”

1 103 104 105 106 107 134

Comments are closed.