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

1 130 131 132 133 134
  • Paul Barbara

    ‘How To Suppress Vaccine Safety Concerns And Protect Financial Interests — Part One’:
    https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/12/suppress-vaccine-safety-concerns-financial-interests.html?

    ‘How to Suppress Vaccine Safety Concerns and Protect Financial Interests — Part Two’:
    https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/suppress-vaccine-safety-concerns-protect-financial-interests-part-two/

    The Big Pharma and their agents and bought scientists and lobbyists try to stop independent testing of the safety of vaccines, just as they do with microwave safety, and for the same reasons.

    • Paul Barbara

      I forgot re video above – Ted Gunderson, former head of the Los Angeles FBI, is quoted as saying: ‘The CIA is behind most, if not all, terrorist attacks in America’.
      If he was still around these days, he would have added ‘and hoaxes’.

      • Kempe

        Gunderson also believes, or claims to believe, that 4,000 human sacrifices take place in New York every year.

        • Node

          Kempe claims that Gunderson claims that ….

          Whilst I offer no opinion on Gunderson’s credibility in general, we can expect that an ex-FBI agent who says that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the US government will be the subject of character assassination attempts. I presume your “4,000 human sacrifices” claim comes from an unattributed Wikipedia claim, which is based on an extrapolation of another unattributed claim that “Gunderson claimed that there are currently 500 satanic cults in New York City alone, each averaging eight sacrificial murders a year, for a total of 4,000 human sacrifices every year.”

          If you have a more authoritative source for your claim, I would be interested to read it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson
          https://www.csicop.org/si/show/conspiracy_theories_and_paranoia_notes_from_a_mind-control_conference/&gt

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Node December 25, 2017 at 21:33
            I don’t know where Gunderson got the figures, but Satanic Human Sacrifice is rife. The US Military classes Satanism as a religion, and it’s ‘churches’ are welcome on bases and ships (the RN also classes Satanism as a Religion, and allows space on board ship if any sailors wish to practice it).
            Gunderson exposed the Satanism and child abuse and sacrifice in the US Military, and in high places.
            The book he recommends, ‘The Franklin Coverup’ (John DeCamp), is a very good example of just how venal much of the US Military, police, businessmen and politicians are. Another is ‘Why Johhny Can’t Come Home’ by his mother, Noreen Gosch. Also, of course, Cathy O’Brien’s books and videos.
            I don’t know what he thought about Julian Assange (Gunderson died of cancer in 2011, after years of heavy-weight harassment from the PTB), but I doubt he ever met him.
            Gunderson could make mistakes, like any of us, but many people have questioned Julian Assange’s bona fides. I personally give him my qualified support.
            Remember the child traficking that the Clinton Foundation was mixed up in, and also Pizzagate.

          • Node

            I have no doubt that there is a huge pedophilia scandal at the heart of the US Establishment, covered up over the years with threats, murders, the legal system and media control. No doubt some defenders of the Establishment will claim the accusations have been debunked. Well “debunking” is yet another of the cover-up techniques the Establishment uses (as any 911 truther knows!). When a story has been around as long as the Franklin one with claims and counterclaims on both sides, a person just has to use their own judgment as to what is credible.

            Like I said, I have no doubt the story is substantially true. One of the factors contributing to this judgment is the Yorkshire Television film “Conspiracy of Silence”. Back then the British media still had some independence. They also had good lawyers and wouldn’t have contemplated broadcasting this if they weren’t certain of its accuracy. In the end, the film was pulled for undisclosed reasons but it can be viewed here ….
            https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/conspiracy-of-silence/
            …. and the background to it can be read here :
            https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/tim-tate-on-the-making-of-the-franklin-scandal-documentary-conspiracy-of-silence/

  • Clark

    It is clear that the conspiracy theorists reject reason and rationality. This is sad, but they are far from alone, which is extremely worrying. History teaches that societies are prone to such breakdown, and the result is often widespread atrocity. I hope that it does not come to that.

    It is pointless arguing rationally; conspiracy theorists care about rationality precisely so far as doing so supports their purposes, and not a jot more. The appearance of rationality is used for attracting recruits, after which group cohesion is paramount.

  • John Goss

    Today I proved that two empty Banks’ beer-cans would independently support the weight of child A (weighing 25 kilos or 55 lbs) and child B (weighing 45 kilos or 99 lbs). The cans did not buckle.

    We previously established that two empty beer cans together weighed 1.2 oz approximately. There are 16 ounces in a pound (avoirdupois).

    The weight in ounces of the heavier child K is 99 x 16 = 1584 oz

    So the two cans could at least support (1584 / 1.2) = 1320 times their own weight.

    It follows that one can would support 660 times its own weight.

    There is no central core to a beer can. Bearing the beer-can example in mind what the authorities want thinking people to believe is that a much more solid structure than a beer-can, with a very strong central core and stabilising floors, with progressively thicker and stronger box-column supports, could not hold the damaged 1.4% of its own weight in structural steel which failed above the undamaged tower below, and that it would indeed crush the structure vertically all the way down to the ground.

    Hmm.

    • Mike Giggler

      Did you also crash a model aeroplane into it, and set fire to it, to really test your experiment? 🙂

      • Clark

        Well said Mike Giggler. No, no big gash taken out of the side of the can before testing. No comparative tests, with and without the damage. As always, everything arraigned towards getting the desired result.

      • SA

        Mike
        What you have pointed out is the lack of validity of taking one aspect of a complex situation and extrapolate. I would also like to add the following:
        1. Experiments involving children (age unstated) should only be carried out after full risk assessment and appropriate ethical approval.
        2. The number of cans of beer and children involved is too small to be statistically significant.
        3. The exact way by which the weight of the children and the strength of the cans was not discussed.

      • John Goss

        I did no such experiment. My experiment was much lower down in the tower’s structure. All that aeroplane stuff allegedly happened near the top which in stacked beer-cans would be above the second can. The experiment is on the undamged structure below.

        Another thing which might be considered is the WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand 13,000 tons whereas a 747 is in the order of 300 tons.

        Somebody, not me, scaled down the aircraft aluminium thickness, to that of a beer-can representing the twin towers and it was, I have been informed, less than the thickness of the foil you animal-eaters wrapped your turkey in. 😀

    • Clark

      Any engineer worth his salt knows that objects become relatively more fragile when you scale them up.

      Any observer of conspiracy theorists expects to be belittled for raising awkward facts.

      • Clark

        The strength of the larger and smaller versions, relative to each other.

        For instance, if you scaled a beer can up 100:1, it would take a lot less than 660 times its own weight.

        Watch ants carrying leaves many times their own size. That cannot be scaled up. There is a limit to the height to which steel buildings can be constructed; beyond that, you’d need stronger materials. Your repeated endorsement of Cole’s experiments demonstrate your ignorance of these facts.

        • Nikko

          If you scaled down a structure 100:1, the compressive stress at the bottom (due to the mass of the structure) would be 1/100. The stress at the top would be unchanged at zero. The stress at any point could be reproduced with the appropriate weight on the top.

  • John Goss

    “For instance, if you scaled a beer can up 100:1, it would take a lot less than 660 times its own weight.”

    When you’re talking “a lot less” what do you mean? How much less?

    When you are talking 660 times its own weight you have to consider that the steel in the top section is only 1.4% of the building’s total – a mere percentage. So something like 98.6% of undamaged structure is beneath this mere percentage. And that is a mere fraction of an empty beer-can.

    While I try to talk figures and work something out, although I may be out in my calculations, although my approach may be wrong, somebody contesting it needs to point out where. Wishy-washy verbiage, waffle and gobbledygook is not going to cut the mustard.

    With some degree of confidence I have blogged it.

    https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/12/25/more-on-beer-can-analogy/

    • Clark

      John, I don’t know how much less, but the point is that I know that I do not know. Knowing the limits of one’s knowledge is a vital technical skill. It is important to not pretend that we know things which we don’t.

      That’s one of my big complaints about this thread; people repeatedly claim to know things which they clearly don’t know, and don’t have understanding of. You clearly don’t understand the scaling problem. Neither do I, but at least I know that I don’t understand. Generally, I’m pretty sure that larger things are less strong, but we find this in our everyday experience as well.

      Paul Barbara clearly doesn’t understand vaccines and how the risks are weighed against their benefits; he calls vaccines a “scam” and advises people not to vaccinate. That can cost lives. I had a friend who started believing New Age Hippy ideology which included rejection of vaccines. He got a little dog and refused to have her jabs done; she got distemper and died.

      It is wrong to dismiss all science and engineering as just the results that some conspiracy insists upon. There is bias and some corruption, but the general belief on this thread seems to be that all academia is just a big scam, just what “the government” or “the elite” want us to hear. But the truth is far more complicated than that. Bad Science is a very good book because it goes through many cases of distortion, and shows how they actually happened. Goldacre points out differences between the US and EU systems, and the results they have. He is particularly scathing of the mainstream media and its contempt for science and academia. He puts the tools in our hands and teaches us how to use them. He teaches us how to think about things, not what to think.

      But on this thread everything I say is rejected, because I don’t “believe the right things” or something. Lots of commenters get together to dismiss anything I say, like “Wishy-washy verbiage, waffle and gobbledygook”. Sometimes it makes me cross, because I have put a lot of time and effort into learning how science joins up, and how the media gets distorted. People here should be interested in that, but instead they seem to just want me to shut up, or they all make the same criticisms – of me personally, not my arguments – apparently to make it look to other readers like I’m not worth listening to. But I’m independent, I don’t have a job or a university position I could be threatened through, which is how you all say it is done. I’m much poorer for being outside the system, I have no security, but I’m dismissed here nonetheless. And I’ve been part of this site and comments are open on this thread because of me, but now I regret that; I’m actually ashamed of it because the consensus has become so anti-rational that some things posted here are actually dangerous, and now I’m no longer a moderator here I can’t even stop it.

      • SA

        Clark
        I agree with you. I think i have noticed the following phenomena:
        1. Referencing now has become an uncritical activity of copy and paste a link to someone who said something. Within this link there are other references and links. If someone posts a link and asks a question you feel you are duty bound to read it, but by reading it you find that you would like to find more about the author, you need to read thier references and you need to check out if they have been misquoting these reference. These practices of misquoting and falsely representing what is said on one website, is very common.
        2. There is total disregard for science, scientific evidence, writing and scientists by some, it is placed below what self appointed experts believe in. Science itself has become a tool of conspiracy in their eyes. The discussion then becomes whether you believe in someone or not. Science is evidence based and there is no place for blind beliefs. If anyone wants to make an unscientific allegation to me I feel that it is futile to argue with them.
        3. Leading on from 2 above, it seems to me that conspiracy theory has become a system of beliefs similar to religion or some aspects of politics and economics, where scientific evidence is overruled by belief, this means that you would never have a n evidence -based discussion .

        I do not think you should be ashamed, unless you have been converted to thier total system of beliefs. However I do sometimes think that it is probably better to ignore these discussions once you have made your point because there is a lot of spinning going on and you will be bombarded by more and more links about what ‘experts’ have said.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ SA December 26, 2017 at 07:14
          On 24th December I replied to your comment. You haven’t responded, so I’ll just repeat part of it which clearly cites the US Defence Intelligence Agency suggesting countries should not strictly enforce stringent exposure standards:
          ( http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/WiFi%20-%20a%20Thalidomide%20in%20the%20making%20-%20who%20cares.pdf ):
          I tried to access the DIA site, but all I got from the numbers stated by Barrie Trower was:
          https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=defenseintelligenceagency&query=DST+%E2%80%93+18105%E2%80%90076%E2%80%9076+March+1976&commit=Search
          ‘Defense Intelligence Agency – Official Site
          http://www.dia.mil/
          Provides timely, objective and cogent military intelligence to the warfighters – soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines – and to the decisionmakers and …’ – so clearly they have moved or deleted the original (hardly surprising, once Barrie brought it to the public’s attention – it is extremely damning). But in favour of Barrie’s report being genuine, is the fact that a number of nations (including the UK) have in fact accepted the DIA ‘recommendation’ – ‘…In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline,
          whereby, the only safety limit is just six‐minutes of warming.  Which means:  if you do not
          feel too warm in six minutes, wi‐fi is deemed to be safe…..’.

          Below is the relevant part of Barrie Trower’s report:

          ‘…Finally, the Mobile Telecommunications Industry carried out a very thorough and exhaustive
          scientific study on its own product. This industries conclusion was:
          Sec. 7 “…..it can be concluded that electro‐magnetic fields with frequencies in the
          mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”
          “…..Direct damage on the DNA as well as influences on the DNA synthesis and DNA
          repair mechanisms…..” (7)
          (Note I have underscored the relevant words here.)
          Note: DNA synthesis is essential for healthy embryonic / foetal / child’s growth.
          With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to
          protect this industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a
          ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive
          the public’.
          It read:
          “…..if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of
          stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial
          output…..exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more…..”
          (8)
          NB: Industrial output is of course…profit. A very relaxed exposure standard also makes it
          very difficult to take the industry to court.
          This (and two other documents with ref. 8) then continues to list many physiological and
          neurological dangers from low‐level: below thermal, microwave irradiation inc: blood
          disorders, heart problems, psychiatric symptoms and ‘menstrual disorders’.
          *Wi‐fi is of course, below thermal low‐level microwave irradiation.*
          In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline,
          whereby, the only safety limit is just six‐minutes of warming. Which means: if you do not
          feel too warm in six minutes, wi‐fi is deemed to be safe.
          No consideration at all has been given to the published ‘below thermal’ cellular interaction
          as listed by several countries including the United States; which were (and are) known to
          cause: cancer, severe neuropathological symptoms, foetal defects and literally hundreds of
          illnesses related to cellular disorders…..’

          How damning of our governments and regulatory agencies is that? About the equivalent of Baldrick’s ‘cunning plan’, or Oliver North’s ‘neat trick’; to prove it’s safe, you measure for something you know it will be below (heat rise), but ignore the fact the real danger lies elsewhere – also like NIST – ‘we found no evidence of explosives’, but when asked if they had looked for any evidence, they said no. That is blatantly against the law………’

          So your statement above (SA December 26, 2017 at 07:14), which obviously is intended to include me, is hardly justified, at least in this case:

          ‘…2. There is total disregard for science, scientific evidence, writing and scientists by some, it is placed below what self appointed experts believe in. Science itself has become a tool of conspiracy in their eyes. The discussion then becomes whether you believe in someone or not. Science is evidence based and there is no place for blind beliefs. If anyone wants to make an unscientific allegation to me I feel that it is futile to argue with them….’

          • SA

            Paul
            You seem to be very impatient about getting answers from me. The subject is very complicated and the answers can in no way be provided by continuing to quote second or third hand opinions by Barrie Trower because that is exactly what they are. I am trying to approach this in a scientific way and that means looking at sources that are authoritative and not self appointed ‘experts’ as Barrie Trower is. Here is my assessment of his autobiographical CV:

            “I trained at the Governments Microwave Warfare establishment in 60’s. I worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves.”
            In the 70’s I helped de-brief spies trained in microwave warfare.”

            So far this tells us that this man has experience with microwaves. Microwaves cover a whole spectrum, he does not delve into this and I am sure even his extensive knowledge of microwave in the 60s and 70s were way before ,microwaves became much more generally used. I see no evidence here of someone who has kept up to date actively practicing any form of work on microwaves. This means that he has no first hand experience on what he writes about, just gleaning his experience from what others have said.

            “My first degree is in Physics (I specialised in microwaves)”

            If you are writing a CV for a job application, you would be advised to say what year this degree was and from what university. This puts your expertise into some perspective.

            “My second degree is a research degree.”
            This statement doesn’t mean anything at all as it contains a statement without any evidence.

            “I have a teaching diploma in human physiology.” Again from where?

            “I teach advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.”
            This I believe is a comprehensive school. So, so far we have a schoolteacher who worked in the 60 and 70s on ‘microwaves, which really to me does not place him in the forefront of microwaves and thier effects on health and on genetics both of which are complex subjects that take years to train in.

            Now a lot of the committees formed to look at the problem are formed of a number of real experts in the fields of genetic, microwaves, physics, oncology, medicine, epidemiology and so on because no one person can have a grasp of the whole picture in this complex interaction. To claim otherwise and to claim that you predicted disease and thier cause is almost similar to claiming that you are Napoleon or the messiah in this day and age. So please do not ask me to critique Barrie Trower again, the man is not a reliable source on anything authoritative. It may be that he has fulfilled a valuable function, together with others, in raising awareness but that is where it stops.
            I believe in Science, which means looking not only at what is written but the qualifications of who wrote it, thier track record of original research which includes publications in peer reviewed journals and with adequate references. This is because it is impossible for an individual to read all publications and references within these publications thoroughly. Even some scientific publications can be faulty and this may take time to be discovered.
            So I place my trust in recommendations about certain subjects on institutions such as Cancer Research, The WHO and here is another one an independent International Commission on non-ionizing radiation protection:
            http://www.icnirp.org/

            despite thier affiliation to government and despite other occasional irregularities, because the alternative in my view is a return to prescience days.
            My understanding having reviewed these sources is that there may be risks from mobile phones and base stations and heavy users should take precautions. These risks appear to be rather small and need to be more accurately quantified and more work needs to be done to understand these risks, and studies are underway.
            I know that in your opinion these organisations are discredited, but that is your opinion and belief, and you will neither convince me of your argument nor am I likely to convince you in maters of faith.
            I do thank you for making me look into this a bit more to get myself better informed. Happy new year to you and yours.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA December 26, 2017 at 13:15

            ‘…With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to
            protect this industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a
            ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive
            the public’.
            It read:
            “…..if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of
            stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial
            output…..exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more…..”
            (8)…’
            That is not ‘Barrie Trower’s opinion’, it is copied from the DIA ‘document’.
            And as I explained, the ‘document’ is now not where Barrie reports it was – but to bolster Barrie’s report of it, the ‘guidelines’ have been accepted by a number of nations, including the UK:
            ‘..some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline,
            whereby, the only safety limit is just six‐minutes of warming. Which means: if you do not
            feel too warm in six minutes, wi‐fi is deemed to be safe…..’.
            That is NOT an ‘opinion’; that is the standard the UK accepts, despite knowing that damage is caused without causing such a heat rise (check it out).

          • SA

            “…..if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of
            stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial
            output…..exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more…..”
            (8)…’

            This is an extract from a declassified Defence Intelligence Agency from 1975. The document itself admits that it does not present the whole scientific facts. It generally says that the Soviet bloc was more concerned about detrimental effects of Electromagnetic radiations as they have some experimental proof of this but this has not been replicated in the US. The statement, which is a political one, stateds the possible detrimental effect if this fact was proven, I am not sure that in the context of the whole document, it proves an active conspiracy to suppress facts, just a concern as to what the effect might be. I am not defending this statement but what I am saying is that this document from 1975 was concerned about this effect but there had not been any evidence then and since then the situation has not changed much.
            By the way there may well be some observed biological effects of microwaves in experimental biological systems, but to translate that to actual disease is a different matter. That is something that has to be done either by experiments on humans (difficult) or by prospective carefully carried out studies.
            I do not dispute the need for caution whilst this situation is being studied. I have witnessed several medical conditions where the responses to new diseases were slow but ultimately there was enough momentum to expose the ‘coverup’. Amongst these are the BSI outbreak and the discovery of HIV. I am not surprised that people are anxious but in both these cases, careful studies by professionals revealed the causes. I would however caution relying on scaremongering tactics by non-specialist because this helps nobody.
            Paul I sympathise with what you are trying to do, but I cannot keep looking at Trower’s work and very old references to refute what you are convinced of. I am just saying that the problem is receiving due attention from qualified experts and we should move on and examine new scientific evidence.

        • Node

          I agree with you. I think i have noticed the following phenomena …..

          Then how about talking directly about 911 instead of endlessly discussing the perceived faults of Truthers. We get it already! : We are all unscientific dullards with a conspiracy theory mindset who only believe what we want to believe and reinforce each other’s irrational beliefs and our real motive on this website is to persecute those who disagree with us. Repeating this ad nauseam contributes nothing new, it just clogs up the thread and distracts from relevant debate. Unless, that’s your purpose, move on.

          SA, what do you believe is the strongest piece of evidence in favour of the official narrative – the killer fact that should shut up Truthers once and for all?

          • Clark

            There is no “debate” here because conspiracy theorists such as yourself have already decided upon your preferred conclusion.

            Rather than debate there is merely a battle. That is why conspiracy theorists constantly attack the other commenters, as in the endless repetition of “you don’t understand Newton in practice”, or the insinuation that any non-conspiract theorist “has an infantile need for security” and “cannot imagine that their leaders would kill their own people”. That is why no conspiracy theorists will criticise even contradictory conspiracy theories; the most important objective is to defeat the other side, ie. “the defenders of the official narrative”.

            You can pretend this is not the case all you like, but I have seen; I have learned this right here on this thread. If you cannot see it, then it must be because you cannot see yourself.

          • SA

            Node
            Notice that my comments on 911 are limited, because I claim no expertise in the field. I have my doubts about how 911 happened and who did it and also why more than an hour elapsed between the first and the fourth airplane crash. I have great trouble coming to terms with the fact that the rare occurrence of the collapse of steel framed buildings , something that should be very rare, happened 3 times in one day and allegedly through 3 different mechanisms , damage to central core, fire, and damage by falling masonry in the third. However I know that for me there will be no answer to these questions because there are many ‘experts’ who fail to convince the opposite side. I also have my doubts as to why the first passenger plane to fly out of US carried Saudi Royal family members and also the Saudi complicity was brushed over. I feel there of course there was a conspiracy of some sort, but I do not claim to know the truth about what happened, and neither side of the 911 argument on this thread have convinced me that the answers are starighforward.
            What I have been more exercised about are two sets of conspiracy theories pertaining to vaccination being a dark and sinister plot against the population and that mobile phones are transmitting death rays that will kill mankind. What I have been writing about is a defence against irrationality, because there is no other way to describe it, of these arguments and the association with all other conspiracy theories that go with the ‘truthers’.

            The problem to me is that preoccupations with conspiracies seem to detract from other real issues. Do you realise that over 20,000 people die EVERY DAY as a result of cigarette smoking? Is this not a much bigger problem facing many populations? What about the very well documented fact that Blair lied to parliament and cause the death and destruction that followed and this had no consequence to him, he is only getting richer? What about climate change? What about the great inequalities between rich and poor? What about the fact that we know that the rich control governments and the system is corrupt. What about the occupation of Palestine and its piecemeal dismemberment whilst Egypt and Jordan still have diplomatic relations with the occupiers, why do we blame one side only? And KSA is the biggest nation supporting terrorism in the region but of course they can get away with murder because they own so many assets in UK and US that they have effective power over policy. And who is subsidising ISIS and AQ till this day?

            Sorry the above seems a ranting whataboutery but what I am trying to say is that you do no justice to your cause by not being rigorous about other causes that you support and the mistrust of anything official just because it is will help nobody unless of course our aim is to be anarchists.

          • Clark

            Node, there is no one “killer fact” and no “official narrative”; those are merely delusions entertained by conspiracy theorists such as yourself. Quite clearly, your “killer fact” – I mean yours personally, Node – is “controlled demolition of the Twin Towers”. Absolutely everything you, personally, have argued for months and months, every comment you have posted, has been in support of this one belief. Obviously you think that this one thing is already beyond doubt, and if that could only be “revealed”, by overcoming a biassed effort to suppress knowledge of it, the world would magically become a better place.

            Sorry Node, it’s a fairytale. I am sorry, because there’s no nice way to say it. But such a worldview is just a childish fantasy. It is the same in principle as the nonsense I was brought up with, that a benevolent God is going to make the world into a paradise, in which “revelation of the Truth of controlled demolition” takes the role of the benevolent God.

            The world is actually far more complex than this simplistic model. You are a product of reality, not vice-versa.

          • Node

            SA, thank you for actually addressing my question, and without being abusive. Nobody else has managed either.

            You can see both sides of this debate which is refreshing. Here’s the point I was getting at:

            Let’s call the two sides of this debate “Truthers” (or “conspiracy theorists” if you prefer) and “Believers in the official narrative”. Then it can be said of the 911 debate in general, and it is undoubtedly true of those posting here, that Truthers try to prove their beliefs by offering evidence, while Believers rarely offer any support for the official narrative, they instead attack the Truthers, sometimes their evidence but mostly the Truthers themselves.

            Isn’t this a curious state of affairs? Surely it’s easy to find evidence which supports the the official narrative? The official 911 Commission Report? Well, even the members of it claim it was set up to fail. The NIST report? It doesn’t even answer the few questions it actually asked, never mind the important ones it wasn’t allowed to ask, like how the building collapsed. Bin Laden’s confessions? The names of the hijackers and was their claimed pilot training consistent with what we saw? The explanations for insider trading or the unprecedented breakdown of air defences, or documented advance warnings? Etc etc. I acknowledge that you are not an uncritical supporter of the Official Narrative but as an intellectual excercise, can you cite a single uncontroversial piece of evidence which supports it?

            Do you recognise my characterisation of the 911 debate – that Truthers argue positively and Believers argue negatively? If so, how do you account for it?

          • Clark

            Node, 16:21: frankly, – and I’m sorry to have to say this – your comment seems dishonest. I have presented reams of evidence for all sorts of things. It isn’t my fault that you choose to ignore it, no more than it’s my fault that you ignore complexities and choose to frame the barely-existent debate as “us versus them”.

  • Dave

    I think a better analogy is the voluminous wording to describe modern painting, to explain why its a good painting, when you can see and appreciate a good painting when you see it and so the wording is used to distinguish something that doesn’t deserve such praise, because you wouldn’t need it otherwise. I find Clark’s lengthy comment’s, assuming a solo effort, remarkable really, because they denote knowledge, but reveal a slippery mind due to their dissembling points, such as “objects become relatively more fragile when you scale them up”!

    The base of the Towers were not scaled up to the top, because no need to do so, as a strong base holds up the tower, whereas the bit at the top holds up the aerial. That is they were immensely strong and mentioning relative fragility of the tower compared to a fully scaled up tower is just silly, buts allows the word fragility to be used.

    • John Goss

      I know what you are saying Dave. Some curators go into enormous amounts of speculation, often seeing things which others cannot see, in their visions of what motivated the artist.

      I hope they write a lot about my novel when I complete it. 😀

    • Clark

      “I find Clark’s lengthy comment’s, assuming a solo effort, remarkable really, because they denote knowledge, but reveal a slippery mind due to their dissembling points, such as “objects become relatively more fragile when you scale them up”!”

      Dave suggests that I may be a conspiracy – yet I am repeatedly criticised for referring to such people as conspiracy theorists.

      Dave accuses me of a “slippery mind” for advancing well known, accepted, mainstream physics.

      The conspiracy theorists will not recognise this as abuse, and the moderators are likely to destroy the evidence.

  • John Goss

    “Watch ants carrying leaves many times their own size. That cannot be scaled up. There is a limit to the height to which steel buildings can be constructed; beyond that, you’d need stronger materials. Your repeated endorsement of Cole’s experiments demonstrate your ignorance of these facts.”

    The ants analogy is nonsense. First of all they are living creatures. We are discussing engineering and science!

    My endorsement of Cole’s experiments is because what he says is based in science.

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

    You should try it Clark. He invites people to prove him wrong by experiment. My beer-can analogy is an experiment. The only scaling link you have provided was a Wikipedia page. Fine. But I suspect you did not understand it like you did not understand Judy Wood’s Billiard Ball article. Problems with scaling apply by and large to fluid situations.

    You are so convinced by your own theories which are never supported by either maths or experiment. Archimedes saw something when he got into the bath. From it he could create a principle which became universally accepted. For him it was fluid displacement. For me it is beer-cans. For you it is doughnuts.

    But these experiments have to work in practice or they are wrong.

  • Nikko

    Clark on Dec 26 @02.30
    Knowing the limits of one’s knowledge is a vital technical skill. It is important to not pretend that we know things which we don’t. ………. That’s one of my big complaints about this thread; people repeatedly claim to know things which they clearly don’t know, and don’t have understanding of.

    I could not agree more. Although the comments were directed at Truthers, they apply equally to the Defenders of the Official Line. The onus of proof must be on the Defenders because sustained, progressive, gravity only collapse in a steel structure as happened 3 times on 9/11 is a new phenomenon, whereas controlled demolition is a proved method used hundreds and thousands of times.

    So far the proof of progressive collapse offered by the Defenders can be summarized as follows:
    1) The internal floors collapsed ahead of the main structure as evidenced by squibs. No other explanation for the squibs was considered
    2) No explanation at all of where the forces to tear the vertical structure (columns and perimeter) apart came from
    3) Material was ejected laterally at great speed as the collapse progressed because the Towers “swung” like a skater who loses grip
    4) The remnants of the core remaining standing for a short time after the main collapse disappeared vertically downwards because they folded as a chain

    Are these the most persuasive arguments for a progressive collapse?

    Instead of working on their arguments the Defenders invest huge amounts of time arguing incorrectly and largely irrelevantly against Woods billiard ball analogy. A long thread on this topic started on 20 Dec but has been deleted by the mods. Why?

    • Clark

      I am not a “defender of the official line”. That you call me one demonstrates that you are a conspiracy theorist. Therefore you will not debate, you will merely battle, trying to defeat me personally, so that you may defeat what you see as the conspiracy. I therefore decline.

      • Dave

        You keep saying conspiracy theorist, which I understand was a term coined by the CIA to describe those who questioned the official line over JFK’s assassination. You say you are not a defender of the official line, which technically is probably true, as spontaneous combustion due to shock theory is too audacious even for them.

        • George

          It’s a neat trick used by a certain poster here, isn’t it? Keep emphasising “conspiracy theory” so that you have something to attack. But say there is no “official account” so that you have nothing to defend.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ George December 26, 2017 at 19:35
            Not really a ‘neat trick’. Should have been sussed long long ago. If I am right in whom you are referring to, he has stated he would like this 9/11 thread to be terminated.
            If the squabbles continue, it would not surprise me if that occurs.
            So, IGNORE it. Don’t respond, even if it ‘appears’ to be ‘reasonable’. It will rapidement become a slanging match.
            Just my take, but then of course it must be remembered I’m merely a ‘conspiracy theorist’ (and proud of it!)

          • Clark

            I say “conspiracy theorist” because it seems a very appropriate term. The people I call conspiracy theorists attempt to invalidate any evidence that contradicts their theories by claiming that such evidence or research is the work of a conspiracy.

            And yes, I am now ashamed of this thread, on which I reopened comments when I was a moderator on this site. With people like Paul Barbara encouraging people to put their children at risk of serious diseases by not having them vaccinated, I feel ashamed, and responsible. Paul Barbara simply refuses to consider contradictory evidence and research; he simply will not examine it.

          • Clark

            And remember that Chomsky unearthed a CIA memo, recommending that classified information about the Kennedy assassination be released in dribs and drabs, specifically to fuel conspiracy theories.

            So obviously, conspiracy theorising works to the advantage of the secret agencies. I come here and try to alert people to this, but the conspiracy theorists unite against me.

          • Clark

            I’d ask you to be direct rather than insinuate, but I guess that would give your game away and get your comments deleted.

      • Nikko

        You are going further than NIST because you are theorising about the mechanism of the collapse, while they stopped at the onset. Clearly they knew when to stop but you go on with waffle and dodgy science. That also makes you a theorist. I would not have a problem being called a theorist, conspiracy or otherwise, but in this case it is not appropriate as I have not presented a theory.

        • Clark

          You have not referred to a theory, but you do refer to “the official narrative”, which means that you deny that there has been academic debate about the collapses, and that instead the academic consensus of progressive collapse was imposed and is maintained by an ongoing conspiracy of officialdom. But if you would look for the academic debate, you would find it.

  • SA

    Let us for the sake of trying to explain the unexplainable try a new hypothesis. If you have skyscrapers of over 40 floors you will have to either ensure that nothing will make them topple over, or if in extremis they threaten to do, then you might include in the design of the building a requirement that it should ‘implode’. This would protect whole neighborhoods from the effect of an uncontrolled sideways topple with much more far reaching consequences. Let us then say that this would really be a factor that those using the buildings impossible to live with and not many would accept this. Therefore if this requirement is secret it would prevent widespread panic but would ensure the long term safety should serious but extremely rare accidents happen. Now 911 was such a rare occurrence but had been thought of as a possible happening. How does this appeal?

    • Peter Beswick

      And that’s why airliners that develop sticky landing gear blow up in the air or are carried to an uncharted part of the ocean for their final resting place.

    • Nikko

      The only event that could topple a building is an earthquake. Would you implode a building to a protect a neighborhood when the whole neighborhood is affected?

    • Clark

      SA, there are strong parallels between the conspiracy theorists’ (CTs) position on the studies of the building collapses, and the subjects you mentioned earlier; vaccines and microwaves.

      The building collapses have been studied and discussed extensively by the academic and professional physics and structural engineering communities. The widespread consensus is that there is nothing remotely strange about the top-down progressive collapses of the Twin Towers, but that the sudden collapse of WTC7 is a much greater technical challenge to understand.

      As with vaccines and microwaves, the conspiracy theorist community simply ignore this, and dismiss the scientific community as being under the control of an incredibly powerful conspiracy. They treat any technical discussion as “government disinformation”, and refuse to look at academic sources. Most of them haven’t even read NIST NCSTAR1, the report which they dismiss as the product of a conspiracy by engineers to deliberately cover up mass murder.

      I have tried to help on this thread, by presenting a likely collapse sequence for the Twin Towers, linking to professionals in various fields. This is ignored at the time by the CTs, and later denied. My efforts seem to provoke more resentment than anything. I present completely mainstream physics, but it is dismissed with insults. I am repeatedly accused of ignorance of Newton’s laws, like accusing a medical professional of ignorance of respiration or circulation of the blood.

      The CTs’ theories contradict each other, but they simply act as if that wasn’t happening, and instead consistently back each other up against me.

      I will explain the collapse sequence to you if you wish; it is very clear that if the top sections of the Twin Towers began to descend, the Twin Towers would undergo accelerating collapse. The entire sequence as observed and extensively recorded photographically and on video is entirely consistent with progressive collapse and the design of the buildings; there is no mystery whatsoever. But if I do start explaining to you, I expect there will be an enormous uproar from the CTs. My experience shows that they will raise objection after spurious objection, with many insults of my competence, and attempt to make sensible discussion impossible. But I will try to discuss the matter with you if you wish.

      • Nikko

        The building collapses have been studied and discussed extensively by the academic and professional physics and structural engineering communities. The widespread consensus is that there is nothing remotely strange about the top-down progressive collapses of the Twin Towers, but that the sudden collapse of WTC7 is a much greater technical challenge to understand.

        Care to support that with some evidence?

        I present completely mainstream physics, but it is dismissed with insults
        Beg to differ. You present fanciful descriptions without any supporting evidence. If you actually did what you claim you do we might get somewhere.

        …it is very clear that if the top sections of the Twin Towers began to descend, the Twin Towers would undergo accelerating collapse.

        It is far from clear why that would be the case to those who studied O’level physics. Please explain using accepted physics.

        The entire sequence as observed and extensively recorded photographically and on video is entirely consistent with progressive collapse………

        It is far from “entirely consistent”, particularly that such collapses have not been witnessed before.
        Your use of expressions such as “it is clear”, “inevitably follows”, “entirely consistent”, etc is no substitute for a proper, scientific proof.

        Live up to your ideals!

        • Clark

          The evidence is there. I am sick of everything I present being met with insults and disguised insults. I’m not here to spoon-feed others, especially if they keep spitting it out to keep themselves from so much as tasting it. Go look it up for yourself.

      • John Goss

        “I will explain the collapse sequence to you if you wish; it is very clear that if the top sections of the Twin Towers began to descend, the Twin Towers would undergo accelerating collapse. The entire sequence as observed and extensively recorded photographically and on video is entirely consistent with progressive collapse and the design of the buildings; there is no mystery whatsoever. But if I do start explaining to you, I expect there will be an enormous uproar from the CTs. My experience shows that they will raise objection after spurious objection, with many insults of my competence, and attempt to make sensible discussion impossible. But I will try to discuss the matter with you if you wish.”

        If I replaced “progressive collapse” with “nuclear event” and conspiracy theroists with “supporters of the official view” the praagraph would sort of work. But it would still be waffle. The main difference would be that it would be workable waffle. Why don’t you construct something to show how it would progressively collapse? Then people might be interested. But interpretations of photographs and video footage mean nothing. You claim to have some science and engineering. If you simply want to present Bazant to us as you interpret his progressive collapse crush up crush down theories we can read them for ourselves on sites like this.

        http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php

        But I will try to discuss the matter with you if you wish.

        If it is more of the waffle that you have subjected so many to up to now it is useless. It has to be based in science. That’s why John Goss said of experiments like those of Jonathan H Cole:

        “You should try it Clark. He invites people to prove him wrong by experiment.”

        Give it a go.

        • Clark

          “Why don’t you construct something to show how it would progressively collapse?”

          I must have explained that a dozen times – because of the completely mainstream, fully accepted scaling problem, which in defiance of mainstream physics, you deny exists. I do not have the resources to build three or four 22m by 100mm concrete floor slabs supported at 3.8m intervals on a steel frame. You know I can’t do that, yet you keep demanding, effectively, that I do, which effectively obstructs the progress of the debate. It is like asking a doctor to prove that the smallpox vaccine has value by showing that smallpox can kill people who haven’t been vaccinated.

          As a compromise, I can offer you this. The following structure could support a fair mass on its top shelf, or the steel frame could take even more:

          http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/glass-shelves.jpg

          I don’t intend to buy one just to destroy it, but it seems entirely feasible that such a mass could accelerate while smashing down through the shelves, if dropped from somewhat above the top shelf.

          “If you simply want to present Bazant to us as you interpret his progressive collapse crush up crush down theories we can read them for ourselves on sites like this”

          How many times do I have to write the same thing? My opinion is that Bazant is wrong. I’ve written that multiple times before, but still you claim that I’d refer you to Bazant. Node will probably now accuse me of being abusive, but I am fed up with repeating myself and being ignored, so…

          MY OPINION IS THAT BAZANT IS WRONG

          Did you read that John? Just in case you’re in doubt of what I meant there, I mean I that think Bazant is not right; in other words, that Bazant is wrong. Got it? Bazant – wrong – Bazant – wrong -Bazant -wrong. Is that too much like waffle?

          I see you referred to Cole again. That means you’re still denying the scaling problem, in defiance of mainstream physics. Nikko and Peter Beswick could confirm this, but I predict that they won’t.

      • SA

        Clark
        I have so far tried to stay away from the 911 controversy for a number of reasons. Sadly I have now been drawn to it and you are right, many of the truthers also believe in the vaccine conspiracy and anything else that goes. I hate the term Truthers because although not said it implies that the rest are liars. It also has a sort of cultic connotation together with the blind belief in other conspiracies which I know much more about. I don’t think a further explanation by you on this blog is advisable because it will stir a lot of comments. I might instead contact you through your email on your website if that is OK. I think I may have upset a lot of people here by what I have written and truly I do not mean to offend anyone.

        • glenn_uk

          Wait until you get called a dupe, government stooge, possibly an agent, “sheeple” at best, because you don’t absolutely believe that Sandy Hook was a “false-flag” operation, with crisis actors etc., and not a massacre of schoolchildren by some nut with a gun. Same with Las Vegas. Same with Paris, Nice, and just about every terrorist action in recent years.

          Oh yes, don’t forget global warming! The latter has been wisely identified (by Senator Jim Inhofe) as a plot cooked up by the “Hollywood Elite”, and Trump figured out it was all a plot by China. People here reckon the nuclear industry is behind the supposed hoax. Others think it’s that mighty green lobby which is controlling everything these days.

          This is the point at which some of us get more than a little exasperated, because it’s clear that anything not right out of the Conspiracy Theorists’ imagination must be a lie. Scientists are all liars, and every person on the public payroll is in on it. So is everyone who doesn’t agree with the CTs.

        • Nikko

          I don’t think a further explanation by you on this blog is advisable because it will stir a lot of comments.

          I would actually like to be able to agree with Clark that the Towers came down by themselves. Stay here and may be you can help us make sense of what happened.

          • Clark

            I find it very hard to believe that you would “like to be able to agree”, because you have consistently tried to invalidate every point I have made, repeatedly ridiculed me personally, and repeatedly denied facts that we had previously established.

          • Clark

            SA, in the meantime, here are some senior mechanical engineers:

            Asif Usmani, Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Edinburgh:
            https://undicisettembre.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html

            Charles Clifton, professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Auckland:
            https://undicisettembre.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html

            Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Iranian-American structural engineer and professor at University of California, Berkeley:
            http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

            Charles Thornton, structural engineer; “the buildings were shit”:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2jAgp1slFM

            Senior New York fire professionals:
            http://www.oilempire.us/wtc-design.html

            This is some of the evidence and testimony that the CTs claim I never post, and that repeated, dishonest denial is one of the reasons that I call them CTs – they claim that all of these professionals must be working for the alleged conspiracy.

          • Nikko

            Clark, I am surprised that you are posting again the Professor Usmani interview. Do you not remember that we have discussed this before and Usmani was shown to be completely devious.

            Undicisettembre: What do you think about conspiracy theories that claim that the collapse of WTC7 was too fast to be caused by fire and damages from the previous collapses?

            Asif Usmani: Again this contradicts basic physics. Whether the collapse is caused by controlled demolition or because of fire there will be little difference in the time it takes as gravity rules once the collapse starts and as mentioned earlier buildings are not designed to resist inertial forces exerted by moving masses.

            An O’level student, nevermind a professor of structural engineering, should know that a freely moving object at free fall cannot exert any force whatsoever.

            His point that there is no difference between a controlled demolition and a natural progressive collapse once the collapse starts is also completely wrong and misleading because in a controlled demolition resistance to the collapse is removed by explosives whereas in the natural collapse the upper structure has to destroy the structure below.

            Is this the best you can find. If I remember right, Clifton is similarly devious. I’ll check out the others later.

          • Clark

            “An O’level student, nevermind a professor of structural engineering, should know that a freely moving object at free fall cannot exert any force whatsoever. […] in a controlled demolition resistance to the collapse is removed by explosives whereas in the natural collapse the upper structure has to destroy the structure below.”

            Sorry, but this is a false Truther soundbite. Buildings that are explosively demolished rarely descend at free-fall. Note that the buildings known to be explosively demolished all fell slower than did WTC7; ie. less storeys in the same time:

            https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WTC7+and+controlled+demolition+side+by+side

            Usmani was imprecise, but not deceptive. Gravity and destruction of materials work against each other whether a collapse is initiated explosively or otherwise.

          • Nikko

            Have you forgotten that insults are against forum rules?

            “Gravity and destruction of materials work against each other whether a collapse is initiated explosively or otherwise.”

            You are wrong! A progressive collapse is analogous to you standing on a chair which gives way under you. Your weight has to destroy the chair and make its way through it to the ground. A controlled demolition is like when the chair is kicked out from under you

            In a controlled demolition the rate at which the building structure is removed can be controlled so your point about the speed of collapse is meaningless..

          • Clark

            Eh? I’m sorry if you felt insulted; I had no intention to insult. I assume your objection must be to “Truther sound-bite”. Categorisations of people and ideologies are always imprecise, but too useful to be eliminated from conversation. I also have little idea of how you may categorise yourself. There certainly seem to be a collection of what I have referred to as “Truther sound-bites”; they are short, easily expressed memes, chosen, apparently, for their persuasive power.

            There is an idea that in a controlled demolition, the parts of the building immediately after explosives are detonated experience no resistance during the ensuing collapse. This is false, but it has been promoted by, for want of a better description, the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement”.

            If you listen to actual demolition designers, they say that the explosives “just get the building moving” (imprecise, but linguistic descriptions are never perfect) after which the weight of dismembered parts break each other into smaller parts – this process is responsible for the dust and roar that follow detonation. The truth of this is demonstrated by the videos I linked, which show WTC7 side-by-side with known demolitions which clearly accelerated slower, since they fell less storeys in the same time. The dismembered parts following detonation must be experiencing resistance, or they would fall at g.

            Controlling the overall speed of collapse in explosive demolition would seem pointless. Presumably, other matters would be prioritised; safety and containment of destruction firstly, I’d have thought, followed by minimisation of explosives, and breaking up the structure as much as possible. Demolition designers I have listened to have said that they try to use the building’s own weight to break up the structure.

            The above implies that the ideal rate of collapse in a controlled demolition is considerably less than at g. Too slow, and the demolition may not complete, leaving a wreck which would be too dangerous to approach. Too fast, and the materials will not be broken up enough, leaving excess work to be done.

          • Nikko

            Clark, even you accept that the rate of destruction in a controlled demolition can be controlled so the speed of collapse at less than g is does not mean anything.

            But WTC 7 collapsed at g for a significant period of time during which time there was no energy left to collapse the undisturbed structure underneath.

          • Clark

            g and free-fall are separate but related concepts. g is a specific rate of uniform acceleration, which occurs during free-fall.

            It therefore is not necessarily the case that “there was no energy left to collapse the undisturbed structure underneath”. This would only be true if all the structure was free-falling. But we cannot see the base of the building, and we cannot see within the façade.

            We do not have a good explanation for the collapse of WTC7, but the Truther meme that acceleration at g proves explosives must be false, because demolitions with explosives do not generally fall at g.

            We do not see detonations at every structural joint of WTC7 at onset collapse nor during collapse. This leaves a number of possibilities.

            Maybe the measurement of acceleration is somehow wrong. Maybe all explosive charges were positioned so low as to be obscured by surrounding buildings. Maybe the internal collapse (evidenced by early descent of penthouse structures) pulled down on the outer façade, supplying additional energy. Maybe a combination of these, or something else entirely.

          • Nikko

            Clark. Your physics lesson is wrong. “g” is acceleration due to gravity and equals 9.81m/s/s/ . So, when I say an object accelerated at g it means that it accelerated at 9.81m/s/s and was, therefore, in freefall.

            It is absolutely the case that a falling object at freefall is not able to exert any force on the supporting structure below.

          • Clark

            That is not true Nikko. God does not watch over the Earth preventing acceleration at 9.81m/s/s unless gravity is doing it.

            To be in free-fall an object must be acted upon by gravity alone. Contact or connection to objects with different motion will exert forces; forces other than gravity.

            The video record of WTC7’s descent shows that internal structure fell before the façade. On what evidence do you assert that the entire internal structure had separated from the façade? If you do not assert that, then you must accept that the internal structure exerted forces on the façade. We could also consider the contact between the façade and the ground.

            The roof line may have accelerated at around g, but clearly the visible section of building was not free-falling.

          • Nikko

            What you are saying makes no sense. Even NIST admitted that the WTC 7 collapse reached freefall acceleration for a number of seconds. Take it up with them.

    • Clark

      I have never denied conspiracies.

      You deny that there are conspiracy theorists, ie. people who strive to invalidate all argument and evidence that contradict their theories by claiming it to be disinformation produced by their alleged conspiracy.

    • John Goss

      Thanks for that Node. I like the quote at the end:

      “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
      -Arthur Schopenhauer

      Thankfully there are only one or two on this thread who are still in stages one and two over 9/11. The rest of us have seen the self-evidence from the get-go.

      • glenn_uk

        Quotes are always nice when they appear to suit one’s purposes. But in this case, are you actually trying to prove that everything that’s ridiculed and opposed turned out to be true?

        On the contrary, this is an genuine example of “begging the question” – it assumes the conclusion as a precept. This might work just fine (in this example) for something we already know to be true, but the first and second stages are most certainly not an indicator of the likely truthfulness of a proposition!

        I do hope you can see that. In which case, the quote serves absolutely no function at all.

        • John Goss

          The quote certainly served the purpose of the ten examples cited in the article.

          Only time, and a proper thorough scientific investigation, will show when stage three for 9/11 is universally accepted.

    • SA

      Node
      Thanks for the link. It is very illustrative of a few facts. The first is how wierd the US has become. Blood transfusions from youths to rich billionaires to keep them young? The second is that the existence of a lot of these ‘conspiracies’ have been well known for a long time but have now come up in the open. For example the sexual exploitation of women and minors, we have had the big scandals since Saville but they still keep coming up in dribs and there is still a lot of obfuscation going on about the historical cases that are being covered up. We all knew for years about the CIA involvement in illegal drugs and arms trafficking and most people reading this blog know about the supply of arms to Syrian rebels of all hues of moderation. So this list is not very surprising.

      What we also know but has not resulted in acknowledgement and action is that Blair deliberately lied to parliament and the nation, but despite this nothing has happened to him. We know about the collusion between the west and Israel on the one hand and Arab states such as KSA and the wrecking of the ME. We know that all the economic policies are geared towards making the rich richer and we know that austerity is a policy choice for suppression rather than a necessity. We know that over 20,000 individuals die daily of smoking related illness (over 7 million worldwide a year) and yet tobacco companies are allowed to continue to sell this lethal poison and not many people appear to be exercised about this. I don’t see mass demonstration about exterminations and genocide which is totally preventable.

      So what does all this tell you? It says to me that there are conspiracies around us all the time but it is only when the price in terms of bad publicity affecting pockets and conversion by the gatekeeper press to stand against the conspiracies that they will successfully be exposed and acknowledged.

      As I said earlier I am a 911 ‘skeptic, neither a truther nor a believer. I have to admit that I have not avidly read everything that has been written about 911 because it is impossible to do so and there are other issues. I find it difficult to believe that either narrative is completely convincing and it is not because I do not think our governments are incapable of carrying out these atrocities but on the contrary because I cannot credit them with such competence as to carry out such complex procedures without something somewhere expose this. Witness how the Iraq war was bungled in every respect to give one example. I also detect that there are ‘truthers’ who will accept any ‘conspiracy’ at face value just because it is anti government and anti establishment. I prefer to judge every incident on its own merits and not to join any camps. Having said all that I am quite willing to be convinced one way or another but what I feel is that there is a lot of bad feelings being generated amongst a group of people who should really discuss in a rational way.

  • Clark

    Nikko, if you truly wish to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed, then I apologise for my earlier remark. I spent years not really daring to consider progressive collapse, because of the strength of the apparent consensus on this very thread. But of course the commenters here are a self-selected sample.

    But when Tomk was here (you can find his comments on much earlier pages), he was in a minority of two, and I complained at other commenters to stop them throwing irrelevances at him, because he clearly was an engineer and I wanted to hear what he had to say, and to learn from him. I think he was mistaken about his own politics; he claimed to be a libertarian, but he seemed much too trusting of the US government to be a libertarian. A couple of things he said really stuck, though I can only think of one right now – I have head full of cold or flu, and have to pack up and drive some four hundred miles in a few minutes. He said:

    “Lose the geometry, lose the building”. And of course, that’s right:

    “Charles Clifton: Before giving this explanation I’ve got to give some details of the nature of the construction of the buildings, because that’s pivotal for the collapse sequence. WTC1 had a perimeter frame around the four sides of the building that took all the lateral loading; in conjunction with a network of columns in the middle of the building, called the core, that took one half of the vertical loading from the floors. So there was a core in the center and a very stiff and strong box around the outside, and then the floors spanned between the core and the perimeter frame. The core was gravity only, so it was designed to take half of the vertical load of the floors and to provide support for all the services. The perimeter frame was a network of very close steel columns and deep beams to carry the lateral loading and so was extremely stiff and strong in-plane. Both the perimeter frame and the core are supported off each other at intervals up the height of the building by the floors; when you have vertical elements carrying the weight of a building you have to provide lateral support to these at regular intervals to stop them from buckling. Typically this support comes from the floors which are rigid elements that tie the building together, at each floor level.”

    https://undicisettembre.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html

    Season’s greetings Nikko.

    • Nikko

      Season’s greetings to you too, Clark.

      “Lose the geometry, lose the building”.

      That is a perfectly valid statement but what does “losing the building” mean exactly? Does it mean the destruction and fragmentation of the building all the way to the ground or perhaps just a localised buckling of the perimeter walls. In both cases the building would be lost but the collapse would be very different.

      Not sure why you quoted the Charles Clifton description. There is a lot which is plain wrong in the bit you quote but let’s ignore that. He goes on to say:

      “So there was this very light floor construction, very stiff external frame and quite a dense network of columns in the middle: half of the load from the floor goes inward and into the core and the other half goes out into the perimeter frame.

      What happened with the World Trade Center 1 is that the plane hit between the 93rd and the 99th floors, flying pretty much level and cut straight though the perimeter frame. The floors offered effectively no resistance to the plane at all and so the core took much of the impact, so the plane destroyed a large chunk of the core immediately at impact and severely weakened the rest of it.”
      ….The loads from the upper floors that under normal conditions would have been transmitted to the core had to find another path so they tried to go out to the perimeter frame, this started to increasingly overload the connections between the floors and the perimeter frame; so the floors started to try and hang off to the perimeter frame. The connections started to be overloaded in all of the floors above the impact zone until finally something gave way

      No problem with the first paragraph but in the second paragraph he completely ignores the perimeter as a barrier to the plane’s impact and assumes that a large junk of the core was severed. There is no evidence for that but even if that is what happened his description of the floors collapsing in the last paragraph is unrealistic and wrong. If the core columns were severed by the horizontal impact of the plane, there is no mechanism which would detach the floors from the columns above the impact point as he claims and they would remain attached to the core and the perimeter.

      But the perimeter and core on the impact side of the building have been severed and the whole weight of the upper structure is now resting on the remaining columns and perimeter on the undamaged side of the building. The upper structure is not supported symmetrically and will exert a bending moment on the remaining supports. Depending on the extent of the damage, toppling of the upper structure could be envisaged.

      Whatever his qualifications are, Clifton’s answers are waffly and sometimes plain wrong. He presents unsubstantiated opinions, not proof.

      You criticise Dr Wood’s hypothetical example to prove what did not happen on grounds of asymmetry that have no impact on the outcome of the calculation, yet you swallow this waffle. Why? What happened to your critical thinking?

      • Clark

        “…assumes that a large junk of the core was severed. There is no evidence for that…”

        Clifton cites evidence:

        “There are some cellphone recordings of people who subsequently died, they were trapped at the top of the North Tower, who said that at the moment of the impact the center of the building sank slightly and made getting into the lifts and the stairs impossible immediately”

        This may also be consistent with the antenna starting to descend momentarily before the rest of the top section.

        “there is no mechanism which would detach the floors from the columns above the impact point as he claims”

        I think you’re right here, and Clifton describes this bit wrong. He also wrote:

        “Because all of the floors above the impact zone were close to the point of failure it would have taken just one small event to trigger a near simultaneous collapse of each floor. The floors fell down inside the perimeter frames, portions of which remained standing for a few seconds before they collapsed in on top of the void where the floors had been”

        In fact we see the whole top section begin to descend. Clifton should have related this to his own first point, ie. the upper section of core fell somewhat until it was hanging by the floors which were in turn hanging from the perimeter.

        I linked Clifton mainly for his description of the geometry, the interdependent functions of the various components. The collapsing floors bit is indeed vague and appears wrong, but at least it’s relevant, whereas Wood’s BBE seems to deliberately avoid relevance.

        • Nikko

          Glad we agree that Clifton is wrong. He is relevant only in the sense that his progressive collapse scenario did not happen.

          Wood calculated the theoretical minimum times for a pancaking collapse. Examined together with the observed collapse times shows that pancaking was impossible which makes her work highly relevant.

          • Clark

            “Wood calculated the theoretical minimum times for a pancaking collapse”

            No, YOU calculated that, Nikko, and it was some 12.5 seconds. What Wood calculated is relevant to nothing in the real world. Wood’s phoney physics predict that the following collapses happen impossibly fast:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

            Why do you still support Wood?

          • Nikko

            I should have been more precise and said that Wood calculated the theoretical minimum times for a pancaking collapse for various scenarios. I calculated the collapse times for different scenarios.

            As I have said many times, Wood is useful because she lays out the mechanics of a pancaking collapse which shows it to be unrealistic when compared to the reality of the collapse

          • John Goss

            “As I have said many times, Wood is useful because she lays out the mechanics of a pancaking collapse which shows it to be unrealistic when compared to the reality of the collapse”

            Exactly. The reality of the collapse appeared to defy Newtonian physics unless there was structural weakness lower down.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you should know that that is ridiculous.

            The most obvious inadequacy of Wood’s BBE is that she made the same mistake as you initially made with your spreadsheet; she starts with just one floor slab impacting another, when in fact the whole top section began to descend.

            The second inadequacy is more subtle. Let’s take the reasonable assumption that similar objects in collision suffer similar damage. Now we consider such a collision in slow motion. The falling and stationary slabs come into mutual contact. The equal and opposite forces they exert on each other begin to rise. Both slabs begin to flex or compress, but the opposing forces continue to rise, and soon the limit is reached and at least one slab breaks.

            If the upper, falling slab breaks first, the equal and opposing forces will rise a bit more until the lower slab breaks. Maybe they will break each other some more, but when the lower slab is sufficiently broken to no longer provide connection to the frame, the upward force the slab was exerting will decrease rapidly as momentum is shared, tailing off to zero as the slab’s velocity equalises with the falling matter.

            Woods assumption of total pulverisation is simply not going to happen because breakage must necessarily pre-empt it.

            Wood’s BBE may be discarded on this theoretical ground, and on the empirical ground that it predicts unreasonably long collapse times which are never remotely approached in real vérinage demolitions.

            Those who continue to promote BBE are merely advertising their own ignorance and/or irrationality.

          • John Goss

            “Woods assumption of total pulverisation is simply not going to happen because breakage must necessarily pre-empt it.”

            It was not an “assumption” it was an “observation”.

            We went through all this last week and you were shown to have not understood what she was saying. Now you have reverted to the old Killickian meme that she was wrong in her theoretical examples. She was not wrong. They were based on Newton. If you do not understand that you cannot possibly understand Newton.

          • Clark

            It is not an observation, it is a misrepresentation or a fabrication; a means of deception. Have you never actually watched the collapse videos? For the umpteenth time, the dust cloud was produced at internal collapse TERMINATION. Had all the floors been pulverised mid-fall, as Judy Wood dishonestly claims, it would all have been in the air already and there would have been none left to make the final enormous dust cloud.

            And yes, I DO understand Newton. It seems to be you that doesn’t understand plain English, nor when you’re being tricked, “blinded with science” by Judy Wood.

          • Nikko

            “The most obvious inadequacy of Wood’s BBE is that she made the same mistake as you initially made with your spreadsheet; she starts with just one floor slab impacting another, when in fact the whole top section began to descend.”

            It is not a mistake but an assumption. Despite the waffle scenario you described, I do actually agree with you that 100% pulverisation is unrealistic and that is why I introduced partial pulverisation. We have been through this umpteen times. No matter how you look at it, pancaking collapse does not agree with the reality of the actual collapse so did not happen.

  • John Goss

    “As a compromise, I can offer you this. The following structure could support a fair mass on its top shelf, or the steel frame could take even more:

    http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/glass-shelves.jpg

    I don’t intend to buy one just to destroy it, but it seems entirely feasible that such a mass could accelerate while smashing down through the shelves, if dropped from somewhat above the top shelf.”

    This sums your science up: “fair mass”, “could even take more”, “seems entirely feasible” and “somewhat above”. It also shows why you cannot get your head round physics.

    I could do your experiment for you without buying any glass shelf unit. But I won’t. As it is your experiment you could do it. I think you will be very surprised by the results. I think I could predict what they would be.

    You just need panes of glass which you could probably get from a recycling site, or Ebay,

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3mm-Horticultural-Greenhouse-Glass-Panes-Sheets-Various-Sizes-Windows-Glazing-/192279330418

    You need some wooden posts which you could probably get from the same place, some clips:

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Greenhouse-Glass-Pane-Fixing-Clips-FREE-DELIVERY/112451137526

    Fix the clips to the wooden posts and you can start your experiments without breaking a glass cabinet. I can tell you Clark, if your understood how Newton’s third works in practice, you would see why your model would not work. I do not think ten panes (slightly smaller) dropped on the top shelf would break that. I might be wrong. But if it did the loss of momentum from the equal reaction would ensure the second shelf did not break. Using wooden posts you would be able to get a more accurate reflection of the twin towers than your cabinet which has the shelves proportionately more widely spread. Your idea. Over to you.

    • John Goss

      By the way. If the glass did break it would not disintegrate into powder and the supporting posts would not disintegrate with them. You would need something like a nuclear event to do that.

      • Clark

        “I do not think ten panes (slightly smaller) dropped on the top shelf would break that. I might be wrong”.

        In fact you’re not even wrong. A moment’s thought should have told you that it depends on the height you drop them from.

        “But if it did the loss of momentum from the equal reaction would ensure the second shelf did not break”

        No. Use the momentum formulae and you can calculate that the loss of velocity in an inelastic collision between a mass of ten m and a mass of m is less than one tenth of the impact velocity. Whether such a collapse accelerates or decelerates depends on the vertical spacing – wider spacing leads to greater acceleration.

        “If the glass did break it would not disintegrate into powder”

        If your stack of glass was 415 metre high with 3.8 metre spacing, you’d get plenty of ground and powdered glass produced as the collapse hit bottom. The process is called “commutation” I think, and the theory is used in mining, quarrying and the milling of minerals, relating energy of crushing to distribution of particle size. It’s perfectly standard stuff; you need to look it up and redo the calculations if you think the “official narrative” has it wrong.

        • Nikko

          “Use the momentum formulae and you can calculate that the loss of velocity in an inelastic collision between a mass of ten m and a mass of m is less than one tenth of the impact velocity. Whether such a collapse accelerates or decelerates depends on the vertical spacing – wider spacing leads to greater acceleration.”

          You are talking only about the loss of velocity due to conservation of momentum. In the real world material has to be broken so the velocity losses will be much greater.

          Why has no supporter of the pancaking collapse theory ever presented numbers to justify it?

    • Nikko

      A brick or some other heavy weight could easily break through a series of glass shelves. There is no need to demonstrate that.

      The result I would like to see from this experiment is the breaking of the shelves leading to fragmentation and destruction of the side supports

  • Peter Beswick

    The debate has shone light on an interesting aspect of the 9/11 atrocity …….. Why people believe what they do.

    Or probably more correctly why do people believe what they want to believe.

    With 9/11 there is a powerful motivator for denial. The US government took part in the mass murder of its citizens. Not easy to digest is it?

    But when you consider they had no problem wiping out millions in the Middle East to further their cause, were 3000 US souls such a terrible sacrifice?

    But its not just the motive of the denial its the mechanism that permits the delusion to endure which abrogates reason.

    It goes like this. I can see how an aircraft impact combined with a ferocious fuel fire could weaken the structures of the towers to such an extent that they collapsed with 360 deg symmetry in free fall …. Therefore explosives were not used!

    Even if impact, fire and heat could bring the buildings down in the manner observed (which is not possible) why does that preclude the use of explosives?

    And its that question that the deniers cannot answer despite there being evidence from witness accounts, video and forensic clues to their use.

    Q. How do you know explosives were not used?
    A. Because they were not needed!

    Not good enough I am afraid. The evidence for explosives is there to see and hear (and smell from some witness accounts). Get used to it!

    • glenn_uk

      Seems like you’re very good at catagorising people, so help me out here….

      What if a person pretty much accepted the event at face value at first, but then decided a year or so later that 9/11 was the product of a controlled demolition. So obviously we can skip that little lecture about needing to accept how governments can lie, kill and so on (gosh – do they really? Well I never!) because clearly they’re not so child-like in their trust of officialdom.

      Then, as the years go on, that same person – by confronting the evidence and the paucity of information supporting their position that 9/11 was a controlled demolition event – they are forced to conclude that (for the twin towers at least) they were wrong.

      Kind of difficult, isn’t it? It’s not possible to call them a “true believer” or patronise them about how governments operate anymore.

      The only thing about them you can conclude is they are going where the evidence takes them, even if you don’t like the conclusion they make. But I don’t think it’s very fair for you to indulge in character attacks on them for doing so.

      • Node

        they are forced to conclude that (for the twin towers at least) they were wrong.

        So what would you say is the strongest piece of evidence to support your belief that the Twin Towers fell due to plane damage and fire?

        • glenn_uk

          A fair question, Node. I’d say the lack of any real evidence for anything else but damage and fire causing the collapse. I’m not working according to some belief system, btw – just trying to go where the evidence leads.

          • Node

            I’d say [the best evidence that the Towers were destroyed by plane damage and fire is] the lack of any real evidence for anything else but damage and fire causing the collapse.

            Thank you, but this is a perfect illustration of the point I made to SA (December 26, 2017 at 16:21) “that Truthers argue positively and Believers argue negatively.” A perceived failure of Truthers to prove alternative theories isn’t evidence for your theory.

            I’m not questioning your sincerity, but don’t you find it peculiar, even suspicious, that after all these years, no-one can offer a shred of convincing evidence to support the official narrative of 9/11?

      • John Goss

        glenn_uk December 27, 2017 at 13:06

        Your “what if” scenario matters not a jot. I can think of somebody on here who probably fits the bill.

        What matters is what happened, not what somebody thinks might have happened. The paucity of evidence in one person’s opinion might be considered invalid in another’s. Both cannot be right. It is not about opinions it is about whether it can be repeated by experiment. Steel-framed buildings, cannot collapse in on themselves. No fully-constructed building ever has – until the recent one in Iran which was probably brought down by explosives. Yet three collapsed in one day on 9/11. That should raise questions.

        Clark goes on about scaling. In relation to my beer-can experiment he said: “For instance, if you scaled a beer can up 100:1, it would take a lot less than 660 times its own weight.” The only difference I could envisage would be due to gravity. So presumably that means in scaling something down it would be a more valid representation. What about a 767? I did not do this work but in response to my beer-cans and twin-towers wrote:.

        “Someone did a similar scaling of a B767 to a beer can, and found the 767 skin to be way thinner than when scaled to the size of 0.1mm aluminum can. It would be less than the thickness cheap aluminum foil ~ 0.01mm. (My calculation was 0.006 mm) Of course the can has no steel reinforcement ribs or wingbox, but it does serve to portray the fragility of a 767 fuselage. ”

        That’s what allegedly cut the cartoon shapes in the twin towers causing an explosion of fuel that would burn out and never reach a temperature capably of melting steel, or even buckling it..

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Peter Beswick December 27, 2017 at 10:48
      It’s obvious explosives weren’t used, because NIST found no evidence of it (so what that they didn’t look for it? Mere nit-picking!).

      • Clark

        It’s obvious explosives didn’t drive collapse progression because collapse progression sounded like a roaring rumble, not an accelerating sequence of very loud, sharp percussions.

        You can substitute thermite, but it’s too slow to sequence a collapse that way. You can resubstitute thermate, or nanothermite, but you’re back to a wave of explosions which were not heard. There’s only a fraction of a second between each storey during collapse descent, so there’s no happy medium giving precision destruction without audible explosions.

  • Macky

    Apt quote from a LifeBoater iro the same Luke Harding interview I posted yesterday on the current;

    “Good stuff, thanks for that, Margo – very cheering to see. Harding has nothing to offer and clearly flounders under questioning. His standard riposte basically amounts to, ‘oh but you need to go to Russia and speak to the anti-Putin people I met there’! It’s pathetic… as is the notion that he’s ‘a journalist’. And don’t you just love that confection, ‘collusion rejectionist’? So now on the one hand if one posit’s a theory critical of the PTB, a theory that is difficult to prove, one is a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Conversely, if one rejects an evidence-free theory that is critical of an enemy du jour one is a ‘collusion rejectionist’! Hilarious.”

    • John Goss

      So I take it you don’t want Harding’s latest book as a belated Christmas present?

      Buying presents for people is such hard work. 🙂 “Smiley Face”. What’s that make me in Harding’s eyes?

      He’s a joke! I loved it when he said “I’m a journalist, a storyteller. . .” (Not sure that’s a perfect quote). What I am sure of is only one of the descriptions is right.

      • Dave

        The funny thing about the Johnson’s accusation of unsuccessful Russian meddling in UK elections, is Russia supported Brexit, which means Johnson, surely, must have been colluding with them!!!

    • Paul Barbara

      I don’t know what’s going on – I keep trying to post a comment, and nothing comes up, and no message comes up saying it has gone to moderation. I posted the above with no trouble.

      • Clark

        ” I keep trying to post a comment, and nothing comes up”

        That’s most probably the spam filter. Maybe a link in your comment has been found in a lot of spam comments on other blogs or something. Or it might be a false positive. Or even the work of a conspiracy! No, really. If moderators at lots of sites mark as spam comments which contain a particular link, the spam filter will automatically delete comments containing that link.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Node December 26, 2017 at 12:08
      Couple more links re ‘Boys Town’:
      ‘Satanic Subversion of the U.S. Military’: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3233aquino_profile.html

      ‘Noreen Gosch Speaks About – Jeff Gannon, Johnny Gosch And The Attempted Theft Of Her Book ‘Why Johnny Can’t Come Home’:
      http://rense.com/general67/gannn.htm

      And, incredibly, King was rumoured to have negotiated to get a ‘Boy’s Town’ built in Washington DC!
      Here’s some info (I got the info about King’s involvement from one of Noreen Gosch’s interviews):
      ‘About Boys Town Washington DC’:
      http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/boys-town-closing-facilities-in-new-york-california-and-texas/article_91345aa6-5aff-11e7-b263-075c649f9c9b.html
      Also, it appears they are closing down branches of ‘Boy’s Town’ in New York, California and Texas:
      ‘Boys Town closing facilities in New York, California and Texas’:
      http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/boys-town-closing-facilities-in-new-york-california-and-texas/article_91345aa6-5aff-11e7-b263-075c649f9c9b.html
      And this is how ‘Conspiracy of Silence’ (the Yorkshire TV documentary) got stopped from being broadcast:
      ‘The Franklin Coverup Scandal’: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Franklin/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

      ‘…This was the biggest pedophile scandal in the history of the U.S.A. The story received some newspaper coverage but there was a TV News Media blackout on the subject. For this reason, most Americans have never heard of it.

      Former republican Senator John Decamp was involved in the production a documentary called “Conspiracy of Silence” it was to air May 3, 1994 on the Discovery Channel. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired.

      Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who had ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired F.B.I. chief, Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by the participants involved. You can purchase a VHS copy at this link. Or you can view an online copy at this page. Franklin Cover up video page…’

      The Internet seems to have been pretty well scrubbed of most articles or pictures of Larry King.

    • John Goss

      Yep! I hope I’m alive when the truth comes out about 9/11. Some of my friends have gone to the place of no return believing the government lie over the Tianamen Square massacre.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ SA December 26, 2017 at 13:15
    Barrie’s first Degree was from Exeter University; his second Research Degree was from the Council for National Academic Awards.
    You continually talk about Barrie Trower’s ‘opinions’, but he cites studies, they are not his ‘opinions’.
    One such study was funded by a moblie manufacturer, T-Mobile. When it became clear they were going to come up with a highly damaging report, T-Mobile funded three further studies, and tried to hush up the Ecolog Report – here’s why:

    http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/t-mobile-funded-study-into-mobile-phone-radiation-covered-up-to-obfuscate-profound-health-risks/
    ‘…In conclusion, the ECOLOG report called for an immediate downward regulation of the power flux density that should be allowed by the guidelines, by a factor of 1,000. Despite these warnings, however, the UK’s “out of date” and “obsolete” standards continue to be used at levels which make no account for chronic exposures to sub-thermal radiation emissions which ECOLOG unequivocally reported as causing biological harm.
    If you are wondering why you are only just finding out about this study some 13 years after it was prepared by ECOLOG, one of the report’s authors has a view. According to Dr Peter Neitzke, a co-author of the eventual report, when T-Mobile realised that the research was going to produce potentially damaging results, the company commissioned three other studies which were more likely to show no danger from electromagnetic radiation. Dr Neitzke’s study was then only available in German until a copy was leaked to the Human Ecological Social Economic Project (HESE) Project in 2007, who subsequently had it translated….’

  • Paul Barbara

    (Continuation):
    Barrie didn’t just ‘work with microwaves’, he was in the British military and at the cutting edge of developments; was sent on courses by the military to keep him up to speed. The US military actually contacted Barrie fairly recently, asking his opinion on what was making troops go loopy (there had been four cases of troops coming back from Iraq, I believe: three killed their wives in rages, and the other one tried. He told them the frequencies of their communications devices (they did not tell him) and he said that was what was causing it (it was similar to the Tetra frequency now used by our police and some other Emergency Services).
    If he wasn’t internationally acknowledged as an expert, why would the US military ask his opinion?
    Then later he taught Physics, including microwaves. A teacher should keep up to date with developments in the subjects he teaches, and with someone as passionate as Barrie Trower, it would be rather strange if he didn’t.

    Anyhow, Happy New Year to you, and I have a suggestion for a New Year resolution – Don’t accept a Smart Meter!

    • SA

      Happy new year to you too Paul.
      I have read the T mobile report. It was a bit more scientific than the rather simplistic non-scientific manner of how Trower writes. I don’t know why the US military think he is an expert, but I don’t always think the motives coming out of that source are clear.
      We could all go back to the old age of no mobiles no smart meters and no AI but sadly the world would be going back.
      Meanwhile until we hear that mobile phones are killing 20000 people every day worldwide, I shall continue just to excercise caution until definitive scientific reports come out.

      • Paul Barbara

        We’re not talking peanauts here – ECOLOG stated ‘…In conclusion, the ECOLOG report called for an immediate downward regulation of the power flux density that should be allowed by the guidelines, by a factor of 1,000….’

        Yet the conclusion was ignored by Britain and some other countries. What has happened to the ‘ Precautionary Principle’, especially when young children and embryos are concerned? Oh, right, Corporations might lose profits, and that overrides all.

        • SA

          Paul
          Cars are the major cause of pollution in cities. Ban motor cars or reduce their use to safe levels?How safe is safe?1 car per street per hour?
          OK maybe if you are right we shall see such a huge rise in cancer of the brain that this will bring this to the attention of the careless U.K. authorities. Even studies that predict a causal relegation ship only do so by an increased risk of less than 50%, and just before you hit the panick button the meaning of this is that if a rare cancer has an incidence of say 1 in a hundred thousand then exposure to some agent may increase that risk so that you would expect to see 1.5 cases rather than one case. To make even a rigorous case to implicate this agent you have to remove all confounding factors and this is why you need careful scientific studies, not scaremongering.
          Paul cancer is a number of different diseases and even ones where there is a clear association between an agent and cancer, there are other factors such as genetics, other contributory factors such as diet, lifestyle factors and so on that plays a part. For example to take lung cancer and smoking, not everyone who smokes gets cancer but the risk of getting cancer is vastly increased if you smoke and even if that smoking is passive, the risk is still there. Also not all lung cancers occur only in smokers, there is a small proportion of lung cancers that occur in non smokers. So the genesis of cancer is rather complex and I would therefore leave it to scientisists to study these problems in a scientific way rather than to intuition and belief which would take us back several centuries.

          And before you start quoting Trower again, he plucks figures of 57% increased risk without explaining their derivation and forms a hypothesis.

  • Paul Barbara

    For the benefit of those who unquestionably accept large Cancer Charities:
    ‘Sir Richard Doll died in July 2005. Over a year later, evidence came to light that he was in the pay of major chemical companies when he gave the green light to their products. Eight years earlier, the Ecologist was threatened with legal action for running this story…’
    https://theecologist.org/1998/mar/01/sir-richard-doll-questionable-pillar-cancer-establishment

    ‘..The Imperial Cancer Research Fund writes in its current publication, ‘Preventing and Curing Cancer’:

    “One of the biggest myths in recent years is that there is a cancer epidemic caused by exposure to radiation, pollution, pesticides and food additives. The truth is that these factors have very little to do with the majority of cancers in this country. In fact, food additives may have a protective effect – particularly against stomach cancer.”

    One would presume that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund would only dare make a statement of this sort, which runs counter to endless serious studies on the subject, after exhaustive research over many decades on the possible carcinogenic effects of exposure to these environmental factors. However, unbelievable as it may seem, this august institution fully admits that it has never carried out any such research! How then can it conceivably make such a statement? The answer is that it is entirely based on the pronouncements of Sir Richard Doll, seen to be the greatest living expert on the subject, and whose every word is gospel among the members of Britain’s cancer establishment. Let us look carefully at the career of Sir Richard Doll in order to trace the origin and development of this most questionable pillar.’

    Yet still the National Center for Biotechnology Information gave him a glowing Obit, not mentioning his chicanery.

    • SA

      Paul
      It is interesting that the Ecologist doesn’t seem to mention the seminal role of the work of Richard Doll in the connection between lung cancer and smoking and should pick up on this association with some chemical company funding . I hope you have time to read this excellent summary of his achievements.

      https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/164/1/95/81165

      This is a CV of a man who brought to the forth the whole subject of why the incidence of cancer was rising and against a lot of opposition proved how harmful tobacco smoking is and also unearthed the connection between asbestos and a rare lung cancer. He is the father of modern cancer epidemiology. Compare that to the combined CVs of the 8 trustees of the Ecologist who could do better than selectively blacken his name.
      I am not a follower of this obscure website so I don’t know whether they have been vociferous in Highlighting the evils of tobacco as a great killer, over 7 million death a year, proven worldwide, nor do I know where you stand in relation to smoking, but really to try to denigrate cancer research by this association is , as I said before, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
      Paul, I know you mean well, but please do a little bit more research before you post links from obscure websites to try and prove a point of much larger concern than that of narrow minded pressure groups.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ SA December 28, 2017 at 03:09
        It is not defamation if it is true.
        ‘Renowned cancer scientist was paid by chemical firm for 20 years’:
        https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/08/smoking.frontpagenews
        ‘How air pollution can cause cancer’:
        http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/air-pollution-radon-gas-and-cancer/how-air-pollution-can-cause-cancer

        There are many other links, but the first one is the Guardian, and the second your Cancer Research UK.

        So these high-falluting ‘Cancer Charities’ rarely do there own research, but rely on others.

        • SA

          Paul
          The defamatory bit was your use of the word chicanery to describe the greatest figure in modern cancer epidemiology. There is a more balanced assessment in the Guardian article than your sweeping condemnation.
          As to the second link, I fail to see your point. Of course Cancer Research is a charity which fund expert groups to do work on the base of applications to the charity and money awarded on merit. Cancer Research don’t do the research. So I am not sure what your point is.
          Also Paul, you don’t need to answer this but what are your views on smoking and alcohol?

          • Dave

            Everything we do involves risk, but the term can be misleading as it used to describe tiny, relative and big risk. The overall figures show life expectancy and quality of life has increased, but then again, not including immigration, this probably is as much to do with an extensive eugenics programme as medical advances.

            That is the health statistics for those born will improve if the figures for those aborted, in particular for detected disability aren’t included. The fact is health care is both wonderful and a racket due to the money involved that encourages scams. I have respect for doctors and health industry, but became sceptical and aware of the scam when investigating vivisection and healthcare failings when a friend was given the wrong drugs for over a year.

          • Dave

            And I read the figure for deaths due to air pollution is based on a calculation of reduced life expectancy, as overall life expectancy grows, and so for example, a calculation that everyone dies one hour earlier than need be due to air pollution, is added up to given as the number of deaths due to air pollution as a percentage of the population. Improving air quality is a good thing, but deaths from air pollution is a dramatic headline based on well spun statistics.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA December 28, 2017 at 04:22
            ‘Chicanery’ is quite a light term to use for someone who, whilst in the pay of the producers, said Agent Orange was safe.
            So he did good work on tobacco – jolly good. But that does not excuse clearing extremely dangerous ‘Agent Orange’, whilst getting hefty payment from the manufacturer.
            Re smoking and alcohol, I am totally against smoking (except the very occasional joint – I was on the Hippy Trail overland to India for ten months in 1967). Re alcohol, I know it’s dangerous, but I’m afraid I drink too much despite my knowledge.

          • Paul Barbara

            SA December 28, 2017 at 04:22
            And $1,500 a day in 1979 equals approximately $5,349.31 a day in 2017! Plus he was getting paid by at least two other chemical companies! Nice work if you can get it. Rather tempting to ‘cut a few corners’, most people would agree.
            Maybe the guy really believed Agent Orange was safe!

          • SA

            I have read around this now and I do see your point. It is a big shame that he did what he did because he certainly was a trailblazer in showing the connection between smoking and cancer something for which at the time he was strongly opposed by the establishment and the tobacco industry. It dies look though that he did not benefit directly and personally from this money but passed it on to Green College in Oxford.
            Interestingly all of his useful research was done with University funding and all the later ones done through industry funding, something which has now become the norm as governments have stopped funding research.

          • Clark

            “Interestingly all of his useful research was done with University funding and all the later ones done through industry funding, something which has now become the norm as governments have stopped funding research”

            Yes. Margaret Thatcher said she wanted industry to fund research rather than the public sector, and that’s what she did.

            Worked a treat, didn’t it? Made such a mess that the likes of Paul Barbara are now calling for an end to research altogether.

      • Clark

        I’ve been thinking about this. Whatever happened, it wasn’t entirely simultaneous. Seven or eight seconds for collapse initiation?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

        01:36 – Roof of east penthouse first sags.
        01:38 – East penthouse has fallen rapidly trough the roof.
        01:40 to 01:42 – Collapse proceeds a short way west.
        01:43 – Overall collapse begins. The whole penthouse seems to fall fastest.

        02:24 – East penthouse,
        02:32 – Overall collapse

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Peter Beswick December 28, 2017 at 11:58
      And if you ignore Barry Jenning’s testimony that the stairs blew up under him in WTC 7 while both Towers were still standing!
      Stairs are one of the first things you take out whilst weakening a building prior to controlled demolition.

  • Node

    SA

    I am bemused why you spend so much time on this 9/11 discussion post telling us we shouldn’t spend so much time discussing 9/11! Here for example is one of many smoking & health forums. I wouldn’t dream of posting there that they don’t spend enough time talking about 9/11.

    One of the most disturbing aspects of 9/11 was that the perpetrators believed they could get off with it, and so far, they were right. You say “… I cannot credit them with such competence as to carry out such complex procedures without something somewhere expose this.” I think you underestimate the power of the media. They (the perpetrators) didn’t have to be competent, they were confident that the media would airbrush all the plot holes, no matter how glaring.

    False flags are one of the most effective tactics for manipulating populations, and 9/11 is probably the biggest false flag ever. It has plot holes you could drive a bus through yet you advise us to move on and concentrate on its consequences. No. It is precisely because the consequences of 9/11 have been so momentous that we can’t let them off with it. We need to doggedly pursue them and expose their lies, raise awareness of their cynical murderous disregard for their own citizens lives, keep them working to paper over the cracks, never let them think it will be easy to pull of a similar stunt again.

    Otherwise they will continue to manufacture ‘reality’ to their own specification and rightly treat us with contempt for allowing them do it.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Node December 28, 2017 at 12:14
      ‘…Otherwise they will continue to manufacture ‘reality’ to their own specification and rightly treat us with contempt for allowing them do it….’
      As they have been doing.
      They have been doing ‘False Flag’ small-scale ‘Terror Attacks’ and hoaxes ever since 9/11, and are almost certain to do another ‘mega’ one, perhaps bigger than 9/11, in the future.
      But what were Libya (imported mercenary ‘Jihadists’), Ukraine (Maidan snipers and $5 billion) and Syria (again, imported snipers and masses of imported mercenary ‘Jihadis’), but ‘False Flag Terrorist Attacks’ (the snipers) and proxy cut-throats?
      By the way, Syria has given Erdogan a suitable rebuff to his allegation of Assad being a terrorist –
      ”Syrian government blasts back at Erdogan over ‘terrorist’ comments’:
      https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-government-blasts-back-erd ogan-terrorist-comments/?

      I checked, and can find no MSM coverage of this yet – bit too near the bone!

      • Clark

        Otherwise they will continue to manufacture ‘reality’ to their own specification and rightly treat us with contempt for allowing them do it….’ As they have been doing

        And as you do almost every comment you make.

    • SA

      OK Node, I take your point. This thread in this ppost is reserved for you and those who are like minded. I however noticed that there were a lot of other conspiracy theories being discussed by others, and as I had no specific expertise and had not seen the truthers’ light I thought I would comment on things I do know about. But since you feel you have priority for space here I will gladly stop posting.

      • Node

        No, I welcome your presence in this discussion, but I reserve the right to disagree with you. In what way is my comment not a relevant response to what you said to me at December 27, 2017 at 16:41?

        I feel strongly that we shouldn’t let them off with 9/11. You advocate the opposite. You suggested that tackling the tobacco industry would be a better use of my time. I pointed out that this is a 9/11 discussion, not a tobacco & health forum.

        I gave my reasons for pursuing 911 truth. What do you think of them?

        • SA

          Node
          On reflection, after my initial response, I went back and look at the post that you refered to and I copy it here in full to remind you.

          “SA
          December 27, 2017 at 16:41
          Node
          Thanks for the link. It is very illustrative of a few facts. The first is how wierd the US has become. Blood transfusions from youths to rich billionaires to keep them young? The second is that the existence of a lot of these ‘conspiracies’ have been well known for a long time but have now come up in the open. For example the sexual exploitation of women and minors, we have had the big scandals since Saville but they still keep coming up in dribs and there is still a lot of obfuscation going on about the historical cases that are being covered up. We all knew for years about the CIA involvement in illegal drugs and arms trafficking and most people reading this blog know about the supply of arms to Syrian rebels of all hues of moderation. So this list is not very surprising.

          What we also know but has not resulted in acknowledgement and action is that Blair deliberately lied to parliament and the nation, but despite this nothing has happened to him. We know about the collusion between the west and Israel on the one hand and Arab states such as KSA and the wrecking of the ME. We know that all the economic policies are geared towards making the rich richer and we know that austerity is a policy choice for suppression rather than a necessity. We know that over 20,000 individuals die daily of smoking related illness (over 7 million worldwide a year) and yet tobacco companies are allowed to continue to sell this lethal poison and not many people appear to be exercised about this. I don’t see mass demonstration about exterminations and genocide which is totally preventable.

          So what does all this tell you? It says to me that there are conspiracies around us all the time but it is only when the price in terms of bad publicity affecting pockets and conversion by the gatekeeper press to stand against the conspiracies that they will successfully be exposed and acknowledged.

          As I said earlier I am a 911 ‘skeptic, neither a truther nor a believer. I have to admit that I have not avidly read everything that has been written about 911 because it is impossible to do so and there are other issues. I find it difficult to believe that either narrative is completely convincing and it is not because I do not think our governments are incapable of carrying out these atrocities but on the contrary because I cannot credit them with such competence as to carry out such complex procedures without something somewhere expose this. Witness how the Iraq war was bungled in every respect to give one example. I also detect that there are ‘truthers’ who will accept any ‘conspiracy’ at face value just because it is anti government and anti establishment. I prefer to judge every incident on its own merits and not to join any camps. Having said all that I am quite willing to be convinced one way or another but what I feel is that there is a lot of bad feelings being generated amongst a group of people who should really discuss in a rational way.”

          You took me to task about this post which was in answer your post about 10 conspiracies that were exposed in 2017 and my post was in response to this. You then went on to say that my posts about smoking (in answer to some other conspiracies posted by Paul, were nothing to do with 911. I hope you can see the inconsistency of what you have done, and maybe a little apology may indicate that there was no malice intended, just a mere oversight?

      • Clark

        SA, you have posted extensively about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the abuse of their brutal religious indoctrination to further conflict for resources by the “Western” corporate alliance; these are entirely ON-TOPIC for the 9/11 thread, and I say that as this threads’ former moderator for Craig, the former diplomat who own this site.

        And you have just as much right to discuss other off-topic conspiracy theories as those who raise them, who Node never criticises.

        • Clark

          To quote Craig on the matter:

          “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”

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘what to do with the time that is given to you’:
    https://action.organicconsumers.org/content_item/oca-email?email_blast_KEY=1383144

    ‘…It comes down to this: What kind of future do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?
    Do we want to leave behind a legacy of poisoned waters, tainted foods, impoverished communities, decimated family farms, declining health—the byproducts of an industrial agribusiness model that has failed to live up to its promise of “feeding the world?”
    Or do we want to use “the time that is given” us to fix a system that if left unfixed will leave future generations poorer in every sense of the word?….’

    Exactly. GMO’s, for openers, are a Pandora’s box; once opened, you cannot stuff the Frankenfoods back into the box; they are with us, and will contaminate other foods, as long as the earth is capable of sustaining life.
    Same with Depleted Uranium. spent nuclear fuel, meltdowns, heavy metal contamination, plastic contamination (not quite so long to break down, but very long to break down). Then ever-increasing dangerous electro-smog, and all the rest of the technologies yet to be invented, all with their dangers.
    And driving it all? Profits, power and greed.
    ‘The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed’ (Gandhi).

    Full speed ahead! Trust the Scientists and our ‘Esteemed Leaders’! Er, no thanks.

    • Clark

      Yeah, scientists. They’re the bad guys. Take’m out and shoot’m, then smash their computers and burn their books. Kill anyone who looks like they might be studying something.

      • Clark

        Just like in Scooby Doo, or on the Death Star in Star Wars, or in James Bond films, where the Leader is up in some secret hideaway surrounded by boffins who do his bidding with incredible machinery.

        In real life, the leaders are surrounded by businessmen, financiers, military, celebrities and sycophantic journalists – generally not a scientist or engineer to be seen; hardly even any science graduates on their staff.

  • John Goss

    Jonathan H. Cole is a physics teacher and a very good one. Some time back I mentioned that my grandson’s physics teacher did not believe the official version. For mentioning that two people on this thread, who shall remain nameless, were making all sorts of accusations against somebody they had not met, about how he should not be allowed to teach physics to children. In actual fact though it is anybody who does not believe Newtonian principles who should not be allowed to teach physics. I am sharing this for the benefit of glenn-uk and glenn-nl who I know to have good physics skills and who I respect on many other issues than 9/11.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMR1XC-Lce0

    When I read statements like I was convinced by Tomk who taught me ““Lose the geometry, lose the building”. And of course, that’s right:” I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Geometry is a branch of mathematics. The statement is wishy-washy nonsense without any comprehensible science behind it. If any science teacher taught that in school he or she really should be sacked.

    • Clark

      You said your grandson’s physics teacher believes that the collapses of the Twin Towers broke Newton’s law. If so, his physics is no good, so he shouldn’t be teaching it.

      There is only one way around this. He would have to show the contradiction. So get him to give you a copy so it can be published.

      My prediction? We’ll get an excuse or distraction (possibly angry) from John, but never a paper.

        • Clark

          No. YOU and allegedly this teacher claim a point of FACT, citing NEWTON, so write it down in Newtonian terms, or RETRACT. You either have the formula, or you don’t. Which?

      • John Goss

        “He would have to show the contradiction. So get him to give you a copy so it can be published.

        My prediction? We’ll get an excuse or distraction (possibly angry) from John, but never a paper.”

        Why would I need to do that. I have never met him and there is only you and one other questioning his right to teach. The comment to which your quote is a response shows a paper by a physics’ teacher. Just tell me what is wrong with it and why he should not teach it in schools. Their science is not in question. But by your lack of understanding of Judy Wood’s billiard ball example yours appears to be.

        • Clark

          “The comment to which your quote is a response shows a paper by a physics’ teacher”

          What? Just link the paper. Or are you citing Judy Wood? Wood’s BBE shows nothing about collapses of the Twin Towers, nor anything else.

          The collapses did not break Newton’s law.

          • Clark

            Ah, so you mean the 47 minute YooToob. Nah. What’s the argument please? Moderation rule seven; “Contribute”.

            “Contributions which are primarily just a link to somewhere else will be deleted. You can post links, but give us the benefit of your thoughts upon them.”

            Anyone can overwhelm their debating partner by linking to long videos. I’m certain that the video contains various forms of persuasion, but no rigorous argument. You could prove me wrong by quoting the argument or at least summarising it.

          • Clark

            The 47 minute lecture by Cole has a long introduction followed by three main sections about Cole’s experiments.

            ~20:00 to ~26:00 concerns FEMA’s pancake collapse model. Cole couldn’t get the weight to accelerate down through the stack of horizontal members. I could have done it with five minutes experimentation; just increase the vertical spacing of the horizontal members until the weight accelerates. This is obvious from a brief consideration of Newtons laws of motion and gravity; a bigger spacing yields more acceleration from gravity between each level.

            -26:00 to ~39:00, Cole fails to get downward accelerator from models intended to test Bazant’s pile driver theory. I’m not surprised because Bazant’s theory is wrong.

            ~40:00 to ~45:00, Cole shows a model that simulates “controlled” demolition theory. It contradicts observations of the Twin Towers by producing a sequence of loud, sharp explosive sounds which were not heard during the real collapses, and by making ejections before downward movement, whereas in the real event, ejections followed downward movement.

            So only ~20:00 to ~26:00 is on-topic regarding John and his grandson’s teacher, and far from showing a contradiction of Newton’s laws, it simply fails to perform the test which would have demonstrated that progressive collapse is consistent with them.

          • Clark

            I know it is hard for you John. You have spent so long believing Gage and his crew that you suffer serious cognitive dissonance when they are shown to be incompetent. But if you can grasp Newton, some brief consideration of his laws show that progressive collapse is possible.

    • Clark

      “The statement “Lose the geometry, lose the building” is wishy-washy nonsense without any comprehensible science behind it”

      OK, do Tomk’s experiment with your beer cans and post the result. That’ll fix it. But you’d rather moan.

      • John Goss

        There is no implied experiment. It is just a nonsense statement.

        The other thing is you never do anything and yet you want me to do some experiment to do with an incomprehensible statement. So I suggest you do the experiment whatever it is. Then perhaps the rest of us might understand what you are going on about with “Lose the geometry, lose the building.” Geometry is a branch of mathematics concerned with shapes, lines, planes etc. The statement is gobbledygook.

          • Clark

            Spoken like an engineer, John. Shape does not affect strength.

            So, take a piece of paper and stand it on edge. It will support no load at all. Now roll it into a cylinder and stand it on end; you can balance a book on it. Tap it with a pencil; it’ll crumple and collapse under the book.

          • Clark

            “You just disagree with everything I say”.

            “No I don’t”.

            Is this just a five year argument or the full half century?

          • John Goss

            I repeat there is no principle of “lose the geometry, lose the building”.

            There is Archimedes principle. I cannot think of another. I have searched online for the principle of “lose the geometry, lose the building” with no success. Mostly principles are commonly called laws.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        I have repeatedly stated what caused the collapse of the WTC, triggered by the crashing planes, will never be known for sure: if it was just a natural consequence, a placed charge secretly placed in one of them, a system to cause it if one was in danger of them falling over, or a deliberately after the fact destruction. And it is just a diversion discussing instead of the real cockup.

        No wonder you have no idea of what I have posted on the internet!

  • Maxter

    Some excellent posts here challenging all aspects of the destruction of 3 buildings on 9/11. For me I just look at the footage and watch the building being ripped apart, and it looks nothing like a collapse to me. Until we have another investigation…which is never going to happen anyway, I am sticking with what I see.

    Hats off to those putting across the case for collapse, but I’m just not buying it!

    Out of interest, of those that check out this 9/11 post. How many of you have been converted from collapse to demolition or vice versa?

    • glenn_uk

      M: “Out of interest, of those that check out this 9/11 post. How many of you have been converted from collapse to demolition or vice versa?

      As a matter of fact, as I wrote above, I was initially of the notion that the case was pretty much as we saw it. Blowback from all our years of meddling and killing in the ME in particular. As a Latin-American friend put it to me at the time, “Man… we just pushed those guys too far.”

      Later on, I thought it increasingly likely that this was a controlled demolition. But in the the past year or so, I’ve had to reverse that notion too – there being so little evidence for it.

      • Macky

        “there being so little evidence for it”

        You mean there’s more “evidence” for the “mainstream narratives” ?!!

        “Never let anyone shame you for doubting mainstream narratives. History testifies that the only rational attitude to have toward US intel/defense agencies and the mainstream media is extremely intense skepticism.” Caitlin Johnstone

        • glenn_uk

          Hey????!!!! Macky!!!???!!!!!

          Do you talk like this in real life, with spluttering condescension, are you even capable of an actual conversation – or is everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest relegated to the status of a fool to be mocked (to what you imagine is an appreciative audience)?

          • Macky

            LOL ! I take that as a “No” then, in asking if there’s more “evidence” for the “mainstream narratives ?” 😀

          • glenn_uk

            OK Macky, here’s the deal. Talk to me with the respect one should have with a face-to-face conversation with another, or otherwise I’m done with you and your crowing performance of fake exasperation. Obviously you’re scared of genuine exchanges, which is why you prefer to annoy an imagined opponent away, so you can perform yet another of your silly little victory dances.

          • Macky

            @Mr Glenn_uk,

            Dear Sir, I would be most gratefully appreciative, if you could be so kind as to grace me with answering the following question:

            Is there’s more “evidence” for the “mainstream narratives” than for controlled demolition iro the WTC building collapses ?

            Thanking you in advance for your considerate co-operation,

            Yours most humbly,

            Macky

          • Macky

            @Glenn, please not that I do not assume that Clark speaks on your behalf, so I patiently await your reply to the question that I ask you.

          • glenn_uk

            M: “[….] so I patiently await your reply to the question that I ask you.”

            I told you the terms of deal if you want to discuss, Macky. If you’re unwilling or unable to accept them – viz, that we talk with the same respect that one would upon a face-to-face meeting, I’m done with you.

            Cut the BS, the grandstanding, the superiority theatrics and now this leaden sarcasm, and we might have a discussion. I’ve had it with your utter insincerity.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, The only BS on display here is your ridiculous & feigned excuses to avoid addressing the simple question I put to you following your assertion that there’s “so little evidence” for controlled demolition.

            I think all fair-minded readers realise the above, and also realise that your hesitation in answering is because doing so would expose your irrational blind faith belief in the official narrative.

          • glenn_uk

            Macky: It appears you simply cannot have a conversation, to anyone with any disagreement, without resort to insult.

            If you ever get over this, we can have a conversation. Until then… Adios.

        • Clark

          Macky, 17:39:

          “You mean there’s more “evidence” for the “mainstream narratives” ?!!”

          I’d say there’s excellent evidence for progressive collapses of the Twin Towers. Beyond reasonable doubt. Try it in a courtroom. We can call thousands of witnesses who can testify that aircraft flew into the Twin Towers, which then burned severely and deformed at the damaged zones, underwent inward bowing, finally buckling, crumpling and breaking right there, then the top sections began to descend, and were seen to destroy all beneath. This can all be confirmed in many photographic and video records, and all top expert witnesses tell us that the collapses were consistent with the design and construction of the buildings.

          Looks pretty watertight to me.

          • John Goss

            “. . . all top expert witnesses tell us that the collapses were consistent with the design and construction of the buildings.”

            Bearing in mind that currently some 3,000 top experts question the official narrative I challenged you to find ten experts who currently support the theory that planes crashed into the buildings, the buildings caught fire, and that is what caused the collapse. You never produced a single one. You continually produce evidence from people who have taken the papers (in one case written in 2001) down, and others who waffle more than you.

            I have struggled through some of these papers trying to find the convincing element for the official story that I am missing.

          • Clark

            No, the engineering and academic consensus is that the Twin Towers underwent progressive collapse. I have linked to top professors in structural engineering, and they have the backing of their universities.

            You can produce no such top academics, and not a single university in the entire world, including states in rivalry, opposition or even in conflict against the US. Most of the mere 3000 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” are architects; only a minority are engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers alone has over 150,000 members.

            The reason there are few recent papers is that its old stuff. There is no reed to continually reaffirm the obvious. The academic community simply don’t have an axe to grind like A&E9/11″Truth” have.

        • Macky

          Just for the record, this little exchange between Glenn & myself has not had any deletions, this is my sixth comment, so don’t be fooled about the accusations of “insults” because as can plainly be seen, there isn’t any. Sadly Glenn has grasped on this imaginary excuse as a pretext to avoid having to account for his pov iro the WTC collapses.

  • Peter Beswick

    The deniers were shown the way by NIST

    Evidence of explosions before during and after aircraft impacts is best ignored, not investigated. That way you don’t have to explain it

    • glenn_uk

      If you can avoid telling me yet again how incredibly clever you are, and how thick I surely am, perhaps you could tell me more about this evidence for explosions?

      I was fairly convinced of such things back in the day, but never found anything really concrete to bear it out.

      Although I’m not optimistic. Every sentence of yours above is a personal slur on those not supporting your point of view. Hardly a way to win influence, is it?

1 130 131 132 133 134

Comments are closed.