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).
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You#re the one who never presents anything concrete.
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?
“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.
– “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.
I know it is hard for you Clark. But the paper was already there.
“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
”
NB. Papers can be delivered from a podium or lectern.
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.
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.
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.
– “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.
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.
You did an experiment to discover how much load a beer can could take:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-132/#comment-713033
Tomk’s experiment would be to buckle some beer cans, and compare the load they can take. It will be much less, demonstrating the principle of “lose the geometry, lose the building”.
There is no principle of “lose the geometry, lose the building”.
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.
“You just disagree with everything I say”.
“No I don’t”.
Is this just a five year argument or the full half century?
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.
Sorry, I should have written ‘demonstrating the principle behind “lose the geometry, lose the building”’.
Why don’t the mods put down this never-ending personal nonsense?
Do you have anything to add to the debate Trowbridge?
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!
Not if like NIST you don’t look!
Nobody knows what you’ve posted on the internet because if they click on your name they get an error message. At least I get one.
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?
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.
“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
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)?
LOL ! I take that as a “No” then, in asking if there’s more “evidence” for the “mainstream narratives ?” 😀
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.
@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
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
“. . . 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.
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.
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.
Once you realised who did it!
What the hell is that supposed to mean, or are you simply trolling?
Simply trolling, fine. Glad to know where I stand with you, too.
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
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?
Insufficiency of inquiry was the hallmark of the Hutton Inquiry beyond that which could be attributed to incompetence or stupidity, the only explanation is it was deliberate.
If you don’t want the answers don’t ask the questions.
But on here, alas, those that don’t question the explosions evidence are unfortunately stupid.
And before anyone claims this is a personal insult to them ask yourself why you are disinterested in the evidence of explosions before, during and after the aircraft impacts. Do you honestly think that evidence is irrelevant?
Yep, the explosions are irrelevant, because both collapses began with descent of the top sections, which were observed to follow bowing and buckling. They did not initiate immediately after explosions, and the explosions were randomly positioned, not concentrated at the failure zones.
I think this is the most bizarre comment I have ever read on the subject and there have been some extremely weird ones.
I think you need to share your knowledge with the FBI
That is the first time I’ve heard that someone on here (or anywhere else) knew where the explosives were placed.
That they didn’t contribute to the collapse (which still begs the question who was detonating charges as people were still trying to get out of the buildings?)
But you are wrong, very load explosions were witnessed immediately before the collapses.
I suspect that if you do get in touch with the US authorities with your knowledge they may not get back in touch with you.
There were many reports of explosions, many of which relate to actual explosions, in all sorts of places including the surrounding streets, and at all sorts of times. Fire causes explosions, and extensive fire produces many explosions.
There are quite a few reports of explosions that relate to other events. Some people described the aircraft impacts as explosions. Some including a news reporter referred to the ejection of fire at the onset of collapse as an explosion.
Explosions witnessed moments before impact (before fire)
And I wish you’d cut the grandstanding rhetoric. If I thought these reports indicated “controlled demolition” I would say so. But they’re all over the place, not concentrated and ordered.
Explosions reported as being moments before an aircraft impact – but by people who were in places where they couldn’t see the impact.
But in any case, such early explosions cannot indicate “controlled demolition”. They could indicate other explosives, possibly planted by terrorists.
“But in any case, such early explosions cannot indicate “controlled demolition”. They could indicate other explosives, possibly planted by terrorists.”
If they were explosives I don’t think there is any doubt they were work of terrorists. Such early explosions could indicate that they were intended to coincide with the impacts to mask them. Their purpose? Perhaps to pre-weaken the structures prior to the final demolition.
The evidence suggests that a mix of high explosive including shaped charges and pyrotechnics (thermite) were possibly used. For different reasons (cutting beams, removing key structures, stairways and eventually the perimeter and core), a staged process (in more way than one)
Here is my statement which I am prepared to stand by and defend as though it were a principle. “Lose the foundations, and you lose the building.”
Yes, that’s as true as “lose the geometry, lose the building”, but irrelevant to the Twin Towers because they were seen to lose geometry at the damaged zones, they collapsed from the damaged zones down and not from the bottom, and the seismic data confirms top-down collapses.
And the cores were seen to stand longest.
“Yes, that’s as true as “lose the geometry, lose the building . . .””
Well I have tried three times at least to point out that “lose the geometry, lose the building” is nonsense, explaining that geometry is a branch of mathematics. The statement is a silly as “lose the trigonometry, lose the building.”
“Geometry 1 the branch of mathematic concerned with the properties, relationships and measurements of points, lines,curves and surfaces. 2. A shape, configuration or arrangement.” Collins Concise Dictionary.
Hope this helps.
I don’t think that twat Tom that Clark is quoting was actually stating a law of nature, John. I don’t think he ever claimed it to be, and neither did Clark. It’s simply a statement that he said that appears to be true, come on.
I could say, “Lose the front wheel, you’ve lost the bike.”
That seems particularly true to me, as a cyclist and motorcyclist of many thousands of miles. But I’d doubt if you’d find what I’d just written above anywhere, in any searches, in scholarly papers because while it’s obviously true, it’s not a law of physics. Something doesn’t have to be a axiom of physics in order to be true.
Tom was a condescending, useless teacher. If he had any knowledge and wisdom, it was very much undermined by his exceptionally poor delivery. He did a severe disservice to his cause, and I am as reluctant to agree with that miserable bully, as I would be with Macky, Paul, Node, Peter and the other thugs here.
Tomk was condescending, annoying, and apparently deluded about what his own politics were. But fair dues; he’d been trying to educate Truthers on Randi Educational Forums for we don’t know how long, and he would still be here now, like I am, repeatedly refuting the same dozen or so Truther sound-bites if he hadn’t had the sense to pack it in. Ironic, really. Thinking himself a libertarian, the constant insinuations of being some gatekeeper for a conspiracy is about the most likely thing to wind him up.
@Glenn_nl
Node = thug ?
Please justify.
John, “lose the geometry, lose the building” is just a snappy way of saying that the shapes of the components are vital to the strength of a building, so as they deform the building can lose much of its strength very rapidly.
So the insults come after most have gone to bed in the hope that a whole trance of comments is removed including
“Yep, the explosions are irrelevant, because both collapses began with descent of the top sections, which were observed to follow bowing and buckling. They did not initiate immediately after explosions, and the explosions were randomly positioned, not concentrated at the failure zones”
So the tactic appears to be: prevent serious debate and then have the record cleared and begin a new day of spoiling tomorrow.
Well its worked well so far.
Peter, you seem to be suggesting a conspiracy!
I shan’t answer this here, Peter, because your comment warrants deletion.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/
Actually, the comment you refer to is still there:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-132/#comment-713465
NIST didn’t rule out whether explosives were used or not As far as the official story goes it has never been investigated. Why?
Well people on blogs around the world have shared ideas and a great deal of evidence that explosives were involved is now in the public domain. How much of it is fake, (if any) I don’t know.
I have no demolition experience, explosive or otherwise but I do know that to take on the three wtc building project would have taken a great deal of time planning and preparing and a great deal of explosives.
The biggest contributing force to the collapses, by far, was gravity. If explosives were used they performed a minor yet devastatingly significant role.
Preperation time does not seem to be a problem, there’s evidence that individuals were talking about the towers being hit by aircraft 11 months before the event.
Access does not appear to have been a problem.
So was it possible? Yes it was!
Did it happen? The US government don’t want to know and a definitive answer will not be spawned from online blogs. But for people wanting to get closer to the truth online research is their only guide.
The UAF report is due, it will rekindle debate, new blogs will likely surface. Hopefully some will be properly moderated and policed.
Clark wrote regarding the Jonathan H Cole video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMR1XC-Lce0
“~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.”
Some of what you say here is correct Clark. Increasing the spacing between floors would give greater distance for the weight to accelerate under gravity. But to say “I could have done it with five minutes experimentation” is questionable, since nobody has seen you do an experiment, any more than anybody having seen you do original maths. 🙂
Leaving that aside, Cole does perform experiments, and his experiments are always geared in favour of the official version. He really tries to get these models to come down as the twin towers did. For example, in the steel weight experiment he takes the steel weight “right to the top”. Furthermore the steel weight being much smaller in dimension than a floor has an impacting force centred in the middle of his floors. If the weight used was spread out to the dimensions of the floors themselves you would not have that concentration of force in one point. It is called weight distribution and the falling object may not even break the first floor. Furthermore the supporting structures are not brought down as they were in the twin towers. And there is no pulverisation. This is not difficult for most of us and probably why your imaginary academic supporters choose not to get involved.
That however is not the point. The point is that Cole, as a teacher, is trying to show Newton’s laws in a practical way to demonstrate why the twin towers could not have come down with the bulk of the building’s weights beneath the impact zones of the alleged aircraft. He does a good job. However in every class there is always the boy, occasionally the girl, who cannot grasp the lesson.
Although Clark you seem not to want to understand how Newton’s laws work in practice Cole demonstrates the physics practically. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
It appears to me though that in Killickian metaphysics Newton’s third is understood as “When body A hits body B, there is no equal and opposite reaction.” In other words body A continues in its path regardless without any arrest like a planet in its orbit. For his second law on acceleration body A pulverises everything in its path including itself. I could be misrepresenting you.
My question to you is: is Jonathan H Cole fit to be a physics teacher?
– “Leaving that aside, Cole does perform experiments, and his experiments are always geared in favour of the official version. He really tries to get these models to come down as the twin towers did”
So why does he always use such small vertical spacing? You answer this yourself:
– “…Cole, as a teacher, is trying to show Newton’s laws in a practical way to demonstrate why the twin towers could not have come down”
Yes, he’s trying to show that the Twin Towers couldn’t have undergone progressive collapse, and if he increases the spacing, he will show the opposite, that they could. That’s not teaching; that’s misleading by omission.
I “grasp” rather well, John. I “grasp” a lot more than Newton’s laws; people’s objectives are revealed by the actions they choose, and by the ones they avoid. Also by the lies they tell, such as this one about me:
– ‘…in Killickian metaphysics Newton’s third is understood as “When body A hits body B, there is no equal and opposite reaction.”’
Not once in all these pages have I denied reaction forces. You cannot link a single example to support your claim. It is a lie about me. Truthers lie; you prove it.
“Not once in all these pages have I denied reaction forces. You cannot link a single example to support your claim. It is a lie about me. Truthers lie; you prove it.”
I cannot recall you actually having said that. Observation of how you believe Newton works in practice is where I made the conclusion. You cannot say that Newton’s law of an equal and opposite action and reaction is true if you believe a cold-steel structure can crush down in some sort of progressive collapse (a term Bazant uses). You saw Cole explain where the blacksmith got it wrong. I have so many times tried to explain how steel structures welded and bolted together never ever go through the downward points of no resistance without explosives. Even with explosives the easiest way is to topple them/ Your explanation for this defiance of physics is that the colums misalign somehow even though they get thicker nearer the ground.
For all this your floors fall taking the stronger supporting structures with them, including the inner core in almost freefall. There is nothing Newtonian in that.
“Yes, he’s trying to show that the Twin Towers couldn’t have undergone progressive collapse, and if he increases the spacing, he will show the opposite, that they could. That’s not teaching; that’s misleading by omission.”
It is not my job to defend Jonathan H Cole and there is one thing I think he may have got wrong. But I think he is a good teacher. I would certainly let him teach my children and grandchildren and I am sure they would not only enjoy his lessons but leearn from them.
Again I ask you. Is Jonathan H Cole fit to be a physics teacher?
John, you clearly have either not read my description of the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers, or you have imposed your own interpretation upon it. Until you do me the minimal respect of understanding what I actually wrote, it is a complete waste of my time attempting to communicate with you.
To summarise; the concrete floor assemblies stripped out downwards within the perimeter; no crushing of vertical steel structural members was required for this.
Now laterally unbraced, the perimeter fell outwards, breaking into sections under its own weight as it went; no crushing of vertical steel structural members was required for this, either.
That left the core, which was seen to fall vertically soon after. Again, no crushing of vertical steel structural members was required for this.
You still have not answered my question about Jonathan Cole. I bet his classes were real fun to be in.
Anyway, forget that for a moment, and let’s start with the core.
“That left the core, which was seen to fall vertically soon after. Again, no crushing of vertical steel structural members was required for this.”
Here is a photo of the core under construction.
http://electek.ru/uploads/posts/2016-10/147540210837798700.jpeg
Now you said that the outer frame and the core were the sections that gave the floors their support. How did the core fall vertically afterwards (I think before) when in the phograph we can see it free-standing, a solid structure of steel both inside inside and out? The photo is of the core before the floors went in. How does its collapse in almost freefall agree with Newton?
Can you model it for me please?
I note that the above photo link does not work. It is the second photo down in this article.
http://electek.ru/news/22324-kuda-ischezla-stal-vtc-911-posvyaschaetsya-darvinistam.html
John, this isn’t a matter of opinion. The cores were seen and videoed after the internal and perimeter collapses. The core remnant of WTC1 was higher than WTC7.
I’m not going to bother describing the collapses of the cores because you will simply ridicule both me and my descriptions, as you do continually. You clearly have zero respect.
Whether Cole is any good as a teacher depends on his response when a bright pupil chimes up with “but sir, if you increase the spacing, the weight will accelerate, won’t it?”. But judging by the sycophantic applause in that video, the members of A&E9/11″Truth” are such conformist dullards that he’s never had to face the question. Or maybe you can find such an incident in a Q&A session.
“John, this isn’t a matter of opinion. The cores were seen and videoed after the internal and perimeter collapses. The core remnant of WTC1 was higher than WTC7.”
So look again at the core in the photo Clark and tell me how according to Newton that could collapse from the top down? It could not. Not in a million years. Any explanation sets itself up to ridicule.
I notice that the image you linked shows a very short section of core.
If you respected your readership and truly wished them to make informed decisions for themselves, you could describe the cores scaled down say 100:1, to help them visualise. Cages made of slender steel rails, all of which were hollow, folded out of sheet much of which would be about the thickness of cooking foil. And over four metre tall; over twice the height of a person! They would have to be handled with great care so as not to bend them.
It would take a great force to crush the core. That’s why the cores weren’t crushed.
Why are you even asking me this? Is it to give a false impression that I believe the cores were crushed?
I have repeated over and over again that the cores stood after the collapses had otherwise completed. Are you repeatedly implying fallacies about my position as a rhetorical device, for gullible members of the audience? Because for the life of me I can see no other possible motivation.
“If you respected your readership and truly wished them to make informed decisions for themselves, you could describe the cores scaled down say 100:1, to help them visualise. Cages made of slender steel rails, all of which were hollow, folded out of sheet much of which would be about the thickness of cooking foil.”
Although you have not scaled it down 100 : 1 it can be seen that your scaling is every bit as questionable as your physics in practice. Like Cole says you could make your model out of chicken wire and the results would be the same. You want scaling down, or up, to defy physics. It does not.
Look at the box column in a photo further down in the Russian article to see how thick it is. Kitchen or freezer foil varies in thickness but here is a big roll of it at 0.02 thick. Multiply that by 100 and it is 2mm (about .078″). The weakest box column is 1/4 (0.250″) by 14″ square. You need to do the work Clark before posting your guesses.
http://www.aluminiumfoilroll.com/sale-8002701-freezer-food-wrapping-aluminium-kitchen-foil-household-stock-thickness-0-02mm.html
But the point is even if it was the thickness of kitchen foil you would be trying to destroy it with kitchen foil. Now do you understand Newton’s third.
The Russian article, which in another photo shows men walking inside, gives a scathing pastiche of the events. Despite its cynicism it does however offer sympathy to those who lost loved ones. It begins:
“11 September 2001 AD hundreds of millions of people around the world became witnesses to the wonders of the miraculous.”
Thank God Russian engineers understand Newton.
“It would take a great force to crush the core. That’s why the cores weren’t crushed.
Why are you even asking me this? Is it to give a false impression that I believe the cores were crushed?”
I believe we might be getting somewhere.
So where did they go Clark? Like you say the photo only shows a small section of the core. Where did all that mass of structural steel go. It was not there after 9/11/
The source I used for the thickness of cooking foil was wrong; too thin by a factor of ten. The scale model still ends up very slender for its considerable length.
I think you’ll find the core columns somewhere among this lot:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Aerial_photo_of_WTC_groundzero.jpg
There’s no mystery. It took weeks to clear the site, to here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fresh_Kills_Landfill_after_9/11
John: If you throw a brick at a window, is there always going to be an equal and opposite reaction?
With all impacts there is an equal and opposite reaction. Obviously I agree. But no bricks were thrown. We are asked to believe this demolition was done by gravity alone which is impossible. And the twin towers were not made of glass. They were made of structural steel.
I’m glad you recognise that it’s not quite as simple as talking about equal & opposite reactions as if that summed up all situations imaginable, and that stating “Newton” all the time doesn’t magically refute all and any argument.
*
I’m off until the new year – very best wishes to you and all people of good faith. Nuts to the rest of them.
Have a good New Year. If you get time take a look at this.
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
I should be interested in if you think he makes a good physics teacher.
Beyond Misinformation
Free to download
https://beta.ae911truth.org/evidence/beyond-misinformation
“Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says about the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7is AE911Truth’s comprehensive, 50-page guide to the World Trade Center evidence.
Chock-full of the most accurate information and analysis, and with references to dozens of scholarly papers and videos, Beyond Misinformationis the perfect starting point for anyone wishing to understand the destruction of the World Trade Center, and a valuable resource for those already immersed in the subject.
Help AE911Truth educate architects, engineers, and the public by sharing and distributing Beyond Misinformationin your community. “
Not sure if this has been posted before
But for those that deny there is evidence of explosives or those that say there were explosives but they were irrelevant here is a balancing resource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
So in answer to Node, I have made my own simplistic interpretations of the events concerning only the twin towers. I do not claim any expertise in physics, construction or explosives, just a simple layman’s exposition. I have also not posted many links. Some of you will no doubt find this totally worthless and a waste of time but I would be grateful if any criticism could be constructive and polite. The purpose of my post is to see if we can agree on some basic facts or whether there is basic disagreement about these facts or other possible explanations. I am also aware that there are those who believe that that no commercial airliners were used (no-planers) and so on but I think that this is a variable belief amongst the ‘Truthers’? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Facts agreed by most
1. That 2 hijacked Aeroplanes hit the two towers.
2. That the hijackers were aware that this is a suicide mission.
3. The two towers ultimately collapsed.
4. The 4 black boxes from the aeroplanes were all recovered, but it seems that for the first time ever, they malfunctioned and no information was obtained.
5. That there long standing well documented connections between the Saudis and Al Qaeda and also with the CIA
6. That there connections between the Bush family and various members of the bin Laden family and the Saudis.
7. That the Bin Laden family were let out of the US on the first civilian flight out of the States, after 911.
8. That there had been some threats from AQ known by the CIA and other sources about possible attacks using aeroplanes.
9. That the security response to the attacks was inadequate.
10. That the investigations into the attack were either inadequate or not entirely convincing.
11. That despite the security and intelligence failure no high ranking officer lost their job.
12. There are inconsistencies on the identity of the hijackers and also their aviation abilities.
13. There was an immediate mobilisation to first attack Afghanistan (maybe understandable if it is AQ you are after), but almost at the same time of Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack as we all knew at the time and confirmed later on.
14. There was an associated anthrax attack which initially was blamed on Saddam Hussain but subsequently proven to be home grown.
15. There had been professed plans to invade 7 Arab countries within 5 years, not really concealed but widely discussed with documents produced by PNAC and also the famous Wesley Clerk interview.
16. There are many documented false flag attacks attributed to the CIA and later acknowledged openly in order to soften public opinion to invade or attack other countries.
17. Oil has been very important in the economy of the west and its industry. There is a long history of meddling by the US and UK in the ME because of oil. The Oil rich Kingdoms and Sheikhdoms are allies of the west and propped up by them. There have never been attempts at colour revolutions to democratic these repressive regimes. On the other hand there was a blatant replacement of a democratically elected ruler in Iran in 1953 and replacement by a repressive regime for the sake of Oil.
18. That 911 was an excuse for further interference with countries in the ME with the intent in producing regime change in those independent countries.
One of the most controversial aspects of 911, at least in this thread, seems to be the mode of destruction of the twin towers: whether by progressive collapse or by demolition.
Progressive collapse: the explanation is that this was caused because of some design faults in the twin towers. The buildings were lightweight and relied more on the steel frames than on more traditional but heavier use of more concrete. Some features of the construction meant that despite the modelling to withstand being hit by a jet, the subsequent resistance to fire were not more carefully assessed. The faults included large spans for vertical trusses, less use of fire retardants to insulate the steel and water based sprinkler system which was no us in this type of fire. The result was that although the temperature generated was not high enough to melt the steel, it caused it to expand thereby dislocating some joints between the horizontal beams and vertical trusses causing displacement and buckling because of expansion during heating and together with the loss of the outside wall by the damage from the plane, the top floors started to pancake, further crushing the lower floors and causing progressive collapse. Although it has been said that this sort of collapse is rarely due to fire damage, several instances of other buildings affected by fire damage and leading to progressive collapse have been recorded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
Demolition: That the speed of the collapse was only compatible with demolition that was deliberately set off after the plane impact. This theory relies on testimony by some who say they heard explosions and by some workers detecting nanothermite in some of the debris. This is a highly skilled process and can go wrong. Here is an example which also explains the complexity of the planning.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2015/oct/12/explosives-demolitions-go-wrong-red-road-flats-glasgow-controlled
The first hypothesis seems to explain the collapse without any additional happening as to the cause of the collapse, the later introduces an intent by some unknown forces (?the deep state) which involves the pre-rigging of the two structures so that they would fall on ithier footprint. Such controlled demolitions would require expertise and prolonged planning before the event in order to achieve this perfect fall. This would mean that quite a number of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy to make it work and to be well hidden.
It seems to me that whichever line you take something is very clear and has been repeatedly stated by the neo-cons: that they have been planning to invade countries in the ME for geopolitical reasons and were either waiting for an excuse or conspired to produce the excuse. The later could have been done by actually either collaborating with the terrorists or letting it happen by ignoring or downplaying the threat. To me therefore whether the plane crash into the towers caused the collapse or whether demolition caused the collapse, does not really alter the fact that 911 was a conspiracy whether it is by ignoring or facilitating ‘blowback’ or by making use opportunistically of this blowback. To me the follow on from 911, the invasion of Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya and Syria would have been equally justifiable by even if the planes hit the towers without causing them to fall. I disagree with the interpretation that there is a difference in that one involves killing your own people and the other kills other nation’s people. After all we are pretty sure that the Iraq war caused the death of over one million Iraqis. Are we saying that mass murderers really care who they kill for their purposes?
” 4. The 4 black boxes from the aeroplanes were all recovered, but it seems that for the first time ever, they malfunctioned and no information was obtained. ”
Not quite true.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/13/why-wasnt-one-single-black-box-recovered-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/#1553e6ca1be3
It wouldn’t be the first time a black box had malfunctioned either nor the first time one was destroyed in a high speed impact and fire. Although tough they’re not totally indestructible as the public often believes.
SA, I agree with almost all of that, so I will just point out my minor disagreements, plus some suggestions:
Point 13; re. Iraq: Susan Lindauer was a “back channel” between the US and Iraq at the UN. The US was expecting an attack, and had determined to punish Iraq for it, whether Iraq was responsible or not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg
– “Progressive collapse: the explanation is that this was caused because of some design faults in the twin towers”
Nearly. The Twin Towers were about as cheap and lightweight as such large buildings could possibly be, but they didn’t collapse through any fault. They did have inadequate fireproofing, sprinklers, smoke extraction, and emergency announcement systems, and inadequate escape paths; all of these are recorded in the NIST report NCSTAR1, though in very muted language. Some minor extra expense would have saved thousands of lives, even under the extreme circumstances of the 9/11 attacks.
– “Demolition: That the speed of the collapse was only compatible with demolition”
Demolition theorists indeed make that claim, but on various spurious grounds, retreating to other grounds when questioned, eventually just going round and round.
– – – – –
As you have pointed out, there is really no need to promote “controlled demolition”. All the other matters that you have listed make the neocon motivations perfectly clear, whether 9/11 was genuine but capitalised upon, permitted to happen, false-flag, or “controlled” demolition.
But there is another motivation for promoting demolition theory specifically. It is claimed that the destruction of the WTC buildings was an insurance scam by Larry Silverstein, and this theory is promoted by some writers who also promote denial of the Holocaust. We have at least one supporter of this position commenting on this thread.
SA, in my view it is very important to establish the mode of collapse for were it proved that it was a controlled demolition the, call for the identification of the people behind it would be irresistible.
In the link you provided of examples of progressive collapses, only the steel framed structures would be relevant and of those there were only 2 where the collapse was total. In both cases the buildings were rather small at 7 and 4 storeys. I could not find any info on the 7 storey Aberdeen building but the 4 story Kader factory photos show that the structure weakened, bent and collapsed onto itself as a result of the fire, completely unlike the Twin Towers which fragmented into pieces along the whole 415m height.
While a 4 or a 7 storey building can be completely engulfed by fire, the Twin Towers were undamaged for some 300m of their height. That is why talk of fire insulation and sprinklers is irrelevant because there was no damage and fire 5 or 10 storeys below the impact point and lower. In fact the total collapse of tall structures like the Twin Towers is completely unique.
The “Truthers” do not have a problem with damage to the Towers at the point of impact or the initiation of failure such as buckling of the upper sections, but what is inexplicable within the confines of a progressive collapse is the ensuing perfectly symmetrical collapse and fragmentation of the buildings as a result of completely asymmetric damage at velocities approaching (65%) freefall. In the case of WTC7 freefall occurred for some 3 or 4 seconds.
NIST did not investigate the progression of the collapse but stopped at initiation. You need to ask yourself why?
So Nikko
Why?
They are not idiots
And as I said in my post, I am not trying to throw new light as I have no deep insight, but I see that demolition does not add to the whole conspiracy. My understanding is that once a segment of the structure has collapsed above the point of impact, that the weight of the collapsed part will then produce a collapsing mass that will lead to progressive collapse.
If you think demolition took place you will need to convince me of the way this was achieved. Was it done a week in advance ? Is there any other circumstantial evidence that a group of demolition experts surveyed the building very carefully, a process that cannot be done surreptitiously, then came in and placed the charges, perhaps in the depth of night in carefully pre planned areas. These individuals charged with demolition, a whole team of them will then be sworn to secrecy. And when they receive the signal that the plane has hit the building, they rush with thier detonators and equipment, whilst firemen are frantically trying to save people and then perform the demolition. I am not sure that demolition can be achieved so successfully under such conditions.
So we are also left with the question: Why would those who wish to produce this ‘new Pearl Harbour’ want to demolish the building when the whole world can see that an aeroplane has just ploughed into it? Tell me the logic (and logistics) of the demolition, and I will believe you.
SA, your understanding of the way progressive collapse works is very simplistic and wrong. Do not forget that the structure was always designed to support the full weight of the building. The planes would have added weight but once it started to fall the force on the supporting structure would actually reduce. Besides, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane so added mass was not an issue.
It is not for Truthers to prove how exactly controlled demolition was achieved. There are myriads of ways to do controlled demolition and such a task can only be achieved by a proper investigation. The best we can do is show that it was not a progressive collapse and perhaps theorise about the likely control demolition methods.
Just because you do not understand why and how something is done does not mean that it did not happen.
“It is not for Truthers to prove how exactly controlled demolition was achieved. There are myriads of ways to do controlled demolition and such a task can only be achieved by a proper investigation. ”
Myriads? Really? What do you mean by this exaggerated statement. I understand that controlled demolition is an exact science that needs proper planning and now you tell me that it can be executed on the back of an envelope in ‘myriads of ways’? And then you say it is not up to truthers to prove how ‘controlled demolition was achieved.
So let me see I can propose a theory that says that the twin towers were destroyed by reverse engineering but really it is not up to me to explain how this may work?
This is why you’re known as the “9/11 Lies Movement”. A commenter tells you they are not expert, so you take advantage by posting:
– “Do not forget that the structure was always designed to support the full weight of the building”
You know full well why that is misleading, yet you do it anyway. Likewise this:
– “…once it started to fall the force on the supporting structure would actually reduce”
which of course is technically true, but proves precisely nothing because it occurs in every top-down collapse that has ever happened.
You’re a bunch of liars, because your arguments imply that the following, which I have shown you over and over again, is impossible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
SA @ 19.32,
Just as there are myriads of ways to construct a building there are many ways to demolish them mechanically, e.g. top down, bottom up, from the middle, explosives or incendiaries, timings, etc. Just because there are alternatives does not mean it can be done on the back of an envelope.
Why should we have to prove exactly how it was done when it is sufficient to prove that it was not a natural progressive collapse?
Controlled demolition on buildings has been done thousands of times? Why do you find it so difficult to accept in this case when no convincing explanation for a natural progressive collapse has been presented and a similar collapse has not been witnessed before?
Occam’s razor (also Ockham’s razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae “law of parsimony”) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
The events of 911 with an aeroplane hitting a building and causing a fire were also rare occurrences. The principle of Occam’s razor suggest that you should look for the simplest possible answer. This happens to be progressive collapse as demolition involves another complex scenario that is difficult to envisage. Occam’s razor (also Ockham’s razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae “law of parsimony”) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected or when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better one.
The trouble with Occam’s razor is that it doesn’t let them get their target, which is Larry Silverstein.
Ironically, Trump claimed to be very good friends with Silverstein, yet Trump is fairly popular around here whereas Silverstein is the Devil.
SA @21.01
The two scenarios are hardly equal; one has been performed thousands of times, the other defies laws of physics and has never been witnessed
– “the other defies laws of physics”
This is not true. Its proponents post fake science like Wood’s BBE and constantly deploy smear tactics, but they can’t post the mathematical inequality that would support it.
If they post it, I’ll examine it, but its been sixteen years and still nothing, so I say it’s a lie.
“Things can’t collapse”? Yeah, right!
Nikko
“The two scenarios are hardly equal; one has been performed thousands of times, the other defies laws of physics and has never been witnessed”
When you think about it progressive collapse and demolition end up in the same way, pancaking. In both cases
there is weakening of vertical supports at one level of the building by explosives or by pneumatic displacement thereby allowing the falling upper floor to use gravity to crush the lower floors. So in some ways what we are talking about is the same process, you don’t need different rules of physics. The only difference is that in one case the demolition is effected deliberately by hydraulics or explosives, and in the progressive collapse it is caused accidentally in this case weakening by being hit by an aeroplane and also by the subsequent fire cause metal to expand and displacement of trusses, causing loss of vertical support. It really doesn’t matter what the building height is provided there are sufficient floors above to effect the rest of the gravity assisted crushing. The reason why this is not commonly seen is simply because there have not been many aeroplanes hitting high buildings for us to produce any sort of statistics of likelihood. But as per the Wikipedia page I posted, this has happened due to fire as recently as this year in Tehran.
Moreover Nikko if there was deliberate demolition you have to show me any evidence that the charges happened to be at the level of where the plane hit the buildings. Is there any evidence of collapse starting anywhere other than above this level? If not then what we would need to argue is that those responsible for placing the charges either knew in advance where to place them, very unlikely as the plane could have hit somewhere else, or the whole building was rigged at many levels and those who detonated the charges chose the floors hit by the plane.
As you say, controlled demolitions and progressive collapse end up at the same place but progressive collapse is extremely rare. I am not aware of a single case similar to the three WTC buildings. You mention the Plasco building in Teheran. Watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGr4D1-zDI and you will see that the collapse is highly asymmetric, i.e. one side of the building goes first and then the remaining structure just topples over. Not much of a progressive collapse.
By contrast the three WTC collapses were highly symmetrical all the way to the ground– some feat from asymmetric damage and given the Towers’ height of 415m. The Plasco building was only 40 odd meters high.
As you say, “you do not need different rules of physics”, but whatever the type of collapse, you need energy. In a natural progressive collapse the only source of energy is gravity and for it to work the falling upper structure must regain sufficient energy between floor impacts to be able to completely collapse the next one. Have you satisfied yourself that this was the case for the WTC buildings?
The controlled demolition technique of verinage actually relies on this principle but it only works on buildings up to around 8 floors high and made of concrete. Concrete, because it is brittle and shatters easily on impact, unlike steel which is ductile and deforms. In the verinage technique the middle floor is made to drop one level and the other floors are weakened to help the process and yet there are examples of collapses running out of energy. Also, in this type of collapse, the falling sections decelerate sharply at each impact point, converting the kinetic energy of the fall into energy that destroys the building. This was not in evidence for the WTC collapses.
The Twin Towers were basically a steel tube with an inner steel core and composite steel/concrete floors suspended between the perimeter and core. Can you imagine how the top part of a tube can fall through the bottom part? Or how the floors collapsing inside the tube leads to fragmentation of the tube and core? I can’t and neither could NIST.
Like I said, we are not in a position to show you exactly how and where charges were placed, but if you are interested the proof that there was not enough energy to collapse the buildings with gravity only in the time they took is straight forward.
Nikko
As I said I am no expert but I can still see some problems with your explanations. I would have thought that the demolition of a building also depends mainly on gravity and the explosive charges are merely to destabilise the vertical support. Irrespective of whether the fall was symmetrical or not the weakening causes collapse at that point. There is no evidence for a multi level collapse in what I have seen, merely collapse at the level of entry of the planes. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also you present the steel structure as a strong tube but I could see it as an interlocking meshwork of steel coloumns and struts which can be displaced and break into component parts rather than collapse in the manner you described. Please again correct me if I am wrong.
You are right, in a controlled demolition the explosives remove the supports and gravity brings the structure down. In a natural collapse gravity has to do the lot.
WTC7 descended at freefall acceleration for 3 or 4 seconds, which means that during this time the whole of the gravitational force was used up to accelerate the falling structure and no energy whatsoever was left for any other purpose. WTC 1 and 2 descended at near freefall, so the available surplus energy was correspondingly small.
Sorry SA but I do not understand your point about the “multi level” collapse. The Twin Towers started collapsing from the top, whereby the structure above the impact point “destroyed itself” against the bottom structure while the bottom structure stood undisturbed from the impact point down. At the point the top structure was consumed, the bottom structure started collapsing from the top down but exactly what was happening at the destruction front was not observed due to the emission of voluminous pyroclastic clouds. This is best seen on WTC 1. Squibs (power localised emissions of smoke) can be seen preceding the collapse front. Similar squibs can often be observed on controlled demolitions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYh6OO61zdk
The Twin Tower structure was indeed an “interlocking meshwork” of steel columns approximating to a tube. The individual elements were bolted or welded together and energy would have been required to break it apart. You can see that the building fragmented into similar sized pieces in this photo. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Aerial_photo_of_WTC_groundzero.jpg
Where did the energy for this come from?
What I meant is that I do not really see why progressive collapse should be any different from demolition of the weakness of the structure was produced at one level which is what the visual evidence we see from WTC 1 and 2. If you are proposing that demolition was used and accounted for a quicker fall then you would see evidence of simultaneous weakening of levels lower down, that is evidence of multilevel explosions, i.e. its like if someone took out a stool you were standing on if you excuse my layman jargon. There is no evidence for this, there is progressive collapse from the point of impact of aeroplanes downwards.
As for ‘Squibbs’, i believe that they are not limited to demolition and can occur even in verinage and are due to compression of air from a falling initially solid mass.
SA, what precisely was happening at the collapse front was hidden from view by the dust clouds. Only squibs were visible a number of floors ahead of the collapse.
You mention squibs in verinage demolitions – I would not call them squibs as squibs are highly localised compared to the general ejection of dust in verinage demolitions from between two colliding floors. In the WTC buildings the squibs were several floors ahead of the collapsing front.
If you consider the WTC squibs to be the result of floors moving piston like down the building ahead of the collapse, then you need to consider whether the building was air tight around the core to build up pressure, and if you conclude that it was, then you need to consider the energy needed to compress the air, the mechanism to fragment the building and the impact on the overall collapse time.
I think that by now we have been through the basic points of the collapses. For me the energy balance around a gravity led progressive collapse does not add up without gravity getting some extra help. I am open to being proved wrong but any proof would have to include a plausible mechanism to tear the structures apart and be supported by numbers. Until then I go with the pretty solid evidence that progressive collapse could not have happened.
Happy New Year to all.
There was no core left
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/a47_0RTR2G31/main_1200.jpg?1420519567
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/a50_19987308/main_1200.jpg?1420519569
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/
Both cores stood briefly after the main collapses; therefore the cores were not crushed during collapse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqSLIPwZ430
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW82nyrSOCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApjZc7-Bj7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28T0I4jEYsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoCWDGNOewA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4WXfSaVsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgW85Ew_Npw
You clearly do not know what the core looked like
Clearly you’re bullshitting because you’ve been presented with irrefutable evidence.
The 9/11 Lies Movement.
Its lift shafts
No need to blow them, they have no strength they will fall down seconds after their supports have been removed
Oh look they did
The Core looks a bit different, but you can’t see it because its not there.
Now you have been proved wrong again and you have habitually re-humiliated yourself cue the expletetives, abuse and hysteria
Don’t flatter yourself Peter. John Goss gets a bit of abuse back occasionally for his continuous smear tactics.
So. You’re saying the core was explosively demolished in some manner that left the lift rails that were attached to it, right? Pull the other; it’s got bells on.
All these videos stop before the disintegration of “the spire” apart from the grainy one. It might just be coincidence of course.
Lift shaft with cables collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI
Most of them show the fall of the core remnant. Two show that the WTC1 core moved to one side before falling vertically.
The core remnant fell; it did not “disintegrate”. Those videos also show that little dust was left in the air where the tower was, and that the vast majority of it welled out near ground level. When are you going to start seeing what’s there instead of what you want to see?
How can it fall vertically? It has to be falling into a hole. The whole of the building should have behaved like that remnant. It should have stood up according to Newtonian physics – the whole lot. One small spire tapered with the thickest part below was not consumed initially by the nuclear weapon. But it did disintegrate as it went down. Which is why your “official” videos end where they do. Officialdom does not want questions being asked.
Open your eyes Clark. In all meanings of the phrase.
It doesn’t matter how many times I post the evidence; you just ignore it. You can see the thick core columns on the debris field:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Aerial_photo_of_WTC_groundzero.jpg
Clark, thank you for posting the above photograph. It is a pretty impressive piece of aerial photography. Perhaps things can be learnt from it. Taking into consideration that the high quality photograph was taken 12 days after 9/11 my initial observations are these.
1. Near the centre of where both towers stood there appear to be very few metal beams joined together.
2. There appear to be no great chunks of concrete, in fact hardly any concrete at all.
3. There is a huge pile of dust across the street from tower 1 looking like a grey snowdrift against the largely intact parts of the outer (I presume) side of the building which have been deposited across the street. There are other huge piles of dust.
4. The largely intact parts of the building are what I suspect most engineers would expect to see in a cold collapse (piled high like a mountain). Certainly it is what I would expect to see.
5. Unlike the “spire” these largely intact parts must have been thrown outwards I suspect. “Down and out” as Jonathan Cole shows using timed explosives. These prefabricated spandrel welded sections are spread outwards from the centre for both towers.
6. There is a very hot event still going on underground where the core of Tower 1 is centred. (Witness the smoke, and the smoking gun).
7. Some of the biggest beams are lying horizontally around the core. Not one of them appears to be connected to another.
8. Near the core there are very few prefabricated sections, yet there was a whole inner section of them which included “the spire”. I am certainly asking where they went.
9. None of the beams that I can see suffers deformation. Yet none are joined together.
10. The still standing parts of both towers (towards the roads) indicate that any explosives were largely placed away from the roads probably to try and protect other buildings outside the WTC complex.
11. The still standing parts of both towers (although this is a plan perspective) indicate that the inner part of the demolition is level with the road.
Conclusion. A nuclear device destroyed the inner core. Explosives (possibly nano-thermite) were used to separate the outer structure from the inner structure. But there is no way those buildings could have come down almost in freefall from a small damaged section above the main superstructure. Good photo. Thanks.
@ Peter Beswick December 29, 2017 at 19:00
We’re told the whole ‘plane’ went into the building – in fact, that’s what all the video pictures show. Some even see the ‘hole’ repair itself momentarily, with an intact wall after we have seen the ‘plane’ enter.
Look at the third you posted above:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/
Where the left wing supposedly entered, there is no break in some of the outer beams, just the outer cladding broken off.
so how does a wing enter the building intact (as we see on video’s of the ‘plane’ supposedly entering the building), yet there is no break in the outer beams?
Why is it that photoshopped images of planes look exactly like the videos we all saw of the ‘9/11 plane’ entering the building?
My last sentence should have read: ‘Why is it that photoshopped images of planes entering the building look exactly like the videos we all saw of the ‘9/11 plane’ entering the building?’
I don’t know Paul, I would like to know thats why I think it should be properly investigated
@ Peter BeswickDecember 29, 2017 at 20:43
Everyone who hasn’t seen Ace Baker’s videos, should watch these:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEA05F393EC843D80
But principally the following two parts:
’06 – What Planes?’: https://www.youtube.com/watchv=YJU55FzcM2A&t=607s&list=PLEA05F393EC843D80&index=6
’07 – The Key’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds&index=7&list=PLEA05F393EC843D80
There has been some allegations of plagiarism against ‘Ace’ Baker, but that should hardly convern us here, that’s a legal matter for the courts if the person putting the allegation should wish to follow it up.
‘Ace’ (actually his place is taken by an actor in the videos) has brought up many extremely well argued points, not least of which is the lack of ‘wake vortex’ swirling the smoke and flames from the burning tower.
The gash in the second picture is exactly 48m long, ie the same as 767 wingspan
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/
How did the wings manage to penetrate a box section of 14″x14″ steel, particularly at the tips where the wings are quite flimsy and there is very little mass?
I’ve just cut a gash in a Banks’s beer-can the same geometric shape as a 767. Near as damnit. Trouble is I did it the opposite way from the way they did it. Do you think it will matter?
The columns hit by the outer sections of the wings were not severed; the damage visible in the photograph is to the decorative aluminium cladding on the box columns. The columns completely severed spanned from column 144 to column 112 inclusive, spanning about 32 metre across the building.
Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow.
C’mon “Truthers”, big it up with as many lies as you can trot out. Craig only blew the whistle on torture, got sacked and nearly died; let’s make it as much like David Icke’s round here as possible! That’d be noble.
“Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow.”
Clark you will see that those columns falling from the top of the buildings suffered no damage. They were detached from one another. There is no way an aluminium plane will cut any of them. The engines and undercarriage could cause a few dints. I don’t know how they did it but it was not with 767s.
That’s the way, John; change the subject slightly to distract from the exposure of the original fallacy; “The gash in the second picture is exactly 48m long, ie the same as 767 wingspan” is false. Throw in confusion and muddy the water; that’s always the rational approach.
See, all we need is an argument that sounds convincing. It doesn’t matter if it’s made of hundreds of fallacies so long as each one sounds a bit plausible. If anyone starts looking too closely at any one of them, a few of your mates can pick half a dozen or so off the heap and say “well what about these”? When the obliging fool starts looking too closely at one of those, just repeat the process until they’re overwhelmed.
“Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow.”
Clark if you really understood Newton in practice you would concede that for 1/4″ either side of the columns (at their very weakest) they were 14″ deep. What that means for each column, even if aluminium could penetrate the 14″ face of the column (which it could not, or if it could I would like to see it modeled) there were still two 1/4″ sides that were 14″ deep to each column. You do not seem to be able to grasp that.
You are right Clark, the perimeter appears not to have been severed by the wing tips, particularly on the left hand side.
Clark @ 22.34: “Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow”
If you are going to quote, please have the decency to quote in full. I actually said “box section of 14″x14″ steel” which everybody knows is hollow.
@ Nikko December 29, 2017 at 21:26
And how come parts of the ‘aircraft’. like wings, tail and even the whole plane in one clip (almost impossible to see without slowing the video down, which I am incapable of):
‘9/11: 18 Views of “Plane Impact” in South Tower | World Trade Center (HD DOWNLOAD)’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
At 1.17, the ‘plane’ is on a descending angle, and would hit WTC 2 much too low.
‘SUPPRESSED 9/11 TAPE SHOWS SILENT PLANE ENTERING WTC’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZmcNlE-ttQ
At 1.30 you can see ‘wings’ have entered building, but there is no hole!
Again at 1.28-1.30.
‘9/11: 18 Views of “Plane Impact” in South Tower | World Trade Center (HD DOWNLOAD)’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
Here again, at 5.37. Same link – at 7.20 – doesn’t look much like a plane!
Again, at 8.45, when ‘plane’ is half-way into the building, behind the green steeple, there appears to be no hole where the ‘wing’ had almost penetrated.
At 9.11, where is the ‘plane’s’ disappears at one stage, then flies on sans the left wing (very difficult to catch this one – it really needs to be slowed down a lot).
At 9.44 the ‘plane’ has two tails (again, very hard to catch).
In not one of any ‘plane’ video is there any debris falling from the ‘plane’ impact, yet debris CAN be seen being ejected from the other side, often in the same footage from the same camera. Trifle odd, what?
NIST didn’t find any evidence of the use of explosives in any of the WTC Towers, but then, of course, they explained on being asked that they had not looked.
Similarly, the FDA was ‘..not aware of any information showing that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding (Ref. 5). Further, FDA concluded that the method of development of a new plant variety (including the use of new techniques such as rDNA technology) is generally not material information within the meaning of section 201(n) of the FD&C Act, and would not usually be required to be disclosed in the labeling for the food. This determination was reviewed and upheld by the court in Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala, 116 F. Supp. 2d 166, 178–79 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding that FDA’s determination that genetic engineering, alone, is not a material fact that warrants food labeling was entitled to deference)….’:
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm059098.htm )
but again, they didn’t test for it.
Perhaps they need to take notice of many independent researchers:
‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb – Gary Null – Part 1’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAL_AMdMXqY
‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb – Part 2’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=sx4Dud0othY
Is that supposed to be ‘Good Science’, or adherence to a ‘Precautionary Principal’?
Does anybody really believe the US and UK regulatory and safety bodies give two hoots about Joe Public?
I am not talking about most firefighters, doctors and nurses here, of course, but even some of them will sell their souls for the sake of their jobs of financial incentives.
Three further parts to above:
‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb – Part 3’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppumc3iavzI
‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb – Part 4’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yakLhePNT2s
‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb – Part 5’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0JsCr6RZdA
Node
I would comment on this but Node doesn’t like people to comment on other conspiracies on this thread. Did you ask his/her permission?
SA = SP
Don’t understand, please could you express what you mean?
SP = “Stupid Person” ?
Understandable reaction to your childish response to being challenged for posting current news stories on a 911 Thread, and also having the audacity to complain on a 911 Thread that discussing 911 is a distraction from current issues !
You and Macky seem to criticise me for discussing non-911 matters in a 911 post whilst ignoring the fact that my posts were in response to Paul’s non-911 posts. You Node made a false allegation in answer to a previous post which I refuted and you never answered my refutation. You then indulge in childish name calling SP? As to Macky he is still smarting for my pointing out his irrationality regarding religion.
@AS, LOL ! A little intellectual honesty would do you good; you were criticised not for responding to anything, but for criticising others for discussing CTs on a 911 Thread (!), and for repeatedly posting items on Syria on the 911 Thread instead of on the current Thread.
As for “smarting” you do bizarrely flatter yourself as the only pointing out of irrationality regarding religion was the pointing out of your attempt to blame the crimes of Fascism, Soviet & Chinese Communism on Religion ! 😀
I haven’t told anyone to do anything.
I said to 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!” but he chose to pretend I’d said something else.
And I suggested to Michael Norton (under his latest alias) that the main thread was more appropriate than this one for his obsessions about French nuclear power and non-conspiracy-related stories about Syria.
And the meaning of “SP” shouldn’t be difficult, and will be obvious in retrospect.
And now I’m off partying for a few days. Happy New Year to everybody!
Node
This is not your blog so you really are not one to set any rules. However you should at least be polite enough to observe the rules of the blog which is to avoid personal insults . So calling me an SP is neither polite nor grown up.
Hope you have a happy new year.
This is not your blog so you really are not one to set any rules.
Quote Node above: “I haven’t told anyone to do anything.”
you should at least be polite enough to observe the rules of the blog which is to avoid personal insults
“SP” is not an insult.
Macky
Do you like to but into other people’s conversations to add your condescending advice?
The only irrationality is pretending that religion has any place in politics and governance except of course if you are a religious fundamentalist.
@SA
Oh dear, you’re getting even more petulant !
Religion has whatever place a society decides to give it.
What does SP mean?
This is a link to Tony_0pmoc’s post on the current thread;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/12/a-great-day/comment-page-5/#comment-713576
The Youtube video ““Interview with a Military Whistleblower. Russian – American Relations”” is well worth watching, and not just for the 911 comments;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyC4oKIhCzg
@ Macky December 30, 2017 at 00:42
Blimey, that IS a great interview. And both whistleblowers got jailed, while the perps carried on regardless.
Here is one of the articles it shows on the video:
‘Whistleblower Scott Bennett Challenges U.S. Senators to Take Action on Terrorist Funding through Swiss Bank Accounts’:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2015/06/15/whistleblower-scott-bennett-challenges-u-s-senators-to-take-action-on-terrorist-funding-through-swiss-bank-accounts/
I missed that! Good find Opmoc! Thanks Macky for highlighting a corker of an interview.
Some good argument and insight but he also seems keen to discredit himself in too many other ways. Watch his change of approach, the sideways glance, the faint smirk, emphatic shaking of head as he begins talking about 9-11, he certainly doesn’t seem as sure of himself for a moment or two. Mini Nukers and No-Planers may swoon but I’m somewhat wary.
He seems keen to endorse plenty of cliche and faulty analysis. Leaving the sex and gender rant aside, one example, his endorsement of the very conventional and established view that right wing nationalism is an inevitable result of falling living standards and immigration and a property of the ignorant and uneducated, rather than inculcated attitudes (via propaganda.) Who benefits from the most marginalised in society blaming ‘outsiders’? More importantly who can pay for racism to thrive? Who is shaping and growing the petty nationalist and racist arguments? Who are the loudest voices? Who are the players? Who’s backing them financially? Who’s giving them air time and a disproportional platform?
From colonialism and inherently racist wars all the way down to this interview, where he’s careful to acknowledge the essential savagery of the people he’s ostensibly defending (by repeating a litany of incendiary ‘rampaging Muslims in Europe’ stories which are often quietly retracted after the headlines fade) a false context is created and maintained. The fact that the viewer might agree with other parts of the argument and wants to believe them is the sugared pill, is how the ideology is slipped through and accepted.
That he’s actually quite doctrinaire lends credence to his departures from the consensus for some while functioning as pure aversion therapy for many others who really need to hear portions of what he’s saying. In that sense, this is certainly a masterclass in disinformation. The self limiting, limited hangout.
That he appears to work harder to shape misconceptions than he does to create awareness of them should be caveat enough.
‘Iran: Anti-govt. protests spread to Behshahr – video’:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-anti-govt-protests-spread-behshahr-video/?
Syria was a bridge too far; the ‘Great Satan’ is cruising for a bruising, if they go after Iran.
¡Basta ya!¡Ya está bien!
‘Iranian minister slams Bahraini FM for offensive tweets’:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iranian-minister-slams-bahraini-fm-offensive-tweets/
‘…“You are too small to comment on a dignified Iran which embodies an ancient and glorious history and civilization,” Bahram Qasemi said while commenting on Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa’s anti-Iran remarks made on Friday in a twitter message….’
True, in the way it was meant. But have any of you seen such a grotesque blob of lard Bahrein’s ‘Foreign Minister’? Hardly ‘small’ in that respect!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair
Perhaps one could also replace ‘salary’ with ego or sanity!
But Paul, you’ve already declared yourself opposed to understanding anything. Critical thinking is out; your intuition is the best guide any of us can hope for, and you’ll trawl the web for everyone else and tell us all which pages to believe and which to reject. Or did I fail to comprende ?
Analysis of a photograph linked by Clark.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/11-remarks-on-this-photo/
Does this mean he has debunked himself?
I think you need to ask Clark about that.
John, good analysis. What is quite striking is the spread of debris (both the steel perimeter assemblies and the aluminium cladding – in some cases a distance of 120m – see the green roofed building just south of South Bridge in the top left of the photo. No plausible explanation other than gravity had help.
Well indeed. Gravity must have had help Nikko. But you and I have known that all along. The photograph confirms it. What an evil deed!
Today I conducted the third and final beer-can experiment. Clark was of course right. You cannot take two chunks out of the side of a beer-can and expect it to be as strong as a non-fractured can. However there were lessons to learn.
I took a brick weighing 4.92 lbs and put it on top of the fractured can. Then another brick of the same weight. And another. The sixth brick collapsed the can. And the bricks fell to earth. So that damaged beer-can weighing just over 1/2 oz (0.6) would not support 6 bricks weighing 29.48 lbs before giving way. It would however support 5 bricks (24.6 lbs).
There are 16 oz in a lb
24.6 lbs x 16 = 121.032 oz
How much could the beer-can support of its own weight?
121.032 / 0.6 = 201.72
You can now explain to people that a beer-can into which flew an imaginary plane causing entry and exit fractures will still support more than 200 times its own weight. Furthermore when it did collapse the bricks fell to the side where excisions had been made. The can did not collapse to the ground but just crushed down at the fracture point.
Newton in practice.
@ John Goss January 3, 2018 at 17:30
That was cheating! You should have dropped the bricks from a short height (equivalent).
I’m surprised you’re sober enough to type, given all the beer cans your emptying!
“I’m surprised you’re sober enough to type, given all the beer cans your emptying!”
In the name of research we have to make these minor sacrifices to sobriety Paul.
@ Tony_0pmoc January 4, 2018 at 00:07
(I posted this as relating to your comment on the current thread, and Mods. told me to keep ‘conspiracy theories’ on this 9/11 thread)
I hope to go to Frome myself.
Your new ‘friend’ who ‘shorted’ stock may not have been the only one with apparent ‘foreknowledge’ of a ‘Terrorist Attack’, or a half-way decent crystal ball (I realise you seem to be writing about two separate attacks, Spain and 7/7):
‘7/7 London Bombings: An ‘emergency mortuary’ was established in London the day BEFORE the catastrophe.’:
http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/7-7-London-Bombings–An-emergency-mortuary-was-established-in-London-the-day-BEFORE-the-catastrophe.shtml
And 4 practice drills were being held at exactly the same locations and time as the 4 explosions happened, that were switched to ‘live’ to deal with the situation. How fortuitous and what a coincidence, theory.
“The gash in the second picture is exactly 48m long, ie the same as 767 wingspan”
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/
I have had time to give this a considered opinion. Clark is right in that it is unclear with the damage to the left side of WTC1 whether the cut actually goes through the steel due to camera angle. But where the camera is focusing on the right side I would say the event (whatever it was) has severed the steel columns.
As I looked at the gash in detail it occurred to me that there is something almost too symmetrical to be real. I counted the columns (8 either side). Is that not an amazing piece of pilot-skill?
“The gash in the second picture is exactly 48m long, ie the same as 767 wingspan”
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/911-the-day-of-the-attacks/100143/
I have had time to give this a considered opinion. Clark is right in that it is unclear with the damage to the left side of WTC1 whether the cut actually goes through the steel due to camera angle. But where the camera is focusing on the right side I would say the event (whatever it was) has severed the steel columns.
As I looked at the gash in detail it occurred to me that there is something almost too symmetrical to be real. I counted the columns (8 either side). Is that not an amazing piece of pilot-skill? Experienced pilots do not believe it would be possible to fly a plane into either of the buildings with any high degree of accuracy, if at all. The speed would have to be 350 mph maximum if I remember correctly.
WTC2’s imaginary Boeing did not fly symmetrically into the building. It allegedly went through the south and east side of the building. That is quite convenient. It means if the top toppled and the nuclear weapon did not work it would have toppled onto the WTC complex and not got nasty questions from other property owners nearby.
Finally, take a look at this video compilation of fake planes, in particular look at NBC chopper 4 (live footage) at 6m 52s and tell me where the plane is please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
All these things are perpetually ignored by US government official supporters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
I notice watching NBC chopper 4 there is a plane. Unless I am disoriented it appears to be coming from the wrong direction. I was looking left. It came from the right. Of course it has to be fake!
“Let me tell you how bad things have become. Children are being routinely taught – by their own teachers, in thousands of British state schools – that if they wiggle their heads up and down it will increase blood flow to the frontal lobes, thus improving concentration; that rubbing their fingers together in a special sciencey way will improve ‘energy flow’ through the body; that there is no water in processed food; and that holding water on their tongue will hydrate the brain directly through the roof of the mouth, all as part of a special exercise programme called ‘Brain Gym’. We will devote some time to these beliefs and, more importantly, the buffoons in our educations system who endorse them.
“But this book is not a collection of trivial absurdities. It follows a natural crescendo, from the foolishness of quacks, via the credence they are given in the mainstream media, through the tricks of the £30 billion food supplements industry, the evils of the £300 billion pharmaceuticals industry, the tragedy of science reporting, and on to cases where people have wound up in prison, derided or dead, simply through the poor understanding of statistics and evidence that pervades our society”.
Bad Science?
Yep.
“To anyone who feels their ideas have been challenged by this book, or has been made angry by it – to the people who feature in it, I suppose – I would say this: You win. You really do. I would hope there might be room for you to reconsider, to change your stance in the light of new information (as I will happily do, if there is ever an opportunity to update this book). But you will not need to, because, as we both know, you collectively have almost full-spectrum dominance: your own slots in every newspaper and magazine in Britain, and front-page coverage for your scare stories. You affect outsider swagger, bizarrely, from the sofas of daytime television. Your ideas – bogus though they may be – have immense superficial plausibility, they can be expressed rapidly, and they are believed by enough people for you to make very comfortable livings, and to have immense cultural influence. You win”.
Hence the need for applied common sense.
And applied science.
This video, and I apologise for the robotic voice, may provide the missing link which satisfies those who do not believe there was enough radiation for a nuclear weapon. It puts forward the case for a fusion weapon (or rather a hybrid fusion-fission weapon). It also makes a case for why the US is still in Afghanistan – Li-6 is a source of tritium for nuclear fusion. There are vast amounts of Lithium in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96syRuHvYDI
You might ask why a robotic voice has been used. It is very annoying. But it may have been done to protect the few academic scientists who are up to speed with the state-of-the-art.
An interesting documentary which leaves some unanswered questions.
1. The nuclear devise was emitting a sustained energy field as it was supposedly dropping through the building. This may explain the pulverization of the concrete but the a lot of the steel fragmented into similarly sized pieces. Why?
2. Highly localised squibs preceded the main collapse front. How can a device emitting energy in all directions achieve this?
3. A falling tower would be leaving a wake of reduced pressure behind itself. Is the explanation that light dust particles were drawn into the collapse by the electromagnetic or gravitational fields caused by the device the only explanation or are there other possible explanations?
4. The devise was on “top” of the collapse, so remnants of the device should have been visible on top of the rubble
5. Can a device on “top” of the collapse be responsible for the high temperatures and fires found deep underground
6. The remnants of the WTC 1 core which remained standing to a height of ca. 200m vaporised or otherwise disappeared within a few seconds of the main collapse. If the device was unable to destroy this part of the central core at first attempt, what destroyed it?
Seems to me that the available evidence of the collapse does not match what this device may be able to achieve on its own
“An interesting documentary which leaves some unanswered questions.”
With 9/11 there are so many unanswered questions.
What if they got it wrong? What if they got the device right but it was not dropped?
I think your fifth point is an essential question. But this nuclear disintegration of materials is outside my area of expertise. One thing I will say is as metal appeared to turn to dust the dust kept up gravitational speed with other falling parts as though everything was happening in a vacuum. It was so strange I have to try and keep an open mind. The only theory I have dismissed Nikko is the one which says planes crashed into the twin towers causing fires which collapsed the buildings.
” a hybrid fusion-fission weapon ”
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
You did not wath the video. Did you Mr Engineer?
The only reason an engineer would watch that is for a laugh. The following isn’t particularly informative, but it does show the real scientific activity which the Truther video mangles so badly, and has great views of some pretty cool and very big machines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrHPneSN10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid
A way of generating power.
A fission (hydrogen bomb uses a fusion (atomic) bomb as a trigger to generate the temperatures and pressures needed to start the process of fusion. So talk of a hybrid weapon is just nonsense because in effect a nuclear weapon is just that!
The whole idea of any kind of nuclear weapon being used at 9/11 is ridiculous anyway. As I’ve explained countless times before it’s a physical impossibility to make a mini nuke.
Kempe, I agree with much of what you write but:
– “it’s a physical impossibility to make a mini nuke”
…Ted Taylor designed the smallest fission nukes, and he didn’t agree. If, like me, you find nuclear fact more interesting than Truther nonsense, you may enjoy the following links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYoLcJuBtOw
– “I agree with much of what you write” on this thread. But your reply to SA is vary poor stuff:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/12/a-great-day/comment-page-8/#comment-714323
“So talk of a hybrid weapon is just nonsense because in effect a nuclear weapon is just that!”
Eh!
John, what Kempe means is that an H-bomb is a hybrid fission-fusion device.
Sorry, but the WTC Collapse – The Case For Nuclear Fusion video is scientifically illiterate; just nonsense. Nuclear fusion is very hard to do because the temperature and pressure required are immense. In a star, the conditions are produced by gravity. In an H-bomb, the conditions exist for a split second, produced by the explosion of an A-bomb.
In all other attempts, less energy has been harvested than the energy used to create the conditions. There are a few basic methods, two of which the video mentions – (1) compression of plasma with intense magnetic fields in a toroidal chamber called a tokamak, and (2) firing extremely powerful lasers at a tiny pellet of fusible isotopes.
But the video puts all sorts of things back to front. Conditions for fusion in a star are produced by gravity, not vice-versa. Likewise, the very limited fusion in a tokamak is produced by compression with an intense magnetic field. And you put plasma in a tokamak; not fuel pellets! And enriched uranium is a nuclear fuel; depleted uranium is the waste product from enrichment, and the US has nearly a million tonnes of it stockpiled in an ideal form to poison their own groundwater, because that’s easier than disposing of it properly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_hexafluoride&oldid=813156669#Storage_in_cylinders
Can you believe it? The report that was only aired once the reporter went right up to the Pentagon. Any evidence of a plane? You bet not. Just another CIA hoax. The whole MSM presentation of 9/11 has been a crock of shit and this report proves it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Bn_CC_mrg
Wake up those of you supporting these MSM lies. I wonder after watching this if Craig still thinks the US government was not behind it/
Its the elephant in the room, but its a truth becoming more difficult to resist as the war drags on, prompting state action against the internet and ‘conspiracy sites’. But its a truth made easier to tell made easier by the 9/11 truth double spread in the Daily Mail which can be referenced ‘safe’ in the knowledge they can’t act against you for telling the truth without action against the publisher DM too!
No evidence of a plane at the Pentagon; apart from the CCTV, the eye witnesses, the engine and undercarriage parts (too heavy to lift), both flight recorders and the remains of passengers and crew all identified by DNA.
You’re referring to some Hollywood movie, right?
What CCTV? One camera miles away with time-lapse footage in allegedly the most secure building in the world? There are more CCTV cameras at my local petrol station. Anyway, thanks for the laugh? 😀
Glad I was able to brighten up your day. Your beer can experiments always have me rolling on the floor so about time I returned the compliment.
Now, how about the rest of it?
By “the engine and undercarriage parts (too heavy to lift)” I presume you are referring to what Dave McGowan called the “is it an airplane or is it a soda can?” photos.
My beer-can experiments are based on Newtonian physics. That might be a good place to start.
Let us see the anti-Newtonian metaphysics side modeled engineer Kempe. I have yet to see one,
I suspect that really would be a laugh! But if it works I will doff my cap.
Józef Rotblat and Tola Gryn.
I suppose the twin towers could have fallen because of impact damage from the planes and the fire that ensued and WTC7 could have fallen solely due to fire ……… If you
Ignore the evidence from firefighters members of the public and video recordings that multiple explosions were going off before, during and after the plane impacts,
You condemn the witnesses as liars, delusional or too stupid to recognise correctly what they saw and heard.
Forget the fake news footage of a Tom and Jerry aircraft entering the building completely, losing no bits on the way in, passing through the core and poking its undamaged nose cone out the other side.
Accept that highly trained, qualified and skilled; engineers, scientists, structural engineers, explosive and pyrotechnic demolition experts and pilots …… don’t know what they are talking about.
And you are happy in the knowledge that a guy living in a cave in Afghanistan could coordinate a multi aircraft attack on the US prime targets of the WTC and Pentagon without alerting any security agency. Because such a dastardly fiend would not have the imagination to go for belts and braces and rig the buildings with explosives.
Well obviously it must be one OR the other. Big, complex events involving thousands of people with a hundred billion neurons each always boil down to a stark choice between this OR that. That’s why we have computers with one bit of memory, single pixel screens and one big button on the front – so they’re simple enough even for a Saudi cave-man.
And ignore Newton’s third law.
SHOW me where I “ignore Newton’s third law”, or STOP repeating this lie about me.
Clark said:
“Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow.
C’mon “Truthers”, big it up with as many lies as you can trot out. Craig only blew the whistle on torture, got sacked and nearly died; let’s make it as much like David Icke’s round here as possible! That’d be noble.”
Nikko responded:
“Clark @ 22.34: “Note the myth-building misrepresentation; “14″x14″ steel”, omitting that this was hollow”
If you are going to quote, please have the decency to quote in full. I actually said “box section of 14″x14″ steel” which everybody knows is hollow.”
The questions outstanding are:
1. Who was bigging it up with lies?
2. Who was trying to make Craig look stupid?
In fairness Clark does sometimes apologise when he realises that he got something wrong. However he did not over this. Neither did he over Dr. Judy Wood’s knowledge of physics when he misunderstood what her billiard ball theories were about. Unless I missed the apology.
Take Wood’s BBE to your nearest engineering workshop and ask them what they think of it. Then watch the collapse videos and note Wood’s misleading descriptions of dust production. Then look up comminution; it’s perfectly standard stuff (Charles 1957; Schuhmann 1940; Cunningham 1987; Ouchterlony 2005).
But you won’t, so stop branding your nonsense as science.
You still do not understand Clark. You argued about Wood’s physics being wrong. Bringing dust into it is your diversion. The dust was observed. She dit not create it. Newtonian physics would not have created it. If they had not turned to dust the way they would have been seen to obey Newton’s third would have been like this on a much larger scale.
http://btulp.com/11717/pancake-effect/sumptuous-pancake-effect-11/
You still do not understand Clark. You argued about Wood’s physics being wrong. Bringing dust into it is your diversion. The dust was observed. She dit not create it. Newtonian physics would not have created it. If they had not turned to dust the way they would have been seen to obey Newton’s third would have been like this on a much larger scale.
http://btulp.com/11717/pancake-effect/sumptuous-pancake-effect-11/
If they had not turned to dust the way they did they would have been seen to obey Newton’s third and would have been like this on a much larger scale.
Wood’s description is wrong because she says that dust was produced uniformly throughout the collapses:
– “In the case of both WTC towers, we didn’t see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event”
…but in the videos we see that the enormous dust clouds were produced as the internal collapses (evidenced by the descending, much smaller dusty ejections) hit the ground. Wood’s physics is wrong because the equal and opposite reaction her BBE proposes is far from equal, which contradicts Newton’s third law.
The photo you linked shows a collapse of just a few storeys, but you can see some rubblization and pulverisation. The Twin Tower collapses were from far higher, so the collapses reached much higher speed, accumulating much more energy, and consequently there was far more rubblization and pulverisation – particularly as the collapses were suddenly stopped by the ground.
What do you claim Wood’s BBE proves?
You still do not understand. They were theoretical. Get it? They did not set out to prove anything except that what was seen to happen could not have happened and satisfied Newton’s third.
This is why we keep stressing that you might be able to trot out Newton’s Third but you do not understand it. If you did you would be supporting Nikko and 3000 engineers and architects.
So do you claim that Wood’s BBE proves that “what was seen to happen could not have happened and satisfied Newton’s third”?
Is it not strange that the proponents of the official theory are able to argue why nukes could not have been involved, but are at a loss to explain how gravity alone could have achieved what has happened and been witnessed?
This aerial photo shows that debris landed up to some 120m away from the towers; a feat which normally requires a substantial lateral force.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Aerial_photo_of_WTC_groundzero.jpg
Where did the lateral force to fragment the supporting structures and eject debris come from? The only explanation offered so far (that the towers swung like a skater losing his footing) leaves a lot to be desired and falls way short of what could be expected from those claiming to be up-to-date with fusion/fission developments.
Why do you find the standard explanations unacceptable?
The only explanation that has been offered that I am aware of is the “skater” analogy which is complete tosh.
A proper explanation using accepted physics would give credence to the official theory but for some reason no supporter of the official theory wants to help the Truthers to understand.
There are many possible sources of lateral motion. There is the outward toppling or “peeling” of perimeter sections:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk
There is ‘batting’ of falling objects by those sections. There is stress and bending of vertical structure, with sudden release upon breakage. There is bouncing of falling sections off standing sections. There is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I1UMuBWRE
As for the perimeter breaking into sections, we already considered that, but I think it vanished when this site’s server crashed. Imagine two vertical perimeter sections, one bolted to the top of the other by the box-column ends, the bottom one secured upright. Now start leaning the bottom one outward; how far can it be leant before the top one strips its bolts? If it can get to the horizontal, what about three or four sections assembled vertically? You already agreed the bolts would strip at some point.
The ‘falling over on ice and your bum landing roughly where your feet were’ (not a skater) was an explanation for the top section rotating about its centre of mass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZU3ClJkvY
If I thought we needed a nuke to explain the effects seen, I would say so. But a nuke doesn’t remotely fit the observations. At 35:08 of the video John linked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96syRuHvYDI
Collapse begins at 35:08 with the top section descending into the crush zone, but the great bursting out of material, just below the crush zone, doesn’t start until 35:13, which would seem to be a moment after the hat truss / roof etc. collided with the standing section.
And Nikko, I’m not a “supporter of the official theory” because I regard Bazant’s ‘Pile Driver’ as wrong. The collapses as I describe them are what I have worked out for myself. I think NIST did well to expose some of the safety and design shortcomings of the Twin Towers despite what must have been immense political and commercial pressure, but they also made various errors.
You are a supporter of the “the Towers fell solely as a result of plane and fire damage” theory which makes you a supporter of the official conclusion.
No, the obvious conclusion; the conclusion shared by the vast majority of the physics, engineering and fire safety communities.
Clark, videos of what happened and a few waffly sentences are not a substitute for a scientific proof showing the energy balance whereby gravity is able to fragment the supporting structure, eject debris laterally over hundreds of meters and drive the collapse downwards at 64% of g.
I have been asking this question for well over a year and you have made no progress answering it. Why is Kempe nowhere to be seen when you need his help?
Nikko, I have answered every one of those, repeatedly, for well over a year, but you seem to have made no progress in acknowledging it.
Sorry Clark, but linking videos and describing what everybody can see is not a scientific proof. You claim to have knowledge of nuclear physics and yet cannot understand a simple concept like an energy balance involving basic O’level physics. Why is Kempe not helping you?
What more is there to prove? Acceleration at ~64% of g leaves ~36% of the gravitational potential energy of the building available for destruction of its materials. We estimated the gravitational potential energy of just the floor assemblies at more the the equivalent of 150 tonnes of TNT, so there was at least the destructive energy equivalent of 50 tonnes TNT, with vast kinetic energy left in the final crush to pulverise the concrete, producing the enormous dust cloud.
– “…describing what everybody can see”
Unfortunately some insist upon misrepresenting events, almost as if they were deliberately making a false case. They find flashes after collapse initiation but insist they caused the collapse. They insist, against the evidence of their own eyes, that dust was produced evenly throughout the collapses, when anyone can see that the major dust cloud bellowed out as the collapses completed. Some even insist on misrepresenting Newtonian physics itself, claiming validity for Wood’s BBE; these are generally the most vocal in accusing others of ‘not understanding’.
People such as myself find these behaviours dishonest, and have thus been forced to the conclusion that Truthers are liars.
What more is there to prove? Acceleration at ~64% of g leaves ~36% of the gravitational potential energy of the building available for destruction of its materials. We estimated the gravitational potential energy of just the floor assemblies at more the the equivalent of 150 tonnes of TNT, so there was at least the destructive energy equivalent of 50 tonnes TNT, with vast kinetic energy left in the final crush to pulverise the concrete, producing the enormous dust cloud.
What more is there to prove? Well, everything, because what you wrote is utter tosh and proves nothing. Calculating the potential energy of the whole building is irrelevant as the potential energy of the structure below the collapse does not come into it in any shape or form– what you need to calculate is the energy actually available to destroy the building at each impact point and compare that with the energy needed.
– “what you need to calculate is the energy actually available to destroy the building at each impact point and compare that with the energy needed”
We did that pages and pages back. We calculated the energy dissipated by the time the top of WTC1 had descended one storey. Let’s see… If the top section of WTC1 had a mass of, say, 10,000 tonnes, the energy available for destruction after a one storey drop was weight times distance times 0.36, so about 10,000,000 x g x 3.8 x 0.36 = ~134 megajoule, equivalent to about 32 kilogramme of TNT, or about 130 sticks of dynamite…
…which only needed to do enough damage to let the collapse proceed one more storey. With each entrained storey the falling mass and therefore the available destructive energy increased, so “the potential energy of the structure below the collapse” absolutely DOES come into it, contradicting your insistence that it doesn’t.
Since a kilo of TNT can obliterate a small vehicle, I sure that energy equivalent to 32 kilo of TNT is quite enough to defeat the resistance of two or three hundred little steel lugs like these truss seats:
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict55.jpg
But this is far from a complete analysis!
You have calculated the potential energy released by 10,000 tonnes falling through a distance of 3.8m at 64% of g. Leaving aside whether that is a realistic assumption for the time being, you have omitted to say that the calculated amount of energy equates to a force of 43 million N which would be able to break (in shear) a section of steel of some 0.12m2, equivalent to 13 of the 14”*14” box section columns (in total there were some 250odd of these columns as well as 60 odd (much heftier) central support columns).
Your comparison to TNT is wholly inappropriate. TNT releases energy with a velocity of 7,000m/s. In your example the speed of energy release was at least three orders of magnitude less.
Are you seriously claiming that a force able to destroy the equivalent of only 13 perimeter box sections could have compromised the totality of the tower structure?
“…which only needed to do enough damage to let the collapse proceed one more storey. With each entrained storey the falling mass and therefore the available destructive energy increased, so “the potential energy of the structure below the collapse” absolutely DOES come into it, contradicting your insistence that it doesn’t.”
If this is your belief I suspect this is why you are confusing yourself. Potential energy below the collapse is seated in bedrock and the seat was never destroyed from above. Well neither was the building. The ball in the lecturer’s hand is never going to fall to earth while he has the strength to hold it there. When he lets it go the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. But the structure below did not move out of the way to allow the top to fall in almost freefall. In terms of Newton’s Third what that means is when the kinetic energy of the top section hit the solid structure below there would have been an equal and opposite resistance from below and kinetic energy from above would be spent in the collision arrest or damage.
The mass above the structure seated in bedrock and below the observed point of collapse contained 98.6% of the building’s structural steel and it was undamaged by alleged planes. That support structure was the lecturer. The lecturer had held the ball since 1973. The damaged section above was the ball before the lecturer caught it. The only way the top-section could continue its downward path was if the lecturer moved out of the way or did not catch the ball. The only way the substantial lower section’s of the twin towers’ potential energy could be converted to kinetic energy was if the base was compromised, because like the lecturer it was standing on a firm foundation.
Understanding Newton in practice is quite easy. While the above example is an over-simplification it does show the principle. And it is a universally accepted principle. It is acceptable to me to have it explained that perhaps a better example might be a tile falling on a stack of tiles with spacers. And yes I would accept that the tile would break and may even break the top two or three tiles. There is no way it would break the whole lot, even if they were spaced apart. Even less is there any chance of the tiles turning to dust and turning to dust the whole inner support structure.
Now I realise that concrete is less brittle than tiles. It is the principle that needs arguing against. Not the material. So I support Clark and oppose Nikko in that the undamaged structure beneath has potential energy. But I can see why Nikko would suggest not. The ground below has potential energy but it is going nowhere.
John, I never meant to suggest that the structure below the impact point does not have potential energy. What I was trying to say is that the potential energy of the structure below does not determine what happens at the point when that structure is hit from above. It is much more complicated than that and, therefore, it is not sufficient for Clark to calculate the PE and declare that gravity could have collapsed the building just on the basis that the number was big.
“…which only needed to do enough damage to let the collapse proceed one more storey. With each entrained storey the falling mass and therefore the available destructive energy increased, so “the potential energy of the structure below the collapse” absolutely DOES come into it, contradicting your insistence that it doesn’t.
At each impact point energy is absorbed in causing damage to the building and so slows the collapse. It is not inevitable that the collapse will gather speed
Thanks Nikko for the explanation.
This is why Clark.
https://www.facebook.com/TSKnowledge1/videos/2229499523742731/
Yeah, that’s a good demo. Who is he?
Ty e-mailing him about Wood’s BBE. Or would you rather I did?