portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research

Shermer fails to note that no structure before or after 9/11/01 has ever exhibited the phenomenon of top-down total collapse, no matter what fraction of it was air. The non-repeatability of this phenomenon will trouble students of the scientific method, but not Shermer.
South Tower moments before its collapse
South Tower moments before its collapse
Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, May 26, 2005

a critique of
Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
publisned in Scientific American

5/26/05: 911Research publishes Version 0.9 of this critique

The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story found on our website, 911Research, with a cluster of disinformation techniques including:

* Mis-attributing to 911Research the erroneous statement that steel's melting point is 2,777F
* Falsely implying that 911Research embraces a straw-man argument that the official account of the Twin Towers' collapses depends on the fires having melted steel.
* Contextualizing 911Research as nonsense by surrounding its mention with absurd claims, and racist ideas.

Although the column aims to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement generally (without ever acknowledging it by name), mentioning the books Inside Job, The New Pearl Harbor, and 9/11: The Great Illusion, it appears to be aimed primarily at 911Research for several reasons:

* It is one of only two sites Shermer mentions.
* It's the alleged source of his 2,777 figure.
* It's the target of his mis-attribution of the straw man claim about melted steel.
* Its most persuasively argued claim -- that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition -- is the only point Shermer attempts to debunk.

Shermer's Bold-Faced Lie

Just after mentioning "creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics," Shermer states:

[A]ccording to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

In fact, nowhere does 911Research contain the figure 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, nor its Celsius equivalent. What 911Research does contain is passages like the following:

* 1535C (2795F) - melting point of steel
* ~825C (1517F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

(See The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy.)

Shermer's blatant lie about 911Research appears calculated to discredit the site in the eyes of the casual reader. Even the reader who doesn't know the melting point of steel is likely to conclude that 911Research chose 2,777 for numerological reasons and ignores physics, and will be very unlikely to type in the unnecessarily long URL www.911research.wtc7.net.


Shermer's Melted Steel Straw Man

In the above excerpt, Shermer implies that our argument for demolition is that the fires could not have melted the steel. In fact, 911Research nowhere embraces the claim that the melting of the structural steel was a prerequisite for a gravity collapses of the towers. What we do is debunk the claim made by apologists of the official story that the fires melted the steel. This claim appeared in several places, including an article in Scientific American itself, in which M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel states:

I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.

The fire-melts-steel idea was also endorsed by structural engineer Chris Wise, who was quoted by the BBC as stating:

It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.

In the article that quoted Wise and in other articles, the BBC ran the graphic to the right, which asserts that fires of 800C were "hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

For more information on claims by "experts" that air-aspirated hydrocarbon-fueled open fires can melt steel, see:

* "Experts" claim fires melted the towers' structures
* The Killer Fires theory


Shermer Parrots Debunked Fantasies

After prevaricating about 911Research, Shermer gives a short narrative of the truss failure theory, featuring MIT Materials Sciences Professor Thomas Eagar, who gave us the zipper and domino theory. Shermer cites Eagar's article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, failing to mention that 911Research had long ago debunked that same article. Shermer, not one for facts, exaggerates the article's already fantastic claims, stating that "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper" ignited by the jet fuel "raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building." Compare Shermer's description of the "inferno throughout each building" to the photo on the right showing the South Tower moments before its collapse.

The claim that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition is the only one that Shermer attacks, which he does with the following rendition of the zipper and domino theory:

Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble.

The errors in this passage include:

* The misrepresentation of the steel shelves that held up the trusses as "angle clips".
* The theory of sequential truss failure (Eagar's zipper) -- impossible given the cross-trussing and floor-pan connections.
* the theory of sequential floor failure (Eagar's dominoes) -- impossible since an intact floor would easily absorb the impact of a floor falling 10 feet.
* the suggestion that floor failures could progress to total collapse, when it would leave the the columns standing.
* the idea that a steel-frame building can "crumble" without being shredded by demolition charges.

Shermer goes on explain the symmetry of the collapses:

Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

Shermer fails to note that no structure before or after 9/11/01 has ever exhibited the phenomenon of top-down total collapse, no matter what fraction of it was air. The non-repeatability of this phenomenon will trouble students of the scientific method, but not Shermer.

Shermer's Unscientific Method

In fact, Shermer's entire method of attacking "conspiracy theories" is unscientific. Consider his language. Scientists almost never use universal qualifiers such as all to describe inexact phenomena. For being published in a magazine titled Scientific American, Shermer is fond of sweeping generalizations.

* The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics).
* All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
* All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted.

There are several errors in Shermer's assertion that "a handful of unexplained anomalies" cannot "undermine a well-established theory". First, a single anomaly can undermine a well-established theory, as illustrated by the success of single anomaly -- the Michelson-Morley experiment -- in overturning the well-established theory of ether. Second, the unexplained anomalies of the official story are better described as a mountain than a handful. Third, the official story is not well established in any scientific or legal sense, but only in the sense of being endorsed by corrupt government bodies, such as the 9/11 Commission, and unquestioningly embraced by nearly all media.

Shermer's approach is worse than unscientific -- it's fraudulent: he misrepresents his opponent's positions and attempts to associate them with nonsensical and offensive ideas. While failing to identify a single argument of the hundreds made by 911Research, Shermer fraudulently implies that our entire case rests on a straw man argument built on a single fact:

Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

One needs only to read the slides for my talk The World Trade Center Demolition to appreciate Shermer's contempt for the truth. In that talk, we refer to the vast bodies of evidence compiled on the 911Research site and apply them in multiple lines of inquiry, examining:

* The historical record on the effects of fires in steel-framed skyscrapers
* The evidence-destruction operation at Ground Zero
* The failures of the column-failure and truss-failure theories
* The unverifiability of the progressive collapse theory
* The Twin Towers' collapse features -- the symmetry, rapidity, blast wave, pulverization, and excess heat -- consistent only with controlled demolition
* Four proofs that the Twin Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition


Shermer: Chertoff Protege

Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of Popular Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes admiration:

The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.

Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Both pieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer adding Jewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix. Both employ the following three deceptive techniques, but with different emphasis.

* The straw man argument: attacking a position falsely attributed to your opponent
* The reverse straw man argument: falsely attributing a straw man argument to your opponent
* Bracketing: mentioning a position of your opponent, but surrounding it with other positions so as to discredit it.

Both pieces use the reverse straw man argument about melted steel. Popular Mechanics makes much more extensive use of the straw man argument. Shermer, in contrast, relies heavily on bracketing. Consider the following paragraph:

From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved).

It begins with the Pentagon no-plane theory and ends with the Jewish conspiracy rumor -- ideas with no supporting evidence, which most people will reflexively reject. Sandwiched between them are two valid ideas -- the lack of timely military response and the controlled demolition of the towers -- which Shermer attempts to further muddle with omissions and distortions: he fails to mention the non-interception of Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon almost an hour after the North Tower crash, and misrepresents demolition claims by saying explosives were timed to go off "soon after the impact of the planes," ignoring the 102 minutes the North Tower stood after the impact.

The article as a whole echoes this structure. It opens with a mention of the "9/11 conspiracy book" by Thierry Meyssan -- the original source of the Pentagon no-plane hoax, and ends with an incredible theory of the fate of Flight 77's passengers, hinting at Operation Pearl, in which the jetliners are landed on a secret military base and passengers are herded onto one plane and the others are "electronically towed" out over the Atlantic Ocean for disposal. Such complex baseless theories require large numbers of operatives, which is probably their purpose: people are unlikely to believe a theory that requires the silence of hundreds or thousands of people, a point Shermer exploits. In contrast, 911Research speculates that the attack was executed by a team numbering fewer than the alleged hijackers: a feat made possible through computer automation and the exploitation of top-down military command structures. See Operation Pyramid.
Conclusion

Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas -- long promoted on the web and in videos -- to bracket the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from. That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of 911Research is a testament to the site's success.

homepage: homepage: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html


okay, here's one problem 03.Jun.2005 17:09

xyzzy

... with the debunking-debunking above:

"In the above excerpt, Shermer implies that our argument for demolition is that the fires could not have melted the steel. In fact, 911Research nowhere embraces the claim that the melting of the structural steel was a prerequisite for a gravity collapses of the towers. What we do is debunk the claim made by apologists of the official story that the fires melted the steel. This claim appeared in several places, including an article in Scientific American itself, in which M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel states:

I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse."

notice the discrepancy? kasel didn't definitively claim the fires melted the steel in that quote -- he claimed they SOFTENED OR MELTED it.

if i say the high temperature tomorrow is going to be in the 60s or the 70s, and it turns out to be 68, that doesn't mean my forecast is wrong because it wasn't in the 70s. duh.

can we please learn how to read for content?

portland

You should check out the original article 03.Jun.2005 17:34

repost

If you look at the original article there are links to more specifics on the site.

the need for the truss theory 03.Jun.2005 17:39

here

The Fires

The Twin Towers' Fires and Their Possible Effects

The South Tower's fires burned hot enough at produce visible flames and light smoke (photograph) until the jet fuel burned off less than ten minutes after the crash. Thereafter the fires dwindled and the smoke darkened. When it collapsd 56 minutes after the crash, the invisible fires were emitting only a thin veil of black smoke.

Much was made of the severity of the fires in the Twin Towers, since fires were invoked to explain failures they had never before caused. Some reports compared the heat produced by the fires to that of nuclear power plants. In fact the fires were not as severe as many other highrise fires, none of which caused the buildings to collapse. Furthermore, the fires became less severe over time, at least in the South Tower, whose smoke became thin and nearly black by the time it collapsed.

Fire-induced column failure collapse theories assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800 C. There are several problems with such scenarios.

* 800 C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.

* Widespread fires reaching 700 C would have caused extensive window breakage and would have made the steel glow red-hot. No such events were observed. 1

* Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not even consume entire floors of either tower.

* Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.

* Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.

* As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to elevated temperatures.

Even if such hot and widespread fires existed, they would still be unlikely to cause failures of the columns in either of the towers.

The incompatibility of any fire-triggered column-failure scenario with the observed characteristics of the fires created the need for the truss theory.  http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html

whether or not i "should" 03.Jun.2005 17:43

xyzzy

... check anything out on any site does not negate the fact that of the information in the repost above, it's clear that (at the least) someone has a reading comprehension problem.

asserting that a or b must be true is a different thing from asserting a is true.

portland

Peter Meyers response to the 'Scientific(sic) American debunking 03.Jun.2005 18:24

brian


BLINDED BY SCIENCE 03.Jun.2005 18:31

mouse

'Blinded by Science' never made so much sense.

"Free Fall" Collapse 03.Jun.2005 18:52

Anarchy-nonymous

Not only that, even the weakened truss theory doesn't explain the collapse of the Twin Towers at "free fall" speed. That implies controlled demolition from below. The other fact is that nobody has beena been able to explain the collapse as it is posited by "official" theories as being able to pulverize contrete into dust, or result in the uniform segments of the 47 iron pillars that supported the massive towers with reinforced concrete.

steel 04.Jun.2005 00:21

ym

Exactly, the fires WEAKENED the steel, they didn't melt it. Moreover, no buildings collapsed like the towers for the exact reason that no buildings were like the towers, which had a rare if not unique, for their height, outside-wall based structure.

lol 04.Jun.2005 06:52

me, myself and I

"Exactly, the fires WEAKENED the steel, they didn't melt it."

yeah, the fires were so bad they managed to penetrate the concrete around the trusses and "weaken" them! =D

and the fire chiefs who climbed the stair up to the very floors of the fires and reported over the radio that there were only small pockets of fire burning and they deemed it was all controllable, they didn't know how to do their work too, right? =D

roflmao!! you must be the most gullible person I've seen on this forum =D

collapse behaviour of big structures 04.Jun.2005 15:09

fxl

no one seems to take into account the effects of the horizontal force of the crash on the columns in the area of the crash. stopping a say 200 ton jet, means a lot of energy has to be absorbed. this is done by structure deforming. a lot of columns (which were bolted together) probably had their bolts damaged or broken.

the fact that there was a hole on one side of the building, means the support structure was assymetric. this induces huge forces into the remaining columns for which they were not designed. this will with time cause the collapse as columns start failing progressively.

I dont think the fire had much to do with the collapse.

as for the building falling downwards. the gravity loading on the structure is vertically down, and thats the way its going to fall. such a structure has so much inertia that it is almost impossible for it to fall sideways.

as for controlled demolition. if you look at building demolitions on reality tv, there is hardly any dust flying out. a possibly reason for the explisive dust cloud is the air compression of the start of the collapse would have blown the windows out on that floor. what bothers me about controlled demolition is that on concrete buildings the charges are placed in holes drilled into columns, but on a steel building each column would have to be wrapped with explosives, a bit difficult if the windows are still intact.

fxl

source of heat after collapse 04.Jun.2005 15:29

fxl

just a theory.
the source of the heat after collapse was probably the result of basic physics. energy can not be created or destroyed. a mass that is above ground has potential energy. if the mass is dropped the potential energy turns into heat. this effect could possibly have generated enough heat to melt the columns at the bottom.

these buildings were quite old, ie pre computer analysis and design. there were quite possibly some overloaded areas in the structure.

fxl

Where were the fires? 04.Jun.2005 15:52

Anon

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_media.html

[A] = Article contains audio [V] = Article contains video

# Where were the 800C infernos in the buildings?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm [V]

# Why didn't firefighters in the impact area of WTC 2 report a blazing inferno or failing trusses before the building's collapse?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html [A]

# Why didn't structural debris fall from the burning towers? Why did trusses in WTC 2 spontaneously fail across entire floors?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_trusses.html [V]

# Why did firefighters report bombs in the WTC buildings? Why did firefighters report explosions before the collapses?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html [A]

# Why did white smoke appear at the base of WTC 1 roughly 10 seconds before its collapse?
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html [V]

There were no fires before the collapses, but there were explosions. That strikes me as slightly odd.

To fxl 04.Jun.2005 16:31

Jack Straw

To fxl:
the towers were designed to withstand multiple collisions by planes, so said the construction chief, in Jan '01, the video for that is at
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
in one of the specific spots mentioned above, the site has a special page on the WTC collapses.

No dust? Are you totally joking? The entire structures turned to dust and/or small sections of steel beams *while falling*. See  http://911research.wtc7.net
And the potential energy? Each tower had 115,000kwh of potential energy, per FEMA, and just to reduce the concrete of each tower to dust with particles the size of 100 microns (the particles were actually probably even smaller) would take more energy than that, forget about raising the temp of the steel, or expanding the dust clouds to the huge extent they were. See
 http://911research.wtc.net
go to either "papers" or "talks", in second select the May '04 presentation.
See a 600,000 steel beam propelled 390 ft from the towers into American Express Building
 http://www.gallerize.com
(one of the first sections, about the winds which hit the WTC)
And tell me that was accomplished by a building falling.
The pseudo-science you present is just amazing. PS: i have an engineering degree

reverse engineering? 04.Jun.2005 16:34

Eng Doc

Any building can collapse. Need to balance the available energy/strength. Do your strength calcs. A PC could be made to sim the whole setup. Need to consider the time window of collapse against same for a planned implosion. All the available data is interactive. A collapsing building is reverse engineering. The yield strength of struct stl is not a strt-line graph. INTENSE heat can affect (soften) steel at the point of application (only). However,the core-steel would need to have been softened concurrently all the way down of the building AT THE SAME TIME of application. From video footage it appears as if the building collapsed uniformly, hence the argument. Bearing in mind that say floors did pancake top to btm., then the commencement of collapse would initially start off slowly and accelerate at an ever-increasing rate to gnd zero. Suspended RC floors are all designed to Established Eng. Codes of Practice. Shock loading would have been predetermined. Further, a root cause-analysis should have been conducted immediately after the collapse. How did the susp flr. conns break/fail? The remaining struct. stl should have been investigated for deformation patterns to determine cause and effect. The uppermost steel would have been less so affected. The lowest remaining steel would certainly have subjected to intense structural overload. The alternative would be that the whole length of the core stl. would have shown the same deformation characteristics for each floor-lvl height? In my opinion a disaster of this magnitude should have been investigated by just about anyone and everyone of the engineering establishment. Was this done? If so, then where is the collected data? Anyone who intends to collapse an engineering structure needs to study the original drawings/plans and moreso the actual design. Is such info freely available?
Rate of fall comparisons should be made - selfexplanatory.

A simulation/CAD-model would be the best way to prove the actual collapse. Has anyone tried?
Until such time public speculation will be ongoing, however the trained eye of a seasoned engineer knows and he has a tech feel for engineering ckecks and balances.
Video footage could be helpful in this regard - assuming it's real time.
Back to the drawing board...

WTC 4 04.Jun.2005 17:04

Neo

Also for more reading:
 http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm

Use Your Head 04.Jun.2005 17:22

Jack

Xyzzy

Use your head. The quote obviously contained disclaimers for liability reasons. The fact the quote starts off with a "I believe" establishes that the assertion is not based on scientific fact, but it a personal opinion- carries no weight at all. This is done so one cannot be accused of lying later- but only be guilty of negligent misrepresentation. I have observed similar in other "expert" claims, from pharmaceutical drugs to political statements. I am sure you have observed the same if you are a diligent reader? The spin is dishonest. Any building "expert" with integrity knows that fires don't create near-instantaneous collapse of steel structures. PERIOD. The "experts" quoted in this article would know this from their education and experience, but they went ahead and volunteered contrary opinions anyways. How much did these hacks get paid?

But use your head. Go learn the basics about "load distribution over time" and behavior of fire, and then do some analysis of the WTC towers 1, 2, AND 7. You don't need to have a wall of degrees to be an expert of "common sense".

Two of the WTC buildings suffered substantial asymmetrical damage, one suffered minor asymmetrical damage. If fires weakened the building structure this would have certainly led to more asymmetrical damage because of physics of load distribution and behavior of fire. That is science. The buildings would have asymmetrically fatigued, then asymmetrically failed- if they were to fail.

The only way that random office fires could have created near-simultaneous collapse would be if the fires caused substantial damage that was a mirror image to the original asymmetrical damage- in other words, counteract the uneven load distribution from the prior damage. What is the probability of random office fires causing precise asymmetrical damage of necessary magnitude? What is the probability of this occurring to three buildings with varying architecture? The lottery is a better bet.

Where in the documented picture evidence, does it show this fatigue before failure? Good question. In NIST's latest report draft, it tries to assert that the building sides bowed shortly before collapse and mentions picture evidence. I would like to see this "evidence". Has it ever occurred to an "expert" that fires generate heat, and that this heat distorts surrounding air? Ever looked down a long road on a hot day- the mirage effect? Same thing. NIST is trying to pass this off as "evidence" that the buildings fatigued before collapse? How much did these hacks get paid?

And when you read the NIST report, note how NIST parades around fire proofing, building codes, poor design, coincidence phenomenon, and the like. Any serious discussion of load distribution over time is absent. Load distribution explains how a structure behaves when stress is put on it. This would be the centerpiece of any NIST analysis in determiniung WHY and HOW the three WTC buildings collapsed. Why is NIST padding its report with smoke-and-mirror fluff? It is because the load distribution "timeline" would reveal that going from Point A to Point B as NIST asserts is IMPOSSIBLE. Since the documented picture evidence prevents NIST from manipulating the numbers to fit a story, they play the omission/silent game and gamble that no one will notice.

Seeing NIST behave this way has disturbed a good many professionals in the industry. It begs the questions- What the heck is going on in out goverment?

Jack

Bullshit Artists out in Strength 04.Jun.2005 17:54

PWS

Professional disinformationists appear to have descended upon Jim Hoffman's article above. For example "if you look at building demolitions on reality tv, there is hardly any dust flying out." (posted by 'fxl'). What utter drivel! I have uploaded an MPEG of a controlled demolition by Controlled Demolition Inc. (that's right, the people who got the contract to clean up the site and transport the mixed scrap and body parts to China double-quick so no forensic expert could get his hands on it) can send me a request for the MPEG clip. As you will see, there is no shortage of dust...
Demolition of The Kingdome
Demolition of The Kingdome

A UNIQUE EVENT....THRICE IN A FEW HOURS? 04.Jun.2005 21:38

DAVE

No degrees are required to think critically.

What is required is the ability to set aside emotion and consider the evidence from all sources.

Most Americans are so distracted with the Democrat/Repubican/liberal/conservative show they can't consider facts.

The evidence is out there on the net for those who care to see it. It's frightening for most Americans to even consider the possibility that their own government set them up. It scares them so much that they can't or won't look at the evidence.

What I find discouraging is that even now, with the evidence available on the net, it doesn't matter. I guess that's why the powers that be allow it to exist...because they know most Americans won't see what's before their eyes.

Yes - the Shills are out in force 04.Jun.2005 22:06

Euripides Upmann

As seems to occur with the regularity of clockwork and the predictability of Sunrise the professional defenders of the "Party Line" are out, as they were with the Pop Mechanics hit piece, and again when the Madrid fire failed to collapse a steel framed building after it looked like a burning torch for 24 hours.

The siren song of the professional disinfo artists always remains the same - ignore your own sensibilities and whatever you do don't look at the evidence. The problem the disinfo/PR/Propaganda/PsyOps Shills have is that if you actually examine the evidence the "Official Conspiracy Theory" falls apart like a cheap suit in Rain Storm. For example no mention is made by the shills that the Trusses were embedded in a Concrete Matrix which would have dissipated and spread the heat. At least they seem to have finally given up on trying to assert that 10,000 gallons of fuel, which was all gone within ten minutes, superheated the structure to hundreds of degrees above the fuel's maximum heat production. Still they continue to try and confuse and assert ridiculous improbabilities to support the "Official Party Line".

Further - as far as the buildings having to collapse straight down - it is a basic principle of Structural Engineering and Failure Analysis that a structure in catastrophic failure will have a first failure point AND THE STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE WILL PROCEDE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

For the structure to collapse straight down in a uniform controlled descent into it's own footprint you need the structure to fail uniformly, simultaneously, at all four corners of the structure.

Further, what kind of Plane was that hit WTC 7 again?

whats the real story Bush 04.Jun.2005 23:00

Nate

I think it was a 757 that hit the towers.A plane that size would certainly do alot of damage especially with the heat created by the jet fuel but there have been buildings that have been left burning for upto 18 hours and still werent weakend to the point of collapse and.The governments official story was a 757 hit the trade center but when you actualluy slow down the tape of the plane hitting anyone who knows about plane and how they work can clearly see the jet has had some modifications to it it looks more like a cargo jet since you can't see any windows on it.

Pattern Matching 04.Jun.2005 23:06

Jack

If you put the demolition theory and the NIST theory side-by-side and assigned a probability of which most likely occurred based on how well the theory fits the available data, you will find that the demolition theory is stronger- much stronger. Yes, there are questions that need to be answered such as "how could so many charges be planted without anybody knowing"- but these types of questions deal with a criminal investigation, and is not relevant in determining what likely caused a building to collapse. When determining what caused a building to collpase, you focus on the building and the associated data, and then come up with possible theories of what happened, and then rank them according to how well they fit the data. If the most likely theory indicates a crime, then other action is taken.

To see how a theory "fits" the data is a pattern matching exercise. Anybody can do this. You don't need a wall of degress to be qualified. NIST and its "experts" would have certainly considered a number of theories, including demolition and bombs. Both demolition and bombs have been cited by police officers and fire fighters at ground zero. This has been documented and been given to the 9-11 commission and public. In addition, it is widely known that "terrorists" tried collapsing the towers in 1993 by placing bombs. Why would "terrorists" not try it again- make sure that the towers would come down if the first attempt (via airplane) failed? To not consider these possibilities would be a gross failure of duty by NIST in its investigation.

Why doesn't NIST present to the public the list of theories they came up with and their ranking? NIST only had ONE theory? Did they consider a demolition or bomb theory at all? Why doesn't NIST discuss why other theories are weak, why controlled demoliton does not fit the data as well as the one it is spending so much energy on? It cannot. NIST is careful not to entertain the demolition theory because: 1) it would legitimize it; 2) would make its own theory weak, meaning the demolition theory would get highest ranking. Of course, NIST and several other parties "don't want to go down that road". I bet.

Jack

Few points to remember 04.Jun.2005 23:37

Anon

WTC buildings were specifically designed to withstand hits from 747s. Someone on here said that creating a hole in one side of the building would create enormous loads on other beams and possibly cause them to fail. However, this is like saying that the designers expected the plane to hit the building, stay completely intact and not spill its fuel or cause damage. Obviously the designers took into that a plane hit would cause all sorts of damage. Also, in steel structures like WTC, blowing a hole in one side of the building is like poking a hole in a screen door net. The rest of the structure assumes the load, especially as in the US, buildings are designed to take at least five times their maximum load.

Also, if you could demolish a 110 story building on their own footprint by just crashing a plane into it, I don't think you would see demolition experts spend weeks and months carefully planning on how to bring down a building. This also brings up another point, someone obviously "fixed up" WTC for demolition weeks before the attacks as this sort of planning takes months, certainly in a building the size of WTC. This is the reason you see the media and government shills scream so hard when demolition is mentioned, because in there lies the proof that the government was complicit in the attacks (as if there isn't enough proof already!).

How... 05.Jun.2005 00:37

Tony Blair's dog

"Yes, there are questions that need to be answered such as "how could so many charges be planted without anybody knowing"..."

Appearently all high-rises in all major cities have
these kinds of emergency explosives built into them
since in case of a serious emergency these tall buildings
(usually on a very small footprint) need to be pulled
straight down so they do not risk falling on nearby
buildings, causing more damage.

And appearently these emergency demolition charges
were originally controlled from the security center
in WTC basement.

This was reported by a person claiming to be an architect
on the now deleted indymedia.org archive back in 2001.


Note: George "W's" brother was allegedly in charge
of the company running the WTC security.

re shill comment... 05.Jun.2005 04:07

fxl

what a reaction...
shouting loadly only heats up the atmosphere..

firstly I do not support either side in this argument. there is simply not enough hard facts available.
the fact that the us gov is not releasing certain info, like the video footage of the pentagon plane crash does raise suspicions.

any of the scenarios are certainly possible, but the best way to try and understand the collapse is to model the structure on structural software and to put all the load scenarios on to it.

the only way of proving controlled demolition is a forensic examination of the ruins of the building to check for traces of explosives, which was not done.(as far as I know). this results in no proof either way, and raises a lot of suspicion.

as for the building being designed to survive a plane crash. in the 60's when the building was built the biggest thing was a 707.
fxl

load analysis 05.Jun.2005 05:42

hellsbells

NIST doesn't provide a structural load analysis of their 'pancake theory'. If they did, the scam would become immediately obvious to any civil engineer competent in analysing structural loads during failure.

Wonderful: temperature depend on the amount of fuel !! 05.Jun.2005 05:56

Polidoro

"The fire-melts-steel idea was also endorsed by structural engineer Chris Wise, who was quoted by the BBC as stating:
It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning."

Is Chris Wise a structural engineer? an engineer at all?
He says: with that amount of fuel

REALLY: temperature of burning Kerosene varies according the amount...?

Everybody can says anything, no more phisics laws: not fire but men killed the buildings

re pancake theory 05.Jun.2005 08:44

fxl

any competent strutural engineer wont even calculate when someone says pancake theory.
the world trade centre had decks made up of corrugated steel sheeting with steel mesh and a concrete topping. probably in total not thicker than 200mm on average.
this gives a self weight of say 500kg/square m. general office design loading is 300kg/sq m for modern buildings. old buildings might be designed to lesser loadings.
from this it can be seen that an intact floor can just about support another one, including all safety factors. drop 2 floors on to it an it will most probably fail.

unfortunately there have been some engineers who have made sweeping statements without checking their facts.

fxl

show me 05.Jun.2005 09:14

SQR

If beams melted or gave way, show me the pictures of those beams!

thanks! 05.Jun.2005 10:01

spArkle

great work as usual, Jim. thanks for posting this.

I, myself, failed to follow "xyzzy's" nonsense 05.Jun.2005 12:02

Merlin

earlier in this thread. Was it a defusing tactic? Diversionary? What?

Hey Tony Blair's Dog?! 05.Jun.2005 13:00

question for you

"Appearently all high-rises in all major cities have
these kinds of emergency explosives built into them "

Not heard this before. Can you (or anyone) cite a reference? That's scary

And a few more things 05.Jun.2005 13:22

Jack Straw

And a few more things:

The South Tower was hit second (9:06 vs 8:45), but fell about a half hour before the North Tower, ie it stood for 56 minutes after being hit, vs 102 minutes for the North one, *and* it was hit much less directly, subject to a much less intense fire (not that the North Tower fire was all that intense). Both towers fell in pretty much the same fashion, though it in totally different manners. Something is therefore OBVIOUSLY very wrong with any explanation based upon either the plane impact or ensuing fires.

 http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.shtml
provides what i think is a clincher argument. The remaining structures provided no more resistance to the falling upper sections than did the adjacent air, a pretty-much no brainer right there. But even if you wanna argue that somehow the lower floors were simply crushed to pulp by the upper sections acting like a huge hammer, you would have to then explain why the upper "hammers" were turning to dust, *above the collapse zones, while falling*. Thus you would have to argue that the lower floors simultaneoulsy offered no more resistance to the falling debris than did air, while providing a huge amount of resistance to the same debris, rendering it into dust and tiny pieces. You can't have it both ways! A "gravity-driven collapse" explanation totally falls apart when dealing with this contradiction.

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html
has the video with the interview of Frank DeMartini, construction manager of the WTC.
As for fxl's argument that the design was for a supposedly lighter 707, a 707 is a bit lighter than a 767, 336,000 lbs vs 395,000, but its cruise speed is 777 ft/sec, vs 635ft/sec or so for a 767, so if you calculate the *kinetic energy* for each plane, E= 1/2 m (v squared), don't forget to divide by 32.2 to convert weight in lbs to mass, you get more energy for a 707 than a 767. Another argument that has been used by the disinformation apparatus which has long been taken apart.
 http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian.html
click on link, and you get nerdcities.guardian index, a series of excellent articles on the WTC, the main article includes the calculation i refer to, other good features are a critique of Thomas Eagar's theory (excuse), which was used by NOVA as the centerpiece for its piece of trash "explaining" the WTC collapses, and "How Hot", which shows how very not-hot the fires would have been.
As far as the "evidence", it was rounded up and shipped off to China, leading to a scathing editorial in Fire Engineering Magazine by editor Bill Manning in January '02. This was quite in violation of city and state and even federal laws.
I'm sure fxl will come up with more excuses and pseudo science to try to obfuscate the matter. I only put up my credentials to pre-empt any assertions to the contrary, you don't need any degrees to understand what happened, it's not even high school physics, junior high school science suffices.

reverse engineering? 05.Jun.2005 14:37

Eng Doc

TWO Scale models of the WTC buildings need to be constructed. Virtual and/or real. First model based on current popular (media)expediental info. Second model based on scientific engineering facts, being the most probable and more accurate outcome. The differences between the two models will show up the information fault line. Thus given information can be tested in reality. Automakers use sims for the very same reasons.
Facts in Science cannot be twisted to the whims of make-believers. The Laws of Math cannot change. Emotion is understood. Objectivity must be upheld though to get to the btm of the WTC disaster. Need to focus on the provable facts - a chain of engineering sequences run through these collapses. Much like a puzzle piece. Once you have most of the facts, the remaining missing merely fall into place. It cannot fit any other way.

Take a good look again at the unique WTC structural stl. construction. It's a cored-centrally-boxed arrg't (main load bearing). The flrs and ancillaries being supported and carried around the main struct core. Like a long box with a strong central tube thru it's CL.

Also consider the time taken for each building to start collapsing from the initial point of aerial impact. Then we also have the recorded seismic evidence on the Net - which is interesting.

Because the variables are manifold, only a mod simulation will either mimic that dreadful day or fail to do so, raising a new set of questions based on scientific testing either way.
Placing the evidence to the test is a good starting point.

My thoughts and prayers go out to those poor folks that passed away so untimely at the WTC buildings.
They will not be forgotten. The search for the truth continues.
Respectfully.

Model the WTC Structure - only way to the truth 05.Jun.2005 14:58

Structural Technologist -

"any of the scenarios are certainly possible, but the best way to try and understand the collapse is to model the structure on structural software and to put all the load scenarios on to it".

Reverse Engineering? has the same idea.
Just model the WTC structure - only way to the truth

re jack straw 05.Jun.2005 15:31

fxl

the links given are interesting but are a bit thin on hard facts.
making a statement like 'obviously there is something wrong' makes you sound like a politician. I dont think there are any experts arround on collapse modes of buldings like the wtc.

Eng doc's suggestions make the most sense. you can then take in everyone's suggestions as to what could have happened and test them on the virtual model.

deciding the answer and then cherry-picking the evidence to make your own pet theory work is not very scientific.

the one link mentions the clean cuts in the steel column elements. I saw some photos in the Time magazine article which clearly shows completely intact column elements. the failure mode was the breaking of the bolted connection by the bolts snapping. what made the bolts snap is unclear ie overloading, explosive charges , etc.
fxl

Do Your Homework 05.Jun.2005 17:03

Mitch

fxl,

There are no arguments. There is a government theory and a non-government theory. Apparently the government's theory cannot be substantiated.

It is now established by document that OUR government lied to the public about the Iraq war- EVERY aspect of it. If you are a diligent 9-11 reader you surely would have read the british secret memo that was leaked. It shows that the government's "theory" to go war was based on a "pack of lies". That is a HUGE deception, would you not agree? I know someone who died for those "pack of lies". It is apparent that many parties were involved in pushing those "pack of lies". Proof that a "conspiracy of one" IS possible.

So with this as precedent, is it possible that the government theory about the WTC is also a "pack of lies"? As you assert in a previous post, lots of things are "possible". The question you should answer is not whether something IS possible- Elvis could have taken down the WTC buildings- but what is the PROBABILITY of the possibility? When it gets to the point where playing the lottery becomes a better bet, it is just common sense to seek out a better explanation.

--Doing an analysis for explosives after the WTC collapsed WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen. This was a "terrorist" event, right? Witnesses at ground zero DID mention explosives and bombs. WTC 7's collapse was uneplainable. Bombs have been used before. Hmmm.
--Doing analysis of the melted column foundations WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen.
--Letting engineers from the public domain particpiate in the WTC investigation WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen. This is a huge public safety issue, right? There are a lot of tall buildings out there.
--Making the WTC blueprints available to the public WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen. It makes sense to allow engineers conduct their own analysis. Hmmm.
--Retaining more than some select structural pieces from the WTC buildings WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen.
--Releasing the data supporting findings and conclusions in a timely manner WOULD HAVE been the proper thing to do. It didn't happen. NIST promises to provide an exhaustive 10,000 documents at an unconfirmed future date. In order for NIST to release reports it must have had already-organized data to back the reports up. This organized data is likely summaries of summaries of summaries of the 10,000 document archive- probably only several documents. There is absolutely no reason not to release these several documents at the same time the reports are released.
--And other

One might say that the government and its agents are behaving in a negligent manner. It is common stategy among the criminally-bent to use negligence as a device to limit liability for a greater crime. Look at the Enron scandel for an example.

You assert, "any of the scenarios are possible". Well, don't cut yourself short. Here are some "possibilities" you should think about when you evaluate the government's position:

--What is the probability that OUR government is corrupt?
--What is the probability that OUR governmetn is criminally corrupt?
--What is the probability that OUR government has lied to the public regarding important matters?
--What is the probability that OUR government lies to the public on a regular basis?
--What is the probability that OUR government deceives the public regarding important matters?
--What is the probability that OUR government deceives the public on a regular basis?
--What is the probability that OUR government manipulates the public regarding important matters?
--What is the probability that OUR government manipulates the public on a regular basis?
--What is the probability that OUR government has committed crimes?
--What is the probability that OUR government has committed high crimes?
--What is the probability that OUR government exhibits behavior in commonality with non-democratic regimes?
--And other

Maybe Elvis is "calling the shots" in OUR government? Elvis with a little mustachio perhaps? Could be..... I wish it was that simple.

//////////
Mitch
//////////

for those that argue that *fire* caused the collapse 05.Jun.2005 17:22

ff

You will have to explain why on 9/11 the south tower fell after burning for less than an hour when a fire which burned for 3 hours in 1975 did not cause any such collapse.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315246.shtml


The WTC infernos (or lack of) 05.Jun.2005 17:50

bert

For the truss theory to be remotely plausible there had to be a infernos in the twin towers which were sufficient in size to simultaneously weaken large areas of steel in the buildings. There were fires in the buildings, but no intense infernos.

The fire which supposedly weakened the core of WTC 1  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.jpg should have been a blow torch which toasted anyone in the vicinity, yet the New York Times reported that a woman phoned her husband from the 95th floor 20 minutes after the impact.

***************************

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.htm

95TH FLOOR
Patricia Alonso, victim
Marsh & McLennan

She managed one phone call to her husband, Robert. This is his brief account:

She worked in Tower 1, 95th floor. She was on the southeast side looking over the Brooklyn Bridge. I talked to her while she was evacuating. She called me on her cell phone at 9:07. She said she was leaving. She was evacuating.

I said, ``I'm coming down to get you.'' And I told her I loved her. And she told me she loved me. She didn't know that a plane had hit the building. She just said there was smoke.

***************************

Forget the physics, look at the facts. The core of WTC 1 wasn't a blow torch, the above account proves it. Since this is the case WTC 1 should have stood, just like Madrid's Windsor Building did.

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

melted metal twist 05.Jun.2005 18:23

Richard/ machinist/welder

Buildings came straight down, with no twisting, no variation. My only experience is with short pieces of steel. By god, you know after you melt these boogas, it is impossible to keep them straight. If you have ever seen steel melted in a steel mill, you'd know this melted steel theory is kindergarden crap.The melting steel theory don't hold water. Metal when melted bend in the middle first, if indeed it had melted, the metal trusels would have fallen through the middle of the building. Another Problem, the building with the type weight and lenght Employered in the wtc, if using the melting theory, would cause the building to twist. The building would break section by section.It simply has nothing to keep it straight long enough to allow it to fall in the manner inwhich it did. It would have Fallen in a twisting motion, detroying everything in it path Below. And in no particular pattern. These buildings were taken down, THE SAME AS BUILDING 7. Didn't twist at all did they? Strongest melted steel i have ever seen.

Scientific B.S. is no Substitute for the Truth! 05.Jun.2005 20:02

Acheh

Anybody that thinks the WTC towers could have been felled by lone aircraft impacts is just plain foolish. The design, and construction of the towers makes this utterly impossible. On the otherhand well placed explosives can certainly bring down such structures and this is exactly what occurred on 9/11. Most of you don't seem to know the facts of the case. Like most gullible members of the uniformed public, you're attempting to make abstract analyses with the assumption that the government's official story is true. Nothing could be further from the truth! The government's lie as a matter of policy, and the 9/11 official-story is pure fantasy with absolutely no supporting evidence! The evidence of explosives at the WTC towers on 9/11 is just too overwhelming to discount. Numerous FDNY personnel have corroborated this on record. WTC building 7 collapsed without any aircraft impact whatsoever. The lease owner admitted on TV, that it was demolished with controlled demolition. Learn the facts and stop wasting your time with abstract analyses based upon disinformation.

check this 05.Jun.2005 22:47

fxl

how about this, anyone with fascilities should try a spectographic analysis of the smoke during the building collapses. this might show up something. explosives is definitely going to show different to kerosene or cement dust.

I fully agree with above post that the honest politician is an endangered specie. the 9-11 episode was milked to its fullest extent to enable the adventures in afghanistan and iraq.

fxl

"Hey Tony Blair's Dog?!" 05.Jun.2005 23:25

Tony Blair's dog

"""Appearently all high-rises in all major cities have
these kinds of emergency explosives built into them "

Not heard this before. Can you (or anyone) cite a reference? That's scary"


I am sorry, the only reference I have and which disappeared
with the destruction of the indymedia.org article archives
was the person claming to be and architect.

If this is indeed true it could be considered a "security risk"
to make this information public, since people working in
skyscrapers in big cities may become "scared of their workplaces".

But, if it is true it would effectively explain how WTC 7 could
be pulled just a couple of hours after towers 1 and 2.

Pulling ordinary buildings the way of WTC 7 take weeks if not months
to plan, prepare and set up in order for it to be a safe operation
not harming people or other buildings.

But Silverstein "decided to pull" WTC 7 within a couple of hours
after towers 1 and 2 came down, because (his own words) they
"had had such a terrible loss of lives that day(sic)".

Too bad for him we all know that Silverstein wanted to demolish the whole
WTC complex to rebuild it, but he couldn't afford the cost of the demolishing
and the dangerous asbestos removal.

Something tells me that since "W's" brother was running the security
machine in the WTC, a deal was struck between the Bush administration
and Silverstein that would benefit both parts and many of their friends.

re: check this 06.Jun.2005 03:30

Jimmy K

fxl,

If explosives such as Thermite was used, large amounts of ultraviolet radiation would be released. Would this fingerprint penetrate clouds of snoke and dust and be picked up by distant cameras that are designed to be sensitive to visible light? I would say no.

It is said that truth is a straight line. Look for that straight line.

Jimmy K

No explosives already in highrises 06.Jun.2005 11:08

arch

>>I am sorry, the only reference I have and which disappeared
with the destruction of the indymedia.org article archives
was the person claming to be and architect.

Well I have worked in the building trade and there is no such thing as buildings with explosives already put in them. This is another hoax put out to discredit. The fact that there IS no real reference is meaningful - no real engineer or architect would ever take responsibility for it.

There are tons of reasons this is absurd and anyone on here can probably think of most of them. Don't waste our time.

fxl: Thin on Facts 06.Jun.2005 11:56

Jacj Straw

fxl charges the linjs are "thin on facts". Oh? It's not a fact that material could either present low resistance to falling debris or high resistance, but not both at the same time? Show us how something could present high and low resistance *simultaneously*, please!
One doesn't need a fancy examination of the fires to see that they weren't very hot, the blacj and red colors tell it all. This is further supported by the firefighters' audio tape referred to at whatreallyhappened's wtc fires page, and by the people standing at the impact zone. Furtherrmore there is Kevin Ryan's letter regarding the government's own findings of temps below 500 deg F, unprotected structural steel doesn't begin to weajen till 1022 deg F, that's a F@CT. @nd your notion of simple bolts also defies fact, as Jim Hoffman's analysis at 911research shows, the trusses were supported by steel panes and cross bracings.
@s for the South Tower falling first, yes indeed, something is OBVIOUSLY WRONG with the "planes/fires did it" explanation, as the South Tower was hit second, hit much less directly @ND suffered an even milder fire (by quite a bit) than the North Tower, yet fell first, both fell pretty much in the same way, ON ITS F@CE that would rule out either plane impact or fire as the explanation, all your claims of scientific objectivity notwithstanding. Your failure to deal with this aside from a snide dismissal of anyone saying something is obvious is very telling.

Hehehe... 06.Jun.2005 12:23

Tony Blair's dog

"The fact that there IS no real reference is meaningful"

Just because I stated "I" don't have a reference does not mean
that there are no references. It only means that I have not researched
that particular detail, which again someone else may or have already done.

"This is another hoax put out to discredit."..."Don't waste our time."

Really?

So, mr."arch", what is YOUR explanation for how Silverstein
could manage to pull down WTC 7 just a couple of hours after
towers 1 and 2 were rased?

Hehehe... 06.Jun.2005 13:47

Tony Blair's dog

"This is another hoax put out to discredit."..."Don't waste our time."

"Well I have worked in the building trade and there is no such thing as buildings with explosives already put in them."

Really?

So, mr."arch", how do YOU explain how Silverstein was able
to order the pulling of WTC 7 just hours after towers
1 and 2 were rased?

For more info on WTC 7 be sure to click on the videos here
to get the audio too(also features the once run clip with
Dan Rather, CBS News (09/11/01)):
 http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/collapse.html

It also exposes the tenants of WTC 7:
CIA, Department of Defense (DOD), IRS Regional Council,
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt, Federal Home Loan Bank,
First State Management Group, Inc, ITT Hartford Insurance Group,
NAIC Securities, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
Securities & Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank,
U.S. Secret Service, Provident Financial Management,
American Express Bank International, Salomon Smith Barney ;-)

No Explosives, but Demolition Plans 06.Jun.2005 14:23

Brian B

Shortly after the WTC was put up I remember the extended debate which ensued about what to do with high rises like the WTC or Empire State Building after they had served their purpose. The Lawazzos at Controlled Demolition were just getting their start then, and building implosions were more art than engineering. Within a few years, though, plans for high rises needed to be accompanied by plans for their ultimate removal. To the best of my knowledge this procedure is still followed today. I don't know if the WTC buildings were grandfathered in, or if the building owners had to create demolition plans.

A couple of years ago in Caracas a building of very similar construction caught fire and burned out several floors over the course of 18 hours. Two of the most heavily engulfed floors collapsed, but the building inspectors said that they expect that the building can be restored to service within a couple of years.

One thing that no one in this discussion has yet mentioned is that the WTC had changed hands just seven weeks earlier. They had managed to purchase the multi-decade lease for a bargain-basement price because of the looming tens of billions of dollars in asbestos remediation that would have made the project financially unviable for years in the future. Suddenly the asbestos is gone, carted away with the rest of the debris at taxpayer expense, and they're getting huge subsidies thrown at them to put up a brand spanking new money-making building. In addition they're getting a multi-billion dollar insurance settlement on a building they hadn't even been in possession of for three months.

One little-known nugget of information. An E-Week article a few months after the attack mentioned that the Dow Jones Stock Exchange data center had been in the basement of one of the collapsed buildings. They had been ordered by their upper management to conduct a "drill" that morning, shifting all computer operations to their backup data center in New Jersey. When the attack happened the DJ data center was essentially idle. This is something that just plain is NEVER done in the computer world. You don't conduct tests with live data during the workday. You just plain don't do it, the possibility of something going wrong is just too great. Still, they were ordered to do this unheard-of thing on the morning when, just coincidentally, their data center was destroyed.

response 06.Jun.2005 14:57

arch

>>So, mr."arch", how do YOU explain how Silverstein was able
to order the pulling of WTC 7 just hours after towers
1 and 2 were rased?

I don't need to explain that. WTC 7 was a unique event in history. The discussion was about the idea that buildings are built with explosives already in them, which is bs.

We don't know what Silverstein did. Probably it was orchestrated months or years ahead of time and the explosives were put in months or weeks or days before the event. We have no idea of the details. The one story of a 'powerdown' in the towers was never confirmed by ANYONE else, so is of very little use. I don't know why someone didn't try to really follow up on that with phone calls and research, but I guess we all have other lives to lead.

reverse engineering et al 06.Jun.2005 15:07

Eng Doc

The gist of a Struct-load modelling exercise would be to COMPARE the TWO models against each other.
In so doing one will then be able to show up which model will stand the test for TRUE FACTS. The whole idea would be to illustrate the one and only TRUE MODEL by simulational loading. Only one model will pass the test! There cannot be two models. ( Can there be a third model?)---> maybe a combo? Possibly. Why? Remember: The truth is immutable. Kinda like peeling an onion - only the core remains.

1.) First model will purposely be based on popular or official information; (planes-fuel-fires, etc.)
2.) Second model will be based on a reconstructed scenario considering structural failure in terms of a state of the art implosion. (Building implosions adhere to Established Building Regs).

The timeframe of collapse will be different in each case - has to be so.
Should none of the above models fit the timeframe then a combo of both models can be considered.
You then basically narrow down the options to emulate the truth as close as is humanly attainable.

Hence one would then clearly be able to illustrate which model conforms to the best fit.
ALL loads need to be considered. Everyting that loaded the building at the time.
A whole inventory or Bill of Matls/Quantities would be req'd.
This whole excercise would be an exceptional and honourable challenge as a Doctoral Thesis for a serious M.Sc(Struct.Eng) student in engineering.

Here we have a mix of structural-self-supporting design; RC/Steel composites; in part Thermodynamics; Extreme friction; Eccentric loads; Air pressure variations; sheer gravity; Strength of Matls; Physics.
Interesting to note that the WTC buildings illustrated their structl. integrity to side impacts from high speed airplanes, quite near its top end. Remarkable. ( All buildings twist and yaw + add an airplane as a projectile - the bldg. stopped the plane in it's track). Tough buildings no doubt.

ps. By the way, if anyone is interested they can obtain the E-book:
'Forensic Engineering Investigation' ~ by Randall K. Noon.
Certainly worth a read.
In a research project as this one needs to get all the ducks in a row - before arriving at a reasonable and tested mature conclusion can present itself without crutches of any kind.
'The Naked Truth'.

Presented In memory of All the Victims of the cataclysmic WTC S911 Tragedy.
We have not forgotten You.
God has the final say.

Spot the spin... 06.Jun.2005 16:58

Tony Blair's dog

"WTC 7 was a unique event in history."

False.

The two towers 1 and 2 went down just the same way
just hours before WTC 7.

Together three(3!) steel-frame skyscrapers were
came down the same way, the very same day.

So, when Silverstein admits that he ordered WTC 7
to be demolished hours after towers 1 and 2, it takes
little logic to draw the conclusion the two towers,
1 and 2 were brought down by the same means.

Silverstein had all the motives in the world to make
it happen, $billions in insurance money since he had
managed to get a clause written into his insurance
just weeks before 9/11 including "terrorist attacks"
as cause for payment.

And since we know that he wanted, but couldn't afford, to
demolish the WTC complex due to the dangerous asbestos removal,
his decision to "pull" WTC 7 after the two towers wrapped up
his winning deal.

He got the demolishing for FREE and the dangerous asbestos removal
PAID by the TAXPAYERS and through the suffering people having to
work with it without being told about it.

The Bush administration won big too since thanks to Silverstein
they had the best target for their "new Pearl Harbor" hoax
they wanted so badly.

And they all laughed all the way to the bank.


"The discussion was about the idea that buildings are built with explosives already in them, which is bs."

Only according to you.
Appearently there are professional architects who know better.
So, don't worry, the truth will come out.

WTC BLUEPRINTS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 06.Jun.2005 17:09

Mitch

WTC BLUEPRINTS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

Eng Doc,

Your idea of computer modeling is noble. Others, including myself, have had the same epiphany. However, there is one caveat. The blueprints for the WTCs have not been made available. That is right- WTC BLUEPRINTS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Without blueprints one can only do ball-park analysis. Not that ball-park analysis is inaccurate- it is just not as precise as would be desirable.

WHY the government is sitting on the BLUEPRINTS? The WTC failures have got to be one of the largest public safety events in years. Every engineer who will be desiging the next generation of safe buildings should be studying this. THEY CANNOT.

Consider this:

--Government repeatedly violates procedure in handling the WTC crime scene.
--Government repeatedly refuses to investigate for explosives eventhough this would have been the proper thing to do.
--Government severely limits what evidence is retained.
--Government makes investigation a very closed-door affair.
--Government spends tremendous resources peddling a theory that makes the lottery look like a guaranteed win.
--Government consistently withholds key information- such as BLUEPRINTS.

You CONNECT-THE-DOTS. You think our government is acting BENIGN?

If un-tampered blueprints of one of the WTC buildings- 1, 2, or 7- could be obtained, the government's GAME IS OVER. It knows this. We engineers know this. Can you obtain an un-tampered copy of the WTC blueprints? You would become the hero of the 9-11 truth movement.

////////////
Mitch
////////////

South Tower collapse was more interesting that most people seem to realize 06.Jun.2005 18:31

phaedrus

http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/ ... southtower_time_image.jpg

I'd like to take this opportunity to make known something I have discovered about the collapse that I don't think too many people are aware of. At www.breakfornews.com, Fintan Dunne recently entertained the idea that the photos that have been put out of the collapse of the towers had been faked. I thought this was very interesting when I first heard about it. After examining them carefully, at least the photo to the left and a few others, I decided that he was probably incorrect. I couldn't find anything wrong. He specifically talked about the photo you see to the left, taken by Amy Sancetta. Whenever I had seen this photo I had thought, now if the south tower was brought down by explosives why in the world would the top of the tower lean over like that. It is falling over exactly in the direction that you would expect if the corner where the plane had impacted the building had been weakened there. Fintan Dunne's little excursion into Conspiracy LaLa land (something that is easy to do once you get seriously into conspiracies) did get me to look at this photo much more carefully than I had ever done before. What I found, using line-of-sight drawings on a photo taken from way off to the northeast, was that despite what it appears in this photo, the top of the south tower is NOT just starting to tip over. I wanted to know how high up the top of the south tower would appear in this photo if it was taken from the exact same spot but previous to the collapse. Well, look at what point of the blue building is directly behind the top of the brass-ball which tops the roof of the building in the foreground (lower-left of photo). Now note the distance between that point and vertically up to the top of the blue building. According to my drawings, the top of the south tower was originally 2.4 times that distance above the top of the blue building. In other words, it would have been up beyond the top of the photo. What is actually happening is that this is a photo taken considerably into the collapse of the south tower. What I realized looking at this and other photos previous to this of the collapse is that, unlike the collapse of the north tower, whose total collapse precedes from the top and moves down (which is totally unlike a normal demolition as far as I know (see demolition of building 7 for how it is normally done)), the part of the south tower ABOVE the impact site DOES collapse like a normal demolition. That is, everything above that general floor-area where the plane struck moves down as a unit, with the lowest (just at impact point) part of the building being demolished away as those floors above it falls into it. Sort of like what happens if you would slowly drop a piece of paper into a shredder or a carrot into one of those juicer machines. THEN, when that part of the building was used up, then tower 2 proceeded to collapse the rest of the way in the same manner as the north tower, from top to bottom. Have you read anyone else having noted this? It does seem to rule out the pancake theory, doesn't it. I mean just think, that floor area where the flight hit the tower must have been awfully strong to sit there and take all the floors above it crashing down boom boom boom and yet it still held together until the part of the building above it had been used up. Then at that point for some reason it lost its integrity. If anyone knows of a real good video of the south tower collapsing from the very beginning, I think viewing it would make much clearer what I am trying to describe.


Not the same way 06.Jun.2005 22:30

arch

>>False.

>>The two towers 1 and 2 went down just the same way
just hours before WTC 7.

False. The towers collapsed from the tops down, jackhammer-like. WTC7 collapsed straight down into it's base, freefall. Look at the videos.

They are all unique events, but the collapses are not the same.

collapse videos are here 06.Jun.2005 22:32

repost


Maximum confusion... 07.Jun.2005 01:54

Tony Blair's dog

">>False.
>>The two towers 1 and 2 went down just the same way
just hours before WTC 7.
False. The towers collapsed from the tops down, jackhammer-like. WTC7 collapsed straight down into it's base, freefall. Look at the videos.
They are all unique events, but the collapses are not the same."

My focus was not the method but the way they all
came down on their own foot prints.

re no blueprints available 07.Jun.2005 11:26

fxl

 http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center_Images.html

click on construction images.
there are always technical reports in engineering journals and a project such as this would have been well covered. there is no way to hide the construction details.
as for blue prints no available to the public. I believe this is standard anti terrorist attack procedure. over here you have to have the permission of the building owner to view any plans.

re explosives placed in buildings?? never heard of this. some of the older types become unstable and can detonate by themselves.

re the buildings fell on to their own footprints. I am not for or against the demolition theory, but this is a red herring. most collapsing buildings are going to collapse exactly like this, so this does not prove explosives were used.

trying to prove explosives were used should rather be approached from the angle of checking to see if somewhere a hell of a lot of high explosives went missing. if explosives were used, it would have taken many tons of the stuff. including fancy shape charges. (explosives placed on a reflective plate to fire inwards. something like a claymore mine)

lets keep this constructive
fxl

fxl - How Much Are You Getting Paid? 07.Jun.2005 15:41

Mitch

fxl,

How can you go from asserting that ballpark analysis is not sufficient, then assert that computer modeling the collapses is the best way to go, then turn around in your latest post and imply that blueprints are not necessary for analysis? And then make some off-base claim that it is normal- to be accepted- that the WTC BLUEPRINTS are not available to the public? "Standard Anti-terrorist attack" procedure my ass. SECRET BLUEPRINTS my ass. Use your head and don't be a disinformation agent. The WTC was destroyed on 9/11. 3,000 people were murdered. Where is the terrrorist threat of publishing the blueprints of buildings long gone? If explosives were planted in the WTC buildings as is theorized, the security of the blueprints apparently was already compromised. So no need to keep the BLUEPRINTS SECRET. The WTC failures is a HUGE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. So why can't ordinary people like myself access the WTC BLUEPRINTS and conduct independant analysis? Good question.

Is it because the WTC SUDDENLY changed from public to private hands several weeks before its destruction? Private property? The government could pre-empt this in the interest of the public. If the government goes to such effort to create a 9/11 commission, have investigative bodies such as FEMA, NIST, and USGS flex their muscles, surely it could do something as simple, as common sense, and as beneficial to the public good as RELEASE THE WTC BLUEPRINTS!? I thought YOU WANTED to get to the bottom of what caused the WTC 1, 2 and 7 to collapse. Have you suddenly changed you mind? Are you sure you are not working for the government?

Would you not agree that responsible, detail-oriented engineers designing the next generation of safe buildings would want access to ALL pertinent information about the WTC failures in order to conduct their own analysis? So where are the WTC BLUEPRINTS? There is absolutely no reason to withold this information, going on 4+ years. Absolutely NONE. This has mystified a good many engineers of the industry. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO HIDE?

Your proposed investigations to establish demolition are "red herrings". What should have been done was to do forensic analysis at the WTC crime scene for explosives. Many witnesses at ground zero mentioned explosives. WTC 7's collpased was unexplainable. The WTC 1 & 2 collapsed demolition-like. Terrorists are known to use bombs and tried to use them in 1993 on the WTC. The WTC foundations contained unexplained melted steel. Perhaps this melted steel was emitting large amounts of ultraviolet radiation, the "fingerprint" for the explosive compound Thermite? Hmmmm. The government repeatedly refused to investigate for explosives. Agenices such as FEMA, FBI were involved and this was NOT done? Why? This defies comnmon sense. This defies procedure.

But just because residue from explosives was not recovered by the grossly-negligent actions of the government, does not mean that use of explosives cannot be established. Just because the gun or bullet was not recovered from a crime scene does not mean that it cannot be established that a particular weapon was used to commit a crime. A bullet hole is a bullet hole. The photographic evidence shows a bullet hole. Preliminary failure analysis shows a bullet hole. Detailed analysis with the WTC BLUEPRINTS would confirm this beyond a reasonable doubt. The government asserts there is no bullet hole. I think the burden of proof is the on the government now.

So let's keep this constructive. Stop peddling disinformation. Obtain an untampered copy of the WTC BLUEPRINTS and the truth will shine forth in its glaring ugliness. I am not afraid of seeing the truth- ARE YOU? I am a PATRIOT who wants to get to the truth- ARE YOU? Well, get those damn BLUEPRINTS!

///////////
Mitch
///////////

The Dark Matrix of S-911 07.Jun.2005 15:45

Eng Doc

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
Chinese Proverb.

Anyway, maybe some bright dude will take up the Model challenge on Computer. Any Struct geek can do an approximate Design of the WTC blgs and Pr.Struct.Eng can add loads. ( Not rocket science).One needs to start somewhere at least. Has anyone tried? If so: PLEASE post their website here - will be appreciated.

Before I forget: As one reader indicates that one cannot obtain any blue prints of blgds without permission, then how did the evildoers figure out & plan to crash airplanes or did they merely guess the outcome?? Hardly. Methinks. Reverse engineering technology had to be applied in some way.


Here's something else of interest...
I assume most of you have at some pt seen pics or vid clips pertaining to the 'wingspan shaped' hole that was punched into the side of one WTC bldg? Ok. Similar to hole punched into Coke tin with knife - example. The aperture, although at a slight angle to the bldg.can be measured (over wing tips)
We know the width of the bldg side-right? So that's your datum/ref.parameter, say in meters or feet. One can work it all out - cause you have the relative scale. I thus assume that the airplanes smashed into the WTC blgds more or less on square. ( If a particular airplane had hit a bldg of square, one can compensate with Trig Math).

Not all airplanes have the same wingspans - or do they? Plz goto Tom Flocco's website for further info.
Which airplanes were mentioned in the media again?? Yeah right.

Check the pics and infra - - - > next level

 http://www.gallerize.com/HOW_SOUTH_TOWER_WAS_HIT.htm

I am currently listening to 'Darkness' by Darren Hayes, while writing you guys...
Reminds so much of that fateful Day - (Modern day Pearl Harbor?) The mind boggles.

Best regards to all.
Keep the faith
Eng Doc

Computer Modeling 07.Jun.2005 19:31

Jonathon

The best one will be able to do with a computer in absence of the blueprints is ball-park analysis. You will come to same conclusions currently postularized by researchers about fire, load distribution, and other. If you try to go further than this, you risk creating a strawman for the government's use. You are dealing with a very corrupt organization here- this US government. RICO all the way. We can only hope that people realize that the WTC blueprints is one of the keys to unlocking 9-11. The WTC collapses, above anything else, can establish that the US government was complicit in 9-11. This is because controlled demolition had to be planned in advance. With Bush's brother connected with WTC security, the crime trail goes to the top of our government. Are you scared yet?

Jonathon

Most collapsing buildings? 07.Jun.2005 21:06

Jack Straw

fxl asserts that "most collapsing buildings are gonna collapse exactly like this". Just how many collapsing buildings are we dealing with? No steel hi rise ever collapsed due to a fire before or since 9/11, on that day 3 of them did. And they collapsed very similar to the way buidlings collapse after DEMOLITION, WTC7 most like it, WTC 1 and 2 showed the unusual feature of turning to dust *as they collapsed*, emitting the volcano like cloud from the top. And why assume that if demolition took place, it would be with conventional explosives? Do you really think you can just keep throwing out crap like this and no one will notice?
I did notice that you responded to not a single point i made. I ask again: Did the lower parts of the structures offer a lot of resistance to the top portions as they fell, or very little? Yes, it's a trap, because either way you answer conflicts with plain-to-see evidence, and both can't be true. And again: how could the second tower to be hit, and hit much less directly, and suffer a much less serious fire, fall in a lot less time (56 minutes vs 102), and fall pretty much in the same way?

re jack straw comments.. 08.Jun.2005 13:29

fxl

you are desperate for comments so here goes...

fxl charges the linjs are "thin on facts". Oh? It's not a fact that material could either present low resistance to falling debris or high resistance, but not both at the same time? Show us how something could present high and low resistance *simultaneously*, please!

what are you on about...a structure has only one level of resistance.

One doesn't need a fancy examination of the fires to see that they weren't very hot, the blacj and red colors tell it all. This is further supported by the firefighters' audio tape referred to at whatreallyhappened's wtc fires page, and by the people standing at the impact zone. Furtherrmore there is Kevin Ryan's letter regarding the government's own findings of temps below 500 deg F, unprotected structural steel doesn't begin to weajen till 1022 deg F, that's a F@CT.

I never once argued about the temp. of the fire.
steel begins to weaken as soon as it sees any heat. I cant find a reference but get a chart of strength vs temp .

@nd your notion of simple bolts also defies fact, as Jim Hoffman's analysis at 911research shows, the trusses were supported by steel panes and cross bracings.

steel buildings in the usa are bolted together to enable quick construction.

@s for the South Tower falling first, yes indeed, something is OBVIOUSLY WRONG with the "planes/fires did it" explanation, as the South Tower was hit second, hit much less directly @ND suffered an even milder fire (by quite a bit) than the North Tower, yet fell first, both fell pretty much in the same way, ON ITS F@CE that would rule out either plane impact or fire as the explanation, all your claims of scientific objectivity notwithstanding. Your failure to deal with this aside from a snide dismissal of anyone saying something is obvious is very telling.

the south tower fell first because it was hit lower down and more to the side. this caused bigger out of balance forces on the structure than that experienced by the north tower. this is a fact
take a look at the video of the south tower collapse. below the impact hole the are many damaged columns. ie the columns have been ripped free of the floor and are tilted over.this would indicate that the building was damaged far more than it appears to be.
as for snide comments , you seem to be the only one doing it.
fxl

Engineering info on WTC collapse 08.Jun.2005 13:33

Eng Doc

 http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Interesting...

here's more:

 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxD.pdf
(shows some of the structural members) - worth a look.

Here's the Best I kept for last!!

The STRUCTURAL ENGINEER who designed the WTC:
 http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

for .pdf + pics: goto - Collection of TECHNICAL DATA here
 http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NP7K/$File/Bridge-v32n1.pdf

Regds
Eng Doc

Steel and Heat 08.Jun.2005 16:23

Mitch

fxl,

I am surprised. Sounds like you have been researching this a heck alot more than you have let on in your previous comments. You apparently have looked at this from "every possible angle". It seems that you have a long list of "facts". Why don't you please list them all instead of sprinkling them in your posts? I am surprised that with your tremendous amount of research, you have not concluded yet that the buildings were taken down.

If you have taken the effort to look all these "facts" up, don't just "scratch the surface". Don't just stop when you come across something that sounds "plausible" to the average joe. You seem reluctant to probe deeper- Why is that????? You assert with conviction, "steel begins to weaken as soon as it sees any heat". Theoretically that is true. I could take my cigarette lighter and heat a steel column, and it weakens "a teensy bit". Am i afraid that the sky will fall on my head? Nope. Did you look at any "strength vs temp" charts? You mention them so you must have. It would make sense to keep them with your list of "facts". What did you find? How did you arrive at your profound conclusion? When you looked at these charts, you should have found that steel maintains most of its strength up until a particular temperature (several hundreds of degrees).

If you went this far with your research, you likely learned that in a fire, steel does not abruptly fail, but gradually fatigues. You would have learned that concrete enclosement and other fire-proofing, would slow this fatiguing down. You would have learned that steel acts as a heatsink- a damn good heatsink. From this, you would realize that the WTC steel structure was a massive heatsink. How do heatsinks behave? They absorb and dissipate heat away from the heat source. From this you would realize that the column heat from the WTC fires were dissiapating throughout the building. How could the column sections at the contact point of fire ever heat up sufficiently to fail if they were constantly being heatsinked by the rest of the building? Good question.

You would realize that it would be an impossible scenario, that ALL column fire-protection was somehow damaged and/or removed from ALL columns. You would realize that this could only lead to asymetrical heating by the random office fires. You would realize that random office fires behave- well, random. They don't do precise or consistent blanket damage like the controlled flames in laboratory tests.

You would have corrobarated many of these "common sense" conclusions in documents about other hi-rise building fires, as well as in papers you likely found along with the "strength vs temp" charts. You will realize that NIST ignores many of these "common sense" conclusions in its reports. You do not find this the least bit BIZARRE?

If you are a diligent researcher, and not some government disinformation agent, you SHOULD BE building your theories about what happened and not stop as soon as you find something that sounds "plausible" to the average joe. Apparently from your latest comments, you are of above-average intelligence- eventhough your handwriting contradicts this? To "follow through" is to be constructive. When you build your theory, you will eventually come to the conclusion that the WTC buildings were taken down. Many of us have already come to this conclusion after careful research. All roads lead to the truth. We look forward to your joining us.

May a whistleblower come forward with the WTC BLUEPRINTS.

/////////
Mitch
/////////

re: computer modeling 09.Jun.2005 03:31

howie

making some computer models would help non technical people grasp the key concepts. for most people it is harder to see with words than it is with pictures. with the computer models they can see that the wtc towers could not have collapsed by natural causes. especially wtc 7. the models might be attacked for being inaccurate as pointed out but i think it would do more good than harm in getting the truth out.

just my $.02

WTC collapse + computer Models 09.Jun.2005 14:09

Eng Doc

Interesting comments all round.

The concept of Collapse Modelling makes good sense - MORESO CONSIDERING THE SOUTH TOWER Impact.

Reasons being that one can if need be 'construct a collapse Computer model solely on the popularised given information - AND then ask the model ie. how many storeys the actual building(s) were. You may then get a weird answer say, 65 storeys high! Fine, Ok.Then you just adjust it till it works out. Going about it this way, should show up erroneous answers and/or anomalies. Why not run the Model-interactively or collectively on the Net. Similarly as done with SETI program. What I am saying is that there is a chain in science-constants or cause/effect which cannot be altered, no matter the circumstances. Energy only X-forms from one state to another. Then there is the critical time/gravity factor to bear in mind.

Why all this?

To illustrate whether an airplane ( especially a 757/6-series Boeing commercial airliner) in fact did initiate and 'caused' the building to 'implode'.
Are you sure that 757/6 did in fact fly into the building per se? ( maybe a smaller plane did?) - No side windows??

Now: A 757/6 has a w/span = 148 Ft. Quite wide!
The clear plane entry footprint left on the side of said building was much smaller than 148 Ft.
Further banking angle at this entry pt. was about 40Degrees. Methinks.
Also remember that the thin outer composite/glass/ally skin the South Tower does'nt presented much resistance to a high speed plane hitting into it.
Do you recall seeing the Video-clip of the plane going/disappearing into the Tower - wings and all. In the video shot a male office worker looked up at this happening in disbelief.
As if in ghost-like form. Hence giving the correct view - no, the wings remained intact and the whole lot blew out on the other side in huge fire balls.

Check this:
Assuming a 185 Ton 757/6 crashed into the entry pt shown, it's impact would have partly destroyed the Struct. steel core or at the least have kinked it in to a degree, thus upsetting the Structural integrity.( We dealing with Kinetics and a fixed pt/cantilever here). The floors above this impact pt. would then tend to topple over, as the side struct. steel being unable to withstand being way over loaded beyond their original Design parameters. These Towers were designed like a box with strong central pipe running through it's CL.
PLEASE again, just take a look at the Entry point CAD presentation shown at:
 http://www.gallerize.com/HOW_SOUTH_TOWER_WAS_HIT.htm

Now assume that the 185 Ton 757/6 crashed into the entry pt., BUT missed the core structure, then certainly the airplane would have had (in whole or in most part), merely slid-on-through and would have exit the Tower on the farside and exploded doing so. A 185 Ton airplane travelling at approx 864 Km/h is quite a lot of energy to be stopped in a couple of secs!!

There's more to the collapse thus...

WTC Fires 09.Jun.2005 15:09

Eng Doc

9/11 Radio Transmissions of WTC 2 Firefighters
Posted Jun 9, 2005 09:44 AM PST
Category: 911


The official story is that an 800C fire raged on the 78th-84th floors of WTC-2 and that firefighters who had died in the building only reached the 50th floor. But actual transcripts of their radio communications proves they reached the 78th floor, and only found two small fires they thought would be easy to control. Together with the photos of people standing in the aircraft impact holes on WTC-1, it should be obvious that the official story of a fire able to melt the buildings' steel frames is simply not true.

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

The truth is out there.
Eng Doc

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? 09.Jun.2005 15:22

Eng Doc

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.
Posted Jun 9, 2005 07:44 AM PST
Category: 911


 http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

THIS SITE ROCKS
Enjoy.

Mosquitos Netting 09.Jun.2005 19:33

David Wright

A wtc construction mgr said in interview that a plane crashing into the wtc was like poking holes in mosquito netting. One normally thinks the perimeter wall when they hear this but this analogy could also apply to the building core. It was made up of over 40 spaced columns that took up a good chunk of the floor plan. This is like mosquito netting too.

The crash pictures from the pentagon show the meaningful destruct path of flight 77 was about 16 feet wide- about the size of the body diamter. The pentagon's outer wall was 18-inch thick and withstood the impact of the plane wings. Some of the wtc core columns were sized at 36x18 inches at the base. At the upper floors, these columns were likely as thick as the pentagon wall. That would mean, like the pentagon wall, they would have withstood the impact of plane wings. So the effective destruct paths of flight 11 and 175 was likely not much larger than the plane body diamter after it crashed through the perimeter wall. This results in a 16-foot wide stick poking through mosquito netting. This is simply not enough to do catastrophic damage to a building structure that has so much redundancy in its design.

Here is a interesting observation:
"Years before the computer, builders were not sure of a structural element's load-bearing capability, so they over built by using a so called "safety factor. This built in safety factor could result in a structure twice the required load-bearing strength."
 http://timesnewsweekly.com/Archives2002/Jan.-Mar.2002/011002/NewFiles/WTC.html

Overkill is the keyword with pre-computer designs. However, it is unclear whether the WTC was computer designed or not. It is documented that computers were used during the wtc project to spec-out and order building materials. If computers were being used at this time to do routine tasks, wouldn't they be used in CAD?

One poster got it right. The WTC collapse alone can show high crimes. If it is shown that demolition explosives were likely used then the big question is- Why hi-jack planes and crash them into the wtc buildings when you already secured the means to take down the buildings using explosives?

For those who desire to create computer models, others have done some of the homework. Go here for starters:

 http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
 http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/08-08-04/discussion.cgi.20.html

I would be interested in seeing some models.

Who is the bigger liar - Popular Mechanics or Hoffman ? 09.Jun.2005 23:19

Gerard Holmgren

There is no doubt that S11 was completely orchestrated by the USG and Popular Mechanics' pathetic attempt to spin otherwise is deserving of the contempt that Hoffman gave it. But both of them are lying to you. Hoffman is a far more subtle and convincing liar than Popular Mechanics as we shall see in the following deconstruction of his pretence to take exception to their article.

Here's my compilation of S11 evidence

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

where - unlike Hoffman - I try to promote every aspect of the evidence, rather than cherry pick for the purposes of a limited hangout agenda. For those who might find the compilation overwhelming to begin with, here is a summary article.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html

Let's look behind the scenes of Hoffman's pretend counter to Popular Mechanics.

Why is Hoffman "two faced" ? To get to this, let's examine his limited hangout agenda. Hoffman does a fairly good job of promoting the evidence relating to the demolition of the towers. He would have you believe that he's the great hero of this issue. In fact he's a Jimmy- come- lately, who arrived on the scene after a lot of the hard work was already done, and now runs around trying to take the credit for it, now that the issue has reached a critical mass of awareness.

Well, that wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't that he also spends a lot of time slandering the very same people who blazed the trail before him, and using his support for the demolition issue as a platform from which to launch attacks on most of the rest of the S11 evidence.

Let me explain. At every opportunity, Hoffman attacks the proofs that no big plane went into the pentagon. He also attacks the people who promote it, ignoring the fact they were mostly the same people who blazed the trail for the demolition evidence, the coat-tails of which he now rides so comfortably on.


See the relevant section for the no pentagon plane evidence in my compilation at

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth2.html

At every opportunity he attacks proofs that no big planes hit the WTC. See that evidence at the above link.

Also see

 http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

and also see an archived debate on the issue at

 http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/salter.html

Heh! Hoffman himself makes a rather undistinguished appearance in this debate. His contribution was to argue that the main evidence that a big plane hit the Sth tower is because there isn't any witness evidence for it. That's right ! Hoffman argues that if such a thing had happened, hundreds of people would have seen it, and thought it so obvious that no would have mentioned what they saw, so if there were hundreds of witnesses, then we would not expect to have any witness reports, so the fact that there aren't any proves that hundreds of people saw it, which proves that it happened.

Heh! Two faced, but only half brained. Hoffman himself doesn't mind descending to the gutter of lunatic debunkery when it suits his limited hangout agenda.

But I'm still coming to the two faced part. This is how the limited hangout agenda works. Everyone and their dog is going to try to use S11 for their own agenda - whatever it is.

A small number of people are interested in simply exposing the full truth for its own sake. Others want to cherry pick those parts which suit their particular agenda and then tell as many whoppers as the Govt to cover up what isn't convenient to them.

And because there are many different agenda involved with the many different people involved, you'll get many different kinds of cherry picking.

Hoffman's particular version of cherry picking is to promote the demolition evidence, and mumble vaguely about the stand down evidence while actually refusing to promote - indeed sabotaging - the very good research which was done in relation to it.

See the relevant section on the stand down at
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

He ignores or openly attacks most other evidence.

Notice that although Hoffman claims to be taking exception to Popular mechanics, he actually spends much of the article agreeing with them. Many of PM's attacks are endorsed by Hoffman, and he pretends to disagree by saying that what they're attacking isn't really credible S11 evidence.

For example, where PM attacks the proof that no big plane hit the pentagon, it gets Hoffman's whole hearted support. He writes

[[Big Plane, Small Holes
Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole. ]]

So Hoffman's only complaint is a little grumble that this lunacy doesn't really count as S11 evidence and that PM is being deceptive in claiming that it does.

Which brings us to the "two faced" aspect of Hoffman's "counter" to Popular Mechanics. He used exactly the same tactic in his response to the more recent attack by Scientific American.

That is, when the stupid debunkers attack Hoffman's pet evidence, he cries foul that they could be so stupid as to deny such proof. That's fine as far as it goes. But when they attack the same evidence which he does - like the no pentagon 757 proof, he does a complete back flip in his logic. He claims triumphantly that this proves that the no plane evidence is "straw man" - because the debunkers are attacking it.

See how often they attack it ! , he shouts triumphantly. This proves that the no plane evidence has been fabricated to give the debunkers a target. They are able to call us silly. They are able to accuse us of junk science.

Umm... Jim...they use *exactly* the same tactics against the demolition evidence. But when they do that, Hoffman cries triumphantly

See, they feel the need to attack our evidence. They are worried ! They are launching a huge counter spin operation !

Jim, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the attacks of people like Shermer (Scientific American) and Popular Mechanics on the no plane evidence prove how stupid that evidence is, while at the same time, claiming that their attacks on the demolition evidence prove how stupid they are.

That's right ! Hoffman is actually telling us that attacks by morons like Shermer and Popular Mechanics on the no plane evidence are proof that its BS ! Myself, I prefer to just stick to dispassionate examination of the evidence itself, something which Hoffman runs screaming from. But if one were thinking so circumstantially as to try to draw *any* conclusion from the fact that morons like these attack it, surely that conclusion would be that it's valid ?

This is what I mean by double standards. Two faced. This is how the NWO works. They give us villains like Popular Mechanics and then set up heroes like Hoffman in fake opposition to them. Or if you're on the other side of things, rational, sensible people like Popular Mechanics and mad conspiracy theorists like Hoffman. But both of them are lying to you.

Which ever side people take is fine by the perpetrators of the big lie. Every time people like Popular Mechanics take a swipe at S11 evidence, it gives Hoffman a chance to take a swipe too - and pretend that he's defending it. When they attack the no plane evidence, Hoffman attacks it too - on the basis that it's giving people like Popular Mechanics ammunition.

Shouldn't the very same logic apply to PM's attacks on the demolition ? Not in the loony land of two faced Hoffman.

Hoffman also doesn't mind twisting and misrepresenting the views of those who he claims to support. For example, in the above article, Hoffman states

[[Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man... ]]

Here, Hoffman is actually supporting the lies of Popular Mechanics, while pretending to oppose them. Lets analyse the above statement.

In relation to Emperors -clothes, the truth is the exact opposite of what Hoffman claims. Emperors- clothes does indeed make the claim which Hoffman says has been falsely attributed to them. In fact it not only makes the claim, it proves it with meticulous documentation. One of the great contributions of the Emperors- clothes site in the early days of the S11 investigation was to bust the myth that jets were scrambled and just didn't get there in time. Notice that Hoffman gives a link to the Emperors- clothes site, thus giving the casual reader the impression that he's making an honest statement, which he can back up with documentation. In fact, it's a smokescreen, because if one follows the link, it only takes one to the Emperors- clothes home page. Since it's a very wide ranging site, covering many more issues than just S11, and since its S11 section is itself divided into different sections, a reader not familiar with what Emperors -clothes actually said, would probably not bother digging far enough to discover that Hoffman's attribution to it is a lie.

But unfortunately for Hoffman, I have a collection of the relevant Emperor's clothes articles linked right here at

 http://members.iinet.net.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

and just to make things easier, I will here directly link to a key article, which shows that Hoffman has attributed to Emperors- clothes the exact opposite of what the site actually says.

Frequently asked questions on 9/11
Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "
 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm

In this article, Emperors-clothes delivers a devastating knockout blow to the claim that jets were scrambled and just didn't get there on time. It shows that nothing was scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit, and that even then nothing went after the supposedly hijacked plane which was still at large at this time.

So Hoffman in a stunning piece of convoluted lying, has managed to roll a heap of whoppers in to one claim. Firstly, he's lied about the scramble situation - actually agreeing with the lie by Popular Mechanics, while pretending to take them on. Secondly, he's then lied about what the Emperors clothes site says, misrepresenting it as telling the same lie that he is.

So in fact, Popular Mechanics was making a pathetic attempt to debunk the evidence presented by Emperors- clothes, and Hoffman helped them out by claiming that what they were trying to debunk simply didn't exist.

For those not familiar with the details of the evidence to which I am referring, this could be getting quite confusing - which is no doubt what Hoffman wants. This was a very clever lie on his part causing many convolutions. But I suggest that the best way to sort it out is to read the compilation of Emperor's Clothes articles which I have linked, and then re-read Hoffman's statement, and then you'll see what a vicious lie it was on his part.

But that's only scratching the surface of Hoffman's duplicitous agenda.

The evidence Hoffman doesn't want you to know about

The object striking the North tower is not a plane.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

The videos of the Sth tower hit which appears superficially to show a large plane hitting the tower are fakes. They were animated with flight simulator. There is no real plane there.

 http://thewebfairy.com/911
 http://911hoax.com

Two of the allegedly hijacked planes did not even fly that day

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

Hoffman's response to this evidence when it was first published was very revealing.. The fact is that the official flight logs from the Bureau of transportation say that the flights which are alleged to have hit the pentagon and the Nth tower did not even exist.

Unable to find any fault with the documentation, Hoffman attacked the article on the basis that it might lend credence to the
no planes theory. This is what the idiot said in an email dated Nov 16 2003 - 3 days after I published the findings.

[[Some people have put enormous effort into building a case that either of both of:
(1) what hit the North Tower was not a jetliner, let alone AA F11
(2) no jetliner hit the South Tower -- rather the impact was simulated using holograms or faked video and planted explosives.

I find (1) highly improbable, and (2) laughable.

The object passing over in the Naudet video -- the only known video capturing the North Tower impact, except for an even lower resolution security camera -- sounds like a turbofan: you can hear a distinct hum, not just a white noise roar that a military jet or missile would make. Furthermore, the impact hole matches the profile of a 767 down to the engine pods and wingtips.

I won't even address the evidence about the South Tower impact except to say that when I have in an e-mail list with some proponents of the no-planes theories, I've been labeled a debunker and attacked, especially by webfairy, who's conviction that the Naudet video shows that no jetliner hit the North Tower I might describe as religious. (My comments about motion and pixel-blur, sampling errors, and compression artifacts only elicited further ridicule.)

I very much doubt that webfairy or Scott Longrey (911hoax.com) are insincere, but I think the no-planes-hit-the-towers is a very destructive meme that helps to lump things like the WTC demolition in the catagory of lunatic ideas in the minds of many.
To his credit, Gerard understands this, so he doesn't focus on it despite believing, I think, both (1) and (2).

Gerard's description of (1) as "widely accepted" may reflect the people he communicates with most, and the vocal persistence of webfairy, et.al. And the idea has gained some currency, even appearing on serendipity.li in an article by Leonard Spencer.
 http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm

I feel like I have to write an article taking this on, which will distract me from the next upgrade I need to do to my WTC demolition analysis on 911research.wtc7.net . ]]

Hoffman's comment on the revelation that official flight logs show that AA11 and 77 did not exist is simply to rehash arguments he's had about video evidence of the tower strikes.

He doesn't address a single word to the documentation presented in the article.

So the Hoffman doctrine is that if this evidence points us in a direction which we don't want to go, then we should simply put our heads in the sand and talk about something else.

Hoffman should be writing for Skeptics Magazine himself, because that's about the level of his logical thinking ability and his capacity for honesty.

As if all that wasn't enough, here we have proof that the passenger lists for the alleged AA 11 flight, published by the media purporting to be official flight manifests, are fakes.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html

Hoffman doesn't want you to know that either. If he did ,he would link it on his site. Like the flight log records, he would promote it at least as an "anomaly", in the interests of making all relevant information available, even if he's not buying the no planes stuff in general. But because he knows that it adds a documentation angle to the video proof that AA11 did not hit the Nth tower , then he simply pretends that it doesn't exist.

The reason is not any fault in the research. It's because it provides more evidence for something that Hoffman doesn't want you to know. That this was a war of the worlds con job. There weren't any hijacked planes. The news is just a movie. This goes way beyond the implication of Govt involvement in S11 and a subsequent media cover up. This proves that it was a giant matrix constructed reality job right from the beginning.

Hoffman is merely playing the script of a "truth seeker' within this movie. He is lying to you just as actively as Popular Mechanics, CNN and the Bush regime.

Visit my links and see the evidence. We no planers deal with real evidence, and can always provide it on demand. Two faced limited hangout perps like Hoffman, resort to cynically using those who they claim to be countering - like Popular Mechanics - as a smokescreen from which to launch their continued attacks on that part of the evidence which doesn't suit them.

great thread 10.Jun.2005 01:55

terry

this is a great thread; and a great article; most links posted provide solid material for the curious; anybody with common sense in their head can connect the dots; people only have to start asking the questions; if someone can make computer models of the wtc collapse, that would be fantastic! collapsing buildings is not too abstract; a good portion of middle-america are in the trades and could understand an analysis of falling buildings if kept in a non-jargon format;

the below link is dedicated to those who still live in denial about what is going on;
 http://www.benfrank.net/nuke/inaug_protest/bush-sign.html

Yeah 10.Jun.2005 02:21

Jake Hamilton

With the WTC, when you place the controlled demolition and the governments theory side by side, it is the government that looks silly. Has anybody tried making a side by side comparison? I am thinking of a 2 column format that highlights the major points. This would make the silliness obvious to the non-researcher. Just a thought.
--Jake

Holograms - Disinformation Agents Go Home 10.Jun.2005 14:07

Mitch

How old are you? Those of you peddling hologram theories should be ashamed of yourself. If you cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt using science, drop it. The fact that you do not test your theories beyond skin-deep and then sprinkle it in with theories that have been tested, just shows you are about disinformation and discrediting and not about seeking TRUTH. Have you ever bothered to assign a PROBABILITY to your questionable theories? Elvis could have taken down the WTC towers, you know. But i don't assign this theory a high probability eventhough i swear i saw Elvis running in and out of the buildings in a white sequin suit and cape with burly sideburns and gold shades. I know he did it!

If holograms really were used, then in order for a hologram the size of a large airliner to be projected on a building high-up on a bright sunny day, how powerful do you think the hologram light would have to be? One of you hologram advocates touts being a PhD graduate? Did the scientific method just go out the window? Hello? Pretty frickin bright. The light source would have to be pretty damn big to project such large amounts of light in order to overcome the washout effect by the nuclear reactions of the bright sun. And not a single witness noticed the sun-like hologram light coming from somewhere- building 7, drone, wherever- especially with all the smog and debris floating around in NY City? Lasers, any light beam, would show trails in the dirty air.

And if holograms was such a developed military technology, wouldn't it be used in Afganistan and Iraq to help save the lives of our troops? It would be great to trick the resistance into thinking our troops are driving over IEDs when in fact they did not- to get the resistance to flick that light-switch detonator at the wrong time.

And this business about video tampering as proof. Yes, video tampering is possible and it has been done before. But what is the PROBABILITY of this occurring to the WTC crash footage? Most of the crash footage on that day was being broadcast in near-realtime on national television. What is the probability of a psy-op operation creating precise bogus video footage on-the-fly? If they could do this feat, they certainly could have created footage of the Pentagon crash, you think?

And you "men of science" are asserting that bombs were placed to create the crash holes. Well, explosives when they explode, explode outward unless blocked. Take a landmine- it explodes upwards from the ground. If explosives made the crash holes in the building one would see signs of building structure curling outwards, away from the planted explosives. Do you honestly think that the fluffy air outside the WTC buildings blocked the explosives in such a way so that they would explode inwards, mimicking a crash hole?

And this business about the hole being smaller than an actual plane's wingspan. I think if you were slammed against a wall spread-eagle going at tremendous speed, the hole you would make would likely be smaller than your "wingspan".

In all these theories you parade as "fact", you are not bothering to assign it a PORBABILITY of how likely it would occur. Why is that? You then attempt to back them up with "facts" that have low probability of being true. It is so self-fulfulling. The reasonable person will call you bluff every time. I could say that the US Government is honest and benign, and show footage of the president repeatedly saying those "pack of lies" about the Iraq war, and say "well, this is repeated many times- this is a FACT- so it must be the truth, and therefore the government is honest." This is your "logic".

Any reasonable person who reads this thread needs to understand that the government is currently doing a disinformation campaign regarding 9-11. If you need proof, look at the large disinformation campaign surrounding the Iraq war "pack of lies". This was a campaign that was orchestrated over a several year period and continues. Disinformation and manipulation of the public is government policy- there is no living in denial over this. The government knows that the available evidence regarding 9-11 it does not have control over proves beyond a reaonable doubt that it was a player in the events of 9-11. The government has a very strong incentive to keep this evidence from becoming common public knowledge. Its current strategy is to discredit the evidence.

Now that you understand this, it will help guide you in your research to uncover the truth.

//////////////
Mitch
//////////////

How Gerard Holmgren screwed it for David Ray Griffin 10.Jun.2005 14:48

reader

AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.
 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

needless to say, David Ray Griffin did NOT include Holmgren in his next edition of NPH.

People should read more carefully 10.Jun.2005 16:27

Gerard Holmgren

Mitch has a big rant about Holograms. I'm not sure why, because that's not what we're saying. In relation to the Nth tower, the object is not a plane.

In the Sth tower, it's a faked video done with flight simulator.

The hologram idea was considered and worked through, but was discarded when we discovered that the moving plane has been animated onto a still background, which is equally as impossible for a hologram as it is for a real plane. For all the ranting of people like Mitch about holograms, it was actually the people who first proposed the idea to begin with who actually foud the proof that it wasn't. And months after, people like Mitch are still ranting about it, because they think that the supposedly sensational connotations of the word will stop people from realizing that real planes don;t pass through a wall like a ghost with breaking off any paerts and without making a hole. Has Mitch thought about the probablity of that ?

For myself, I never endorsed the hologram idea anyway - I merely kept it open for consideration until we finally found the proof otherwise. Mitch appears to have some kind of fear of keeping all ideas open for consideration.

As for how I "screwed" it for David ray Griffin...
I don;t think that "reader" has reader has read much at all.

Berlet's assertions in relation to what I said about Winslow were very misleading and Griffin didn't a get a chance to correct him in the interview.

You can find out what I really said by actually reading my article.

http:members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

But to summarise. I did make a minor mistake of sorts in relation to Winslow, and naturally people like Bertlett are going to have a field day blowing it out of proportion.

I tracked the Winslow report very thouroughly through the media and showed that there was no evidence that he saw a plane hit the pentagon. In fact an interview which Winslow did *after* I published that article, put the finishing touches on how his report came to be, something which I had already 90% nailed during my enquiries.

It's clear that what happened is that Winslow thought that he caught a glimpse of the tail of a large airliner, but didn't see it - or anything apparently- hit the building.

Begala saw an explosion , but didn't see anything hit the building. Later, Winslow and Begala spoke to each other and naturally enough assumed that the plane of which Winslow caught a glimpse had been responsible for the collision.

Begala reported this to the BBC. Then other media picked it up, dropping Begala out of the story and misrepresenting it as Winslow actually seeing the collision and reporting first hand.

It was my work which tracked that down. Because the picture was only 90% clear at the time, because Winslow had not yet done his subsequent interview, I searched very hard for anything else in relation to Winslow and didn't find anything - which led me to *suspect* - erroneously as it turned out, that maybe the guy didn;t even exist. This was an error, but a minor one considering that
a)it wasn;t central to the issue of his report and b) I didn;t make it as a dfirm allegation. I simply searched for him, reported in exact detail the searches i had done, observed that I hadn;t found any other evidence of his existence and asked whether perhaps he didn't.

Bertlet knows this and so tried to play up this aspect to cover the rest of the work I'd done exposing the fact that there is no wintess evidence to support a large plane going ionto the pentagon. Griffin tried to answer saying that it was a lot more complex than that, but he didn;t get the chance.

So yes, in amongst all the vlauable work I did, exposing the so called witness reports for the hocum they were, I did make a minor mistake, which the debunkers will try to maximise any way they can.


Up until I published that article, there was a common myth that there were "hundreds of witnesses. I busted that myth. It was that which gave Griffin his material to work with on that aspect. Because the work was long and exhausting, there were naturally a few minor errors of which that was the worst.

You can;t do as much work as I've done and not make the odd minor mistake.
Thats not the same as Cherry picking and lying like Hoffman.

Because my work is so well documented and so honest in it's presentation,and so transparent about how I put it together, then any error I make will be immediately picked up - which is the way I want it, because I'm here for the truth, and if I make a mistake, I want it to be discovered.

One more thing about Winslow 10.Jun.2005 16:38

Gerard Holmgren

In the interview, Goodman, in order to try to play up the Winslow thing, told a straight out lie about what had happened.

She suggested that I had simply done a google search for Winslow, not found anything and therefore claimed that he dind't exist and therefore that his report was a lie.

This wild distortion is so far from the truth that techincally, it could almost be grounds for a defation suit if I could be bothered.

Its instructive to note that the only way the Winslow episode "screws" things is when they tell complete whoppers about what I actually said.

I can;t help it if they lie about what I said, in order to make it look as bad as possible. Hoffman complains that Scientific American wrongly attributed to him statements he didn't make. And he's got a right to be upset if they did.

Does that mean that he "screwed it " - because they lied about what was on his site ? Bertlett and Goodman lied about what I said about Winslow - which is hardly something I can do anything about.

If you read my article and then see what they said, you'll see the difference.
But I do admit to a research error which gave them an opening to do that.

WTC damage 10.Jun.2005 16:51

Gerard Holmgren

Mitch writes

[[If explosives made the crash holes in the building one would see signs of building structure curling outwards, away from the planted explosives.]]

Which in fact can be seen in some of the photos.

Real planes do not pass through walls like ghosts without making a hole and without breaking off any parts. They just don't.

And in relation to the pentagon, neither do wings pass through walls, without making a hole in the wall. They just don't.

I notice that Mitch also ignores the official documentation that A11 and 77 didn;t even exist.

3D-Software to Model WTC collapse 10.Jun.2005 16:59

Eng Doc

Getting deep now - good!
Would anyone have an idea which software would be the best starting point to commence a model of the WTC collapse? One needs to focus on end goal - WTC Truth, which cannot be changed.

David, Terry and Jake amongst others are correct in their view to a Collapse Model.
It in itself will stirr even more interest in the WTC tragedy.
One needs not lose sight of cold objectivity in the honourable quest for truth.
A model could expose many enigmas. Good - let the technical debate start.
Many experienced engineering folk will obviously dispute the model and try to tear it apart - good.
That's the whole idea - brainstorming, if need be in cyberspace. Worth a try.
Yes, we all know that the airplanes alone could not alone have been responsible for initiating the WTC collapse. However one needs to illustrate same by using available technology and wise engineering savvy gained over decades of being therein involved in industry and elsewhere. We need to pool resources - best way approach.

Not much one can prove in researching politics, being merely expediential anyway.
Politicians are adept in this area.
No, one needs to focus on the technical reality and as is generally done and start, even assuming certain technical criteria. Concurrently, one must not lose sight of the judicial value of evidence and the public's reaction thereto.
One must try to 'sell' the WTC modelling to the public as far and wide as possible. Bearing in mind, many folks from all over the Globe died an untimely death at s-911. Even post same on the Net as freeware to create awareness. The Net is a good area to commence same.
Everyone can then be given a chance to input any info into the model in their own time as they see fit and comment, add and subtract - in public. Much like Linux opensource development over the years.
Inputs may even be made anon - if need be. The info is out there. The model infra has the ability to grow by 'in-itself' on the Net. I am surprised no one has thought about this before already, we are 4 years post 911. It would truly stand up as an appropriate Memorial to the Fallen on that dreadful day.

It could at a later stage be advanced to a stage where the best model entry could stand to say, win a large prize or so. (Merely looking at how to popularize the model concept).
Further, as is generally known, the public has a relatively short memory, hence the immediate need to post a model asap. Has any, so far been scripted/coded and posted anywhere??

An interactive 3D model is certainly the way to go.
Time is against the truth - history proves this.

>>> NEED MODEL NOW <<<

Eng Doc
ps. Plz post ANY model urls.

Jesus . . .. 10.Jun.2005 17:19

reader

>>People should read more carefully 10.Jun.2005 16:27
>>Gerard Holmgren

>>Mitch has a big rant about Holograms. I'm not sure why, because that's not what we're saying. In >>relation to the Nth tower, the object is not a plane.

>>In the Sth tower, it's a faked video done with flight simulator.

Oh I think we're really CAREFULLY enough! It actually only takes about 2 lines of reading to understand the positions of Holmgren

NO PLANE

FAKED VIDEO FROM FLIGHT SIMULATOR

Jesus . . .

No plane - faked video 10.Jun.2005 17:40

Gerard Holmgren

That's exactly my position in relation to the Sth tower.

Video analysis at  http://thewebfairy.com/911

And the Nth tower. Real object, but not a plane.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgrenplanevideos.html

Which makes one wonder why Mitch ranted about holograms. It's putting the back end of the argument first. The first observation is that the Sth tower is not a real plane.

From there we considered two possibilities fro how the illusion was created.

a) faked video
b)real video of a live hologram

After a lot of argument and investigation and analysis, we eventually ruled out b).

That's right everyone! 10.Jun.2005 17:58

reader

Holmgren thinks it was FAKED VIDEOS that hit the WTC towers that day on September 11th!

Wake up to the new logic of GERARD HOLMGREN and the fact that everything you think is real is actually all part of a FAKE VIDEO! Did you spill something on the floor just now? Don't bother to clean it up, just apply the new and improved reality of the FAKE VIDEO and poof! It's all gone. Just like magic everyone! Fun for the whole family.

But how DARE anyone talk about HOLOGRAMS! That wasn't at all what he was talking about! He was talking about FAKED VIDEO. Get with the program already all you Portlanders who don't understand how the world is all just a simulation. Listen to Jes-- I mean, to Gerard when he tells you what is so.

What is reader reading 10.Jun.2005 19:09

Gerard Holmgren

Once again, "Reader's" comments reveal that if (s)he is reading anything at all then it certainly isn't what I've been posting here, or any of my research, or any of the other research which I link to.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html (Nth tower hit anlsysis)

 http://thewebfairy.com/911

 http://911hoax.com

 http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/manufcatured.html

htpp://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/truth.html


[[Holmgren thinks it was FAKED VIDEOS that hit the WTC towers that day on September 11th! ]]

No faked video hit any building and no one has ever alleged such an absurdity, so its instructive to note that "Reader" is already desperate enough to start attributing to me absurd views which I don't hold, because (s)he is too scared to address what I really am saying.

The video of the Nth tower is a real object. It is not a plane.

Something hit the Sth tower, but it was not the cartoon plane which we see in the video. The fake plane masks the real object. There's good grounds for speculating that the Sth tower hit was probably caused by the same type of object responsible for the Nth tower hit, but that can't be proven.

Real planes do not defy laws of perspective by maintaining the same size relative to the building regardless of their distance. They do not pass through walls like ghosts without making a hole or breakling off any parts. They do not exceed their maximum speed at low altitude while banking sharply and flying in the opposite direction to which they are banking. They do not hippity hop, alternating regularly frame by frame, between hovering motionless and jumping forward at approximately 1200 mph. Real planes captured moving on video don't show still backgrounds.

They just don't.

As for the one video which was shown live, we don't see the plane hit the building. It passes behind the building, creating the assumption that it has impacted the hidden face, because a direct view of the hit would have been too difficult to simulate live. That is why the only videos we see of the Sth tower which appear to show a direct view of the hit were not broadcast live.

The one live video would have been childs play to simulate with this technology.

Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato MIT's Technology review. July/August 2000

 http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp

That's a summary of the video aspect.

Now to the documentation aspect.

Official flight logs from the Bureau of Transportation say that there were no such flights as AA11 and 77 that day.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

Independent of that, the passenger lists published by the media for AA11 are proven fabrications.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html

The planes which were assigned to flights UA 175 and 93 never crashed, according to official documentation from the FAA, because the two planes in question are still registered.

Go to the FAA aircraft registry

 http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11).

And as for witnesses reports - they overwhelming support either a small plane or a missile or else people who were looking right at the explosion and didn't see any striking craft. There are also numerous reports of a sonic boom and a power surge just before the hits - which of course could not have been caused by 767's or any kind of passenger jet.

The hidden logcal flaw in the no demolition case 10.Jun.2005 19:43

Gerard Holmgren

Normally when proving that the WTC was deliberately demolished, we present the scientific and common sense proofs that the alternative is simply impossible.

The supporters of the official story spin desperately in all directions to try to prove otherwise. The technical arguments which arise (if one can be generous to their insane arguments by describing them as "technical" )

But for a moment, lets mild a wildly generous concession, and suppose that they proved that it was possible for it to have collapsed from fire or the non existent plane strikes or a combination of both.

The reason that I want to hypothetically make that concession is to expose an absurdity in their underlying logic, one which is masked by their "technical" arguments.

No-one in their right minds would argue that a controlled demolition was technically impossible or even improbable. So if they proved that the alternative was also possible or even probable, then on scientific grounds we would have two equally palusible theories. The scientific argument would be inconclusive, so we would then be forced to look at more circumstantial evidence such as documentation, finances, political machinations etc to try to give one argument the advantage over the other.

So even conceding the validity of the insane "technical " arguments against the demolition, the real argument against it is not technical in nature, because at very best, that would only provide a split decision. The real basis of the no demolition argument is political.

But it proponents try to disguise a political argument as a scientific argument. They seem to think that all they have to do is prove that an accidental collapse was *possible* in order to prove that the alternative is *impossible*.

This saves them from having to argue transparently their real case - a political case, which is also weak, given the finances which surround the WTC and the various pieces of political evidence surrounding S11 - like the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan, and the general advantage to the Bush regime caused by the events.

So we see at the core of the no demolition argument a fundamental dishonesty. Their claims to ridicule the demolition are politically based but they try to disguise to them as scientifically based.

Of course, the reality is that their junk science is so insane, that the politics doesn't even need to come into it, but it thinks worth busting the second layer of their counter spin.

The same can be said for the no planes proof. There is absolutely nothing in the fake video aspect which hasn't been available and openly known and used as a commercial technology for years.

The objection is simply political. "They couldn't tell such a huge lie and get away with it."

But just like the demolition debunkers who use junk science to try to disguise what is purely a political preconception that our govt wouldn't do such a thing and that the media wouldn't cover it up, the planehuggers resort to junk science and presenting the routine as fantastic, in an effort to disguise what is purely a political preconception that they couldn't play such an audacious trick and believe that they could get away with it.

Its really very simple. Every day on our TV set we see fake gun battles, fake plane crashes and fake car chases and pile ups. Most of them look highly realistic. The reason we know that they are not real is because the TV stations tells us "This is not real because it is a *movie*.

Then we see other images which also look real, which apparently are. How do we tell the difference ? Because the TV station tells us . "This is real. It is the *news*. "

And we believe them. On this occasion they showed a movie and called it the news, and certain people simply refuse to believe that they would lie to us - which seems a strange reaction given that they've lied to us on just about everything else in Relation to S11 - including the fat Bin Laden video and the fake beheading videos.

The fact that its perfectly feasible both politically and technically for the Sth tower video to be a fake plane does not prove that it is. What proves that is the summary I provided earlier.

who is this DUDE? 10.Jun.2005 22:50

racerX

who is this Gerald "hologram" Holmgren? is he related to Elvis? go home mr. disinformation agent. your time in the gulag will come soon enough.

racerX

Who I am 10.Jun.2005 23:33

Gerard Holmgren

Racer x writes

[[who is this Gerald "hologram" Holmgren? is he related to Elvis? go home mr. disinformation agent. your time in the gulag will come soon enough. ]]

Beautifully argued, Racer X ! Your eloquent and meticulously referenced logical deconstruction has convinced me that the 3 WTC buildings did indeed collapse from fire and by a miraculous coindicnce, all fall straight down at the same speed as a free fall even though they were smashing through the resistance of their own structure. And that planes can indeed pass through walls like ghosts without breaking off any parts or making a hole.

Wonderfully debated Racer X !

As for who I am...  http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren

My apologies for the clumsy attmept to hide my identity unlike the easily identifiable "Racer X."

Some Computer Modeling 10.Jun.2005 23:38

Darren Stokes

Some computer modeling has been done, but it is no complete analysis of the buildings.
 http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/wtc-microsoft.htm

I found no modeling of wtc 7. I think wtc 7 should be modeled first. It only suffered superficial outside damage and had just a few small fires. But it completely collapsed demolition-like within a few hours from the time fires were first reported. The government has had great difficulty explaining its collapse since day one. The 911 commission does not even mention the wtc 7 in their final report, eventhough this report was to be the exhaustive 'story' of what happened. Then there is other evidence that wtc 7 was taken down, such as the lease owner admitting in interview that the building was 'pulled'. All indicators point to wtc 7 as the first stone to overturn as the government is doing its best to hide it. 'Hey, don't mind that man behind the curtain!' I say divide and conquer the governments theory starting with wtc 7. The new model could be used in the wtc insurance settlement cases. It might disrupt things and maybe silverstein won't get a penny of the $billion dollar insurance claim? You'll get media publicity for sure. Sounds like a plan.

Here are some links listing free structure modeling and failure analysis software. I am not an engineer so i won't be able to help in any meaningful way.
 http://www.structural-engineering.fsnet.co.uk/free.htm

I don't why nobody has done complete computer models yet. I think it is because the government theory looks so absurd on its face. Maybe computer modeling is difficult? And the blueprints are not available? I think if someone made an attempt at a computer model and circulated it, it would get picked up by university researchers and taken to the next level. Publicity of computer models would also demonstrate to the public that 911 is a serious issue to a growing number of people. It would be an incentive for people to get on the internet and learn more about 911.

Just my thoughts.

All honest efforts are good efforts 11.Jun.2005 00:13

Gerard Holmgren

Darren Stokes writes in realtion to exposing the WTC 7 demolition

[[It would be an incentive for people to get on the internet and learn more about 911. ]]

Agreed Darren. Anyhting which provides good informative analysis of *any* of the S11 evidence- with the important qualification that it doesn;t use it as a platform from which it piss on other evidence - is welcome.

That's why I've tried to cover everything in my evidence kit at

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

It provides detailed research from many different writers and sources on a very wide range of issues, ranging from LIHOP stuff like Bush's movements on the morning, the failure to scramble fighter craft, Ashcrofts warnings not to fly etc , to the more hard hitting MIHOP stuff - the demolition, the no planes, the missing flights, the non existent arab hijackers,the faked passenger lists etc.

What we need to watch out for is two faced types like Hoffman, who embrace one small part of the evidence, mostly as an excuse to piss on the rest of it.

Note that my objection is not even him ignoring the rest of it, becasse by contrast , I have no problem with www.tenc.net ,even though they only present LIHOP stuff. the difference is that they published some very good research - which at the time was groundbreaking - and made a big contribution to showing that the official story was a lie, and then moved on to other things, leaving others to get on with it, sinmply making no comment on the issues which later unfolded.

Hoffman, on the other hand appeared on the Scene after a lot of the hard work on the demolition was already done, immedaitely appointed himself king of the issue and then used this as a platform from which to start attacking just about everything else, including many of the people who had blazed the trail on the WTC before him.

On the insurance issue. I thought of this ages ago. The insurance companies are in on too. If they actually wanted to bust Silverstein, they could have done it easily. They would have hired a team of crack lawyers and engineers to work around the clock on it and had him nailed in no time.

In a following post, I will paste in an email I wrote to a list on this subject recently, explaining why the Insurance companies actually find it in their interest to pay up and keep quiet.

I think this is an important point in realising that the S11 scam isn't an abberation perpetrated by a rougue group. Its actually how things work in a routine manner.Its important for realising the depth of the conspiracy.

And this is also why the no planes issue is important. Its not just "who did it". It's what "it" was. A giant snuff movie, sold to us as reality.

The reality part was that the buildings were demolished. The movie part was the planes and the hijackers. We are living in a world where cartoons and action movies are presented as "news" and until this is realized, isolated busting of the bottom level muck rakers like Silverstien will only be nibbling at the edges.

Why the insurance companies are covering up 11.Jun.2005 00:22

Gerard Holmgren

The way I figure it, the insurance companies are an unofficial way of levying a "terrorism tax " on us. Whenever people get killed, and things get blown up, ultimately someone has to pay for it.

Us, of course. But the money trail must be convoluted enough that we're not aware of it, and because it takes time to get us to pay up, then the perps need a fund which can provide instant financing, and then screw the money out of us later.

So when they demolish a building or blow up a ship or whatever, the insurance companies provide the instant financing to cover it.
Then - with the full support of the govt, they screw the money out of us over time. This is done by constantly raising premiums with the cover story that they're being forced up by too many silly people slipping on a banana skin somewhere and suing for $500 trillion, which we all have to pay for.

The Murdoch press plays it part by screaming headlines about how some idiot is suing Woolworths for $75,000 because they slipped on an oyster. Its worded to make it sound silly and trivial - never mind that the person suffered a serious back injury, had lots of time off work, lots of rehab expenses and lots of pain. "Slipping on an oyster makes it sound funny - like a 3 stooges show - and all the readers nod vigerously and say "that's where our insurance $ are going - to idiots like that ".

Just like terrorism is a mixture of completely fabricated events and complicity with real terrorists, it of course helps to have the odd judge actually making a stupid decision in favour of someone who's case was a little ridiculous. Like the person who drinks 30 bottles of beer, breaks someone's window and then sues the person because they cut themselves.

The occasional silly decision like this is a boon to the insurance companies because it gives the press something to play up and explain that that's why our premiums are rocketing because of idiots like this, and the person who slipped on the oyster is made out to be the same type of case.

So that's the cover story for raising premiums. It also creates the cover story for making insurance compulsory for just about everything you do now, because "some idiot might sue us, if they hurt themselves."

Musicians (who get paid just about nothing anyway) are now being told that they have to have their own public liability cover - even though the venues they are playing in already have to do the same. Double dipping.

Charitable and community events are being told they can't go ahead unless they have insurance in the event of a kid falling off a swing or something.

Then there's the gold mine of the insurance spin off from privatization.
In NSW, there was for years, compulsory 3rd party injury insurance - that is a few hundred dollars a year levy for motorists to pay, for when someone gets badly injured due to a drivers negligence and sues for millions which the driver cant pay.
That in itself is fine - when it was all run by the govt. Then it was a kind of extra tax to pay for when those things actually happen.

But about 10 years ago, the system was privatized. The result was that the premiums went through the roof. This is because a) the motive was no longer simply a levy to pay for injured people, there was now a requirement for it to be profitable - that is to collect a lot more money than was ever expected to be needed. Secondly, it created the following problem.
When the govt ran it, they could fairly accurately estimate how many large claims there were likely to be each year and therefore how much they needed to collect in premiums. Everyone paying a few hundred a year pays for a small number of serious cases where someone is awarded millions. Because one fund (the govt) was responsible for all the costs, and collected all the premiums, the budget was fairy safe.

But once it was opened up to multiple competing insurance companies, it worked like this. Suppose your company has 20% of the market share. That means you collect 20% of the premiums. But given that most of the costs come from a small number of very expensive cases, the luck of the draw one year might be that you collected 20% of the premiums, but had to pay 80% of the payouts. So you have to cover your worst case risk scenario - and make a profit.

So each private company in the business, faces a risk factor many times that which the govt used to have when it ran the fund.

The result is that massive amounts of extra money are compulsorily fleeced out of motorists into the insurance companies. If one company gets the short end of the stick one year in terms of the payouts, they'll only make a modest profit, but all of the others will be raking it in. However the dice falls, collectively, an enormous amount of extra cash has been injected into the insurance industry.

This process is being driven throughout every sector of the economy as more and more of what used to be community services are privatized, and in relation to each one, the scare campaign about frivolous litigation provides the cover story for both bigger premiums and a greater prevalence of compulsory levies.

And it works in other ways. For example, slash funding to public health care, which has the side effect of inexperienced and stressed doctors working too long hours and therefore making more serious mistakes, which causes more people to sue, which forces up the insurance premiums. Make sure that the insurance market is "competitive" enough, and the same process occurs as with the motorists injury fund. Huge amounts of cash flowing into the insurance companies. The doctors and the patients lose out. The insurance companies get the loot.

So there's the spare billions which are needed to pay out for scams like the WTC. The insurance companies probably have major investments in all the firms which benefit from the scams in a general sense - drugs, energy, construction, weapons, etc, and the insurance business is the conduit to funnel cash from us into those activities which benefit from blowing things and people up - which is the real investment.

So the insurance companies getting fleeced for a few billion by Silverstein is all part of the cash flow that sustains the activities where they make their real money. Having to pay up a few billion from time to time is simply an investment in the real business. No-ones going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The insurance companies are not stupid enough to buy the ludicrous fire induced collpase story, if they really wanted their billions back.

WTC info Website 11.Jun.2005 09:20

Eng Doc

Firstly many thanks for posting all the url to modelling sites - truly appreciated.

Secondly, considering the current WTC info vacuum, was thinking how about running a WTC Info website on the Net. There it would then be possible to store/upload any info pertaining to the WTC Collapse. Folks accross the whole world can then upload vid clips. still shots. copies of docs., or just any technical info. No limit on byte size. ( Maybe a UseNet style setup would work best, or P2P file exhange?). All this can be done anon to protect privacy, etc. This quite feasible.

In this way, folks (in the know) will be more willing to upload valuable data. That's the theory.

The proposed idea of a WTC Info Website would most valuable to assist in establishing a 3D WTC Model.
Any erroneous info should surface as the model becomes more intelligent.
Makes me think that even AI could be used to sim alternate models from the most absurd to the best fit.

Guys, any ideas to add?
Feel free and let your mind roll.

Regds
Eng Doc

This is how DISINFO works 11.Jun.2005 10:58

reader

>>Something hit the Sth tower, but it was not the cartoon plane which we see in the video. The fake plane masks the real object.

I'm going to burst from laughing!

Got this everyone? GERARD HOLMGREN says: "The fake plane masks the real object."

That's right folks, that good 'ol FAKE PLANE masks that REAL OBJECT that hit the towers. We don't know what that was that hit the tower, but whoever those 9/11 families are, they think they're missing someone that apparently doesn't exist, since they were never killed on 9/11.

Guess what everyone - That's how disinfo works: Turn the families against the NUTTY WACKED OUT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS by telling them that we think there were FAKE PLANES involved on 9/11.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

That way, the families get very angry when they're introduced to a nutty conspiracy person. So when people like Chip Berlet say that there was a military stand-down on 9/11 because the noise of the jets would upset suburban residents, everyone nods and agrees.

Eng Doc 11.Jun.2005 14:03

Brent

I suggest you look up engineer/architect forums using a search engine. Then make some posts explaining what you hope to do and ask for advice. I think this would the best way to kick-start this computer modeling. By posting on the engineer forums you might get other professionals interested in what you are doing and get involved, either assisitng in the modeling or by providing building/structure details of the WTC. Good luck. Truth is only a model away.
Brent

Reading now, but not reasoning 11.Jun.2005 15:16

Gerard Holmgren

Well, I'm glad to see that "Reader has finally managed to learn to read what's in my posts instead of making up things which I didn't say.

Unfortunately,this development hasn't yet evolved to the stage of providing any reasoned response. It seems that Reader thinks that simply repeating my words in capital letters and apoplectic tones somehow provides a counter argument.

The object approaching the Nth tower is not a plane. It just isn't.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren.html

This article links to the video of the strike. To try to counter this, some people tried to claim that this strange looking thing is what we would expect a plane to look like on video, because video somehow is unable to make planes look like planes.

When I repeatedly asked these people for any such examples they refused. So I went out took some videos of planes myself - with an extremely cheap camera - not even a dedicated video camera - and posted the results to compare with the Nth tower object. My videos are clearly planes. The object approaching the Nth is clearly not.

And its way smaller than a 767. Which of course is why all the witness evidence from the time said either small plane or missile or else people who saw the explosion but didn;t see anything at all. And one witness who initially described it a small plane then added

"and I never saw that plane before. It's like something--I don't know, it's
like they work with the motors--I never saw a plane like that before!"

And Reader didn;t bother to address the question of hiow a 767 would make a sonic boom and cause a power surge.

As for the Sth tower...
Real planes do not defy laws of perspective by maintaining the same size relative to the building regardless of their distance. They do not pass through walls like ghosts without making a hole or breakling off any parts. They do not exceed their maximum speed at low altitude while banking sharply and flying in the opposite direction to which they are banking. They do not hippity hop, alternating regularly frame by frame, between hovering motionless and jumping forward at approximately 1200 mph. Real planes captured moving on video don't show still backgrounds.

They just don't.

 http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash
 http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2
 http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion

Our Govt and media wouldn;t lie to us, would they ? They wouldn't show us a fat Bin laden Video ? They wouldn;t show us a fake beheading video ?

However it seems that Reader hasn't yet consitently mastered the art of reading what I actually wrote.

[[but whoever those 9/11 families are, they think they're missing someone that apparently doesn't exist, since they were never killed on 9/11. ]]

Now where did I make that statement or even vaguely imply it ? Nowhere. So once again, Reader, unable to provide anything resembling a credible counter argument is forced to lie about what I said - to put words into my mouth. Its rather easy to debunk people, if you you just make up stuff they didn't say, attribute it to them, and then attack them for the non existent statement. Just to show how maliciously misrepreprentative, Reader's statement is, I'm going to quote two passages from my article

Media Published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html

In this article, I prove beyond argument that the media's passenger lists for this supposed flight were faked. But I do make this important qualification.

"I will clarify what I mean by "fictitious". It may be that the extra names in question represent real people, who are missing and presumed dead. It may be that they have family and friends who honestly believe that the missing person boarded a flight called American Airlines 11. "

And again later in the article

"As qualified earlier, some of them may be real people, who are really missing, but the passenger lists are lies."

Now compare this with what "Reader attributes to me.

[[[[but whoever those 9/11 families are, they think they're missing someone that apparently doesn't exist, since they were never killed on 9/11. ]]

Corrected link for Nth tower video article 11.Jun.2005 15:30

Gerard Holmgren


For the Record 11.Jun.2005 19:39

Danny

I personally saw an airplane hit the north tower on 9/11. I was near that french crew doing the documentary about the NYFD and saw the first plane hit. A friend of mine saw the the second plane hit. A lot of New Yorkers heard and saw the planes. The video footage shown on TV is real.
Danny

WTC WEBSITE 11.Jun.2005 23:18

Casper

Hey Doc,
If you set up a TIPS-style website for the WTC collpase, you will need to get endorsement from the major players of the 9/11 truth movement such as www.911truth.org. People need assurances that the website is for real and not a government trap operation. FYI, the government is capable of wiretapping traffic to/from a website... PATRIOT Act. I would suggest setting up some email addresses. People can use public computers and freebie email accounts to send in information and attachments and remain anonymous. You have to consider the Deep Throats out there working in NIST, FEMA, and elsewhere. Close analysis of the WTC collapses will unlock doors for you.

Hearsay V documentation 12.Jun.2005 00:22

Gerard Holmgren

[[The video footage shown on TV is real. ]]

For the Nth tower yes, but it isn't a plane. Have another look at it.

 http://members.iintet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

For the Sth tower - you only need to look at that footage to see that it is not real, for all the reasons I've mentioned.

I could be very rude to Danny here and say , "yeah and I saw the Loch ness monster , and wrote so on IMC so that makes it a fact", but I'll take a more circumspect approach.

I met someone who said they saw it and was adamant that it was a missile, but I have *never* used this as evidence. Because its hearsay. Firstly, I don't know whether this person is telling the truth, and even if I did, if I was to publish it, how would anyone know that I was telling the truth about what had been told to me ?

Anybody can post anything they like on the web. That's why it's not evidence unless its from a recognized source - such as reported to a recognized media outlet, soon after the event and documented as having been. Overwhelmingly, such reports say small plane, missile, or looking right at the explosion and not seeing any kind of craft. As well as reporting sonic booms and power surges.

Would Danny claim that all of these witnesses were wrong and he was right ? Even though their claims are documented immedately after the event and he could be anyone - writing in after nearly 4 years? That's why we go back to the footage to sort it out.

So there's two possibilities.

1) Danny is just some Govt troll making this up
2) Danny is honestly reporting what he thinks he saw.

Possibility 1 speaks for itself, so lets have a look at 2)

On Sept 11(or sept 12 as it was here), my first sight on TV of the rear view shot was etched into my mind. At the time, I never questioned it being a real plane.

Months later, when I saw the footage again, I was surprised to see that it actually looked completely different from how I had remembered it. I realized that I had created a composite image in my mind of several different videos, plus a number of assumptions that I had made about what the scene should look like (because at this time I still believed the official story as far as the planes) I had seen the video once - so it was similar to witnessing a live event, and in my mind had constructed a wildly inaccurate memory of what it looked like. This is very common with eyewitness evidence- which is why it is the most unreliable evidence of all - only of great use when there is no other form of evidence available.
And that's when its immedaitely documented.

As inaccurate as my memory of the video was, if I had been asked to describe it, I would have genuinely believed that I was describing it accurately, while another viewing of the video would show that I would have been talking absolute bullshit.

Like the pentagon witnesses.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

One witness says it was a prop plane which flew up the river from national. Another said it was a fighter jet which flew across the Arlington cemetery. Another said it was a 757 which crashed on the helipad and didn't actually hit the building. Another said it was a missile. One witness ( Mike Walter) gave three completely contradictory reports in the space of less than 24 hours. One said it flew so low that it knocked down light poles, while another said it dived from a steep angle. And all of these reports were documented to mainstream sources within 2 days. One expects some variation, but they were all so wildly at variance with each other that no more than two couod have been correct - which means that dozens of them were complete BS - and then you have to try to work out some criteria for which ones to believe and which not to.

There are also wild variations in the WTC reports to the extent that its difficult to make much sense out of them. But one thing which is conspicuously absent is large passenger jets - when these would have ben the easiest and miost obvious things to identify if they had been there.

So now, 4 years later someone posts on IMC and says "I saw it ". If we accept this, then we believe every piece of hearsay published anywhere on the net. I could call myself "Tracy" and post " I saw it , and it was not a plane."

I could start up a Loch ness monster site and quote a report from "Don" and another one from "Angie" proving that it was real.

To the extent that eyewitness evidence counts at all - that which was documented in recognized media outlets in the immediate aftermath of the event - it is overwhelmingly in favour of small plane or missile or not seeing any craft, along with a sonic boom and a power surge.

Danny may or may not be genuine, but regardless, if he expects his post to be taken seriously as evidence, then why not my friend who said it was a missile ?

The solid evidence is the video. The Nth tower is not a plane.

The Sth tower plane is not real.

 http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash
 http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2
 http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion

Heh ! As a closing comment, John Judge, in defending the official story of the Pentagon crash, has long claimed that he has a friend who walked through the wreckage and saw the tail of the plane lying on the lawn. Just invisible to cameras apparently...

Hearsay is cheap.

A lot of people...? 12.Jun.2005 00:35

Gerard Holmgren

[[A lot of New Yorkers heard and saw the planes.]]

Documentation for this Danny ? Or they just all happen to people that you know ?

Gerard Holmgren IS A DISINFORMATION AGENT 12.Jun.2005 05:22

another reader

Do a Google search on Holmgren and you will find that this person systematically visits other indy media centers who hosted the Hoffman critique. He literally stalks indy media. He was injecting his disinfo bull-crap on the Bay Area indy media just a few days ago.

 http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1744806.php

Apparently the Portland indy media center was low on his visit list. This thread had some good discussion before the disinfo agents weighed in.

I learned something from Holmgren and his ilk. I learned what a disinfo agent is and how they try to impersonate different kinds of people as part of a strategy to repeat lies ad naseum in an attempt to cover up the truth. It is the smoke-and-mirrors. Disinfo agents are enemies of America. They are no different than spies.

Disinfo agent ? 12.Jun.2005 09:48

Gerard Holmgren

Nice to see the rigourous documentation for this claim.

"Disinfo" is spreading false information. My information is on the table at

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

Summary article at  http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html

If anybody would like to take issue with anything within this which they allege to be fraudulent, then go right ahead. Please be sure to quote the relevant section of the article with the link.

I have indeed systematically searched for Hoffman's other postings on this subject. You have a problem with that?

As usual, I see that the defenders of the official story, once they start getting a towelling, retreat to personal attacks and the inevetiable "disinfo" tag. They snipe from under a rock and try to distract from the posting or discussion of links with real information.

So I'll challenge "another reader" to specify his/her attack by giving a list of specific "disinfo" points.

What information have I falsified ?
What sources have I fabricated ?
What hearsay have i initiated?
What lies have I told ?

Be specific please. Quote my text, providing links if its outside this post.
Lets talk about issues.

My bullet points are:

There would have been no need to issue a stand down order, because there weren;t any hijacked planes. However, the series of articles by www.tenc.net showing that if one were to believe the officiasl story of the hijackings, then one could only deduce that there must have been a stand-down is still worth reading.

There is ample evidence for complicity on the part of Bush, Myers, Cheney and other top official from a study of their movements on the morning and their subsequent cover ups.

The Arab hijackers are a myth.

WTC 1,2 and 7 were deliberately demolished - but not soley or even primarily with conventional explosives.

No Big plane went into the pentagon.

No big planes hit the WTC towers.

AA11 and 77 did not exist according to official records.

The passenger lists for AA11 are faked.

The planes which flew UA 175 and 93 did not crash.

The Bin Laden confession is a myth.

If "another reader" would like to specify which of these points they agree with and which not, then debate can begin.

Don't worry 12.Jun.2005 18:14

reader

99% of the 9/11 movement is nothing LIKE Gerard Holmgren.

Most 9/11 activists understand reality and question the cover-up, they don't peddle nonsense claims about fake planes.

Tweedle dumb and tweedlw dee 12.Jun.2005 18:33

Gerard Holmgren

It seems that "Another Reader" while screaming "disinformation" wasn't so keen to specify the claim, and thus left it to "Reader" to respond with another typically vague claim, so generalized as to be almost meaningless.

But we were able to glean that "Reader" disputes the fake plane evidence. I'm happy to debate it. But first perhaps reader can lay the cards on the table in relation to his/her opinions on the list of bullet points above. Just so we know who stands where.

So could we have your complete position on that please Reader ? And of course, "Another Reader " is also welcome to respond.

To Reader, which tower strike specifically would you like to debate - Nth or Sth ?

The alleged "disinformation" 12.Jun.2005 18:47

Gerard Holmgren

Does Reader agree with "Another reader" that I'm a disinformation agent?

If so, then can we please have what "Another reader" has thus far failed to even attempt to provide ?

That is, from my work at

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/S11articles.html

what specifically contains

Fraudulent documentation ?
Unsourced hearsay ?
Blatant misrepresentation of source material ?
Facts chosen so selectively as to be unquestionably and deliberately misleading?

(I think we're agreed that's a reasonable definition of "disinformation".)

Be specific please - links and direct quotes.

To Danny 12.Jun.2005 21:12

ewing2001

Hey Danny,

did you also "see" the second cameraman, who was 8 blocks away (!!) from this team, though Jules Naudet claimed, he was alone?
Why did you hang out in that area? Stalking the camera team?

 http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.98
Naudet Bros part of secret terror drill? The obscure "Reaction shot"

Btw.., from Church/Lispenard you could barely see the complete towers (or by now the former spot), only the upper top of the north tower.

The angle from which the object came was therefore so small, that you can't recognise a plane at all. Therefore everything is possible, from small droned missile to a flying pile of bird shit.
Same effect is visible onn their prior knowledge -"video". Object is not identifiable.
This wasn't a commercial aircraft.

btw...needless to mention anymore:
Flight11 was not listed in the BTS database, therefore there is no doubt,
that N334AA did not hit the towers.


Furthermore, manipulated, pre-recorded or altered from a "test drill"(?), but flight attendant Betty Ong claimed in her first 15 minutes on the FBI-tape, that she's on "Flight 12" which was N321AA.


More speculative to tie to this obscure "flight11", which didn't exist, was a night flight on Sep11th (though not allowed) with the coincidental number "0110".

According to the FAA/BTS, this "flight0110", a Boeing 757-2B7, Tail N621AU serial 27200 operated by US Airways left Seattle-Tacoma Int with Departure time 22:43 (10:43 PM).
The destination was Pittsburgh Pa and it also landed there.

But who were the passengers?

Sorry Nico 12.Jun.2005 22:50

researcher

>>This wasn't a commercial aircraft.

Sorry to break it to you Nico, but actually, it *was.*

Funny kind of commercial aircraft 12.Jun.2005 23:22

Gerard Holmgren

Can you tell me what kind of commercial aircraft would cause a sonic boom and a power surge ?

This article contains videos of what commercial aircraft look like, and compares it with the Nth tower object.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

They are nowhere near the same thing.

The planehuggers run screaming from this, and simply keep chanting "plane, plane, plane" as if repeating a lie often enough can make it true.

After all, CNN and the govt tells us it was a plane, and their word is worth more than what the video actually shows. Orwell lives.

and, when the Government Comes Clean... 13.Jun.2005 00:58

T.S. Gordon, WTC Photographer/Emery Roth AIA jgordon@igc.org

'Reader" Your concern for sustainable, 'democratic' governance astounds me.

The problem is, Danny, and others, you can plainly see that all of these "Unanswered Questions" can be readily addressed in a Court of Law, where doubtless, many heads would roll...

I'm no writer, so most often I hate to re-read my own work. The problem I have with verbalizations is that I experience words as abstractions, largely tempering their root-meanings in a non-linear manner. You can drop-in an "and, or, or the" and completely change the meaning of things. Danny, others, I'm afraid that Gerard has trumped you consistently, -let the defensive argument go for a second.

We must ask ourselves to experience one 'adult' moment here. The time has come to decide.

Do you, or do you not, feel so compassionate about The United States of America, (and for all that she has come to represent to the World,) as to defend our common, "Constitutional right" to representational governance?

If the answer is NO, then you deserve to die as a coward, knowing that you have failed to live-up to live up to your own survival needs (animal behavior) as well as your intellectual (learned motor-response) needs to find a -- rational, geometric/structural -- explination for the so-called "collapse."

Having completely deceived yourselves on the first two chances, surely you are conniving enough to see that buying into the 'Gov's' Official line is just a fairly thin cover for expressing your deeply-seated mistrust for those of the Arabic region. Let's see, we know they talk funny, and they have plenty of Oil...

Overall, the result of the 9/11 campaign doubtless serves to undermine our sovergnity. That's a reasonable threat and we should look very closely at the cause.

My Suggestion 13.Jun.2005 02:20

Einstein

I agree with the Probability-ists. Let us first prove that the WTC towers did not collapse because of planes or fire, THEN we can go further into the Heart of Darkness and look at theories that have a lower probability of happening. I personally would like to see how Elvis could have taken down the buildings! I like that theory! :-) It makes sense, doesn't it? We have yet to convince the general public that the government's theory is wrong. We have limited resources. We need to prioritorize. It is a strategic thing.

Holmgren, is this "no plane/fake plane" theory- besides your hologram theory- the best you can come up with to show that 9-11 was an inside job? I viewed some of your links. You make some valid points. But like smart investing, put your energy toward things where it counts the most, not on things that risk being counter-productive to the 9-11 truth movement. Have you ever heard of the 80/20 rule? Look it up. With all this tremendous energy you have, if you ever decided to put it toward the things that would mean the most to the 9-11 truth movement, 9-11 would be "the talk" of every patriotic american in this country and you would be the honered spokesperson of the movement.

Think about that.... sleep on it.

We love you... but you make us so sad sometimes....

Fruits or NuTz Anyone? 13.Jun.2005 03:08

Cindy

Gerard's buying.....

Clarifiction please 13.Jun.2005 04:49

Gerard Holmgren

So Einstein, are you saying that no planes stuff is

a) wrong ?
b)right, but we musn't say it ?
c)don't know and don't care.

[[Let us first prove that the WTC towers did not collapse because of planes or fire,]]

Are you seriously suggesting that it hasn't yet been proved ?

May be superfluous, but... 13.Jun.2005 12:43

Jack Straw

This may be superfluous, as fxl appears to have departed, and the conversation is at a new level, but this is indeed relevant to einstein's question. fxl tried to weasel out of my question about whether the lower structure offfered high resistance to the falling debris or low resistance by saying it offered only one level of resistance. Now, it that was a low level, that could explain why the structure offered no more resistance than the adjacent air, but could not even begin to explain why the upper portions were shredded as they fell, shredded into fine dust and small steel pieces. If it was a high level, reverse which two can be explained. Either way, a "free fall due to plane impacts and ensuing fires" thesis fails to explain one of these two obvious phenomena, only demolition can explain both. Which is why fxl weaseled out.
And his assertion of steel losing its strength due to any heat is laughable, any materials book will easily show that 1022 deg F is the lowest point at which unprotected structural steel *begins* to lose strength.
As to the South Tower being hit lower: the support beams are actually thicker further down. And he ignores the fact that the hit was much less direct, hence less overall structural damage, especially to the core, which most likely was missed alltogether given the plane's trajectory. Not to mention a significantly less severe fire.
 http://www.lewrockwell.com
has a good piece posted June 9 by Morgan Reynolds, chief economist for the Labor Dep't in Bush's first year in office, he never calls 9/11 an inside job outright, but he totally demolishes the official explanation for the collapses and presents strong arguments for demolition. Those, plus the resistance paradox i present and Kevin Ryan's letter regarding fire temps, make for an open-and-shut case

Not 'no plane' 13.Jun.2005 15:46

reader

>>"Can you tell me what kind of commercial aircraft would cause a sonic boom and a power surge?"

The kind of aircraft that either has a bomb onboard or hits one that's already at the site.

You don't need a missile or no plane or a drone to explain an explosion at the site.

See:

 http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/

 http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

Reynolds URL 13.Jun.2005 16:16

Jack Straw

The full Reynolds article (better to read it than the widely circulated summaries) is at
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

As for Eric Bart, an analysis of his manipulation of "witnesses" accounts regarding the Pentagon event can be read at

 http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwslter68d.html
(the most recent update to his growing analysis of the Pentagon event, by no means a perfect article:-))

The Enigma continues... 13.Jun.2005 16:39

Eng Doc

Some interesting views again!
We need a point of departure, be it assumed or probable and then only work thru what is relevant and what is merely for a captive audience. Only then will the fog lift - and change will come.
Need to think outside box - sometimes the truth is best hidden being right in front of you.

Was thinking about DNA evidence, respectfully said.
How far has DNA evidence been researched?

The WTC collapse did happen.
Innocent folks did perish.

Has there been closure?
The Enigma continues...

A bomb ? 13.Jun.2005 16:41

Gerard Holmgren

The big problem with this is that the witnesses clearly say that it was a sonic boom and power surge well *before* the impact.

One witness says she was watching TV and heard a sonic boom as the power surged. She then looked out the window and then saw the tower explode. She did not see any plane.

So *after* the surge and the sonic boom, she still had time to look out the window and the tower had still not been hit. And she saw the explosion or impact but didn't see any plane - like so many others.

So try again, Reader.

No Planes and No Blueprints either! 13.Jun.2005 16:49

TS Gordon

Sorry, I had missed this choice issue:

> And then make some off-base claim that it is normal- to be accepted- that the WTC BLUEPRINTS
> are not available to the public? "Standard Anti-terrorist attack" procedure my ass.
> SECRET BLUEPRINTS my ass.

(10,000 sets of plans have existed. Plenty are still out there. I wouldn't make such a claim, since it sounded bogus in 1989, but it is exactly the number of sets I was told of by Barry Roth, AIA.)

As I have posted at Rense, the architectural offices were purged of all plans, drawings, photographs and records concerning this building, -by the FBI. And, lucky me!, -I was privy to this event entirely by mistake.

Also, I learned something critical to the plot there at the site that day. It's an especially choice bit of information little known to my guardian FBI agent, "Kurt Sonnenfeld," -who, if you think he was assigned to do the "clean-up" photography just by chance, guess again. The guy followed me for 2 years. I even knew poor Mary, indirectly. It's a shame you just can't hide someone away in a closet when you get tired of them, or they outlive their usefulness.

I have quietly disbursed this news to several hundred people. I have told them where to look for the goods on the initial planning operation. Like it or not, it was a product of "Controlled Demolition, Inc." That's how the story came about in the first place, why the shut-down of Emery/Skilling Associates, PC. According to my contact(s) each of the 'key' engineers were hired to work on projects elsewhere. All of them agreed to the terms of the waver they signed, and the price for their silence. My signature was never valid, because it was extracted from me out of context, nevermind the current implications of 'murder'.

I kept my mouth shut over the first bombing for two reasons. I was no longer in NYC, and Kurt & Jim were definately trailing me at the time. Had I spoken out THEN, I would not be living today. Actually, it's diminished my life greatly to know that I could have possibly prevented these things. All I can do now is try to revise my documentation to make it more readable. I do remember some tiny details, now, after seeing Mary's picture.

DeJa'Vu? 13.Jun.2005 17:20

Eng Doc

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

regds
Eng Doc

A bomb that does no damage ? 13.Jun.2005 17:39

Gerard Holmgren

In an attempt to explain away the sonic boom and the power surge, "reader" speculated a bomb, apparently untroubled by the fact that this would have meant that the mythical plane would have to blown up well before it hit the building, because that's when the power surge and sonic boom were reported as being.

But apart from this, there's another glaring problem with this ill-considered speculation.

One of the favourite claims of the planehuggers has been the observation that the slash in the WTC approximately matches the wingspan of a 767. Which is true - and as I've argued before and am happy to do so again, this actually proves that it could not have been a craft of that size if one thinks the forensics through properly.

No-one seems too keen to take me on with that one, so at this stage I'll just point out the ludicrous contradiction between the "slash evidence" claim and Reader's assertion that the plane had a bomb on board.

If the plane had a bomb - which blew it into smithereens as it entered the building - then how can we have a hole which matches *only* the impact entry, with no ancillary damage ?

Ah, the plane is so fragile and the building so robust, that the plane was blown to smithereens by the bomb but the effect on the building was negligible.

Hang on ! Aren't we also being told that the fragile plane sliced through the robust building like a hot knife through butter, making a cartoon type shape of itself ?

One planehugger asserted this on AFPN, claiming that the WTC was an "eggshell".

Lets see, we've got a plane so robust and a building so weak that its like busting through an eggshell, but once thats done that and the bomb goes off, then suddenly the plane is the eggshell is the building is the strong structure.

Even funnier is that Shermer or PM - I've forgotten which one now - ridiculed the no pentagon plane claim on the grounds that the no planetrs supposedly expected it to make a cartoon shape of itself, and when it didn't, assumed that there was no plane. Mike Rivero made the same comment.

Funny thing that, because when it comes to the WTC, the planehuggers are suddenly claiming that the caroon shape is in fact the proof of the plane.

What a tangle !

But the comment by PM or Shermer, brings me back to Hoffman's dishonesty on this issue. In relation to the cartoon shape - its a bit rich for the debunkers to have fired this ridicule , because no no-planer that I'm aware of has ever asserted that a plane should make a cartoon shaped hole of itself. In fact it's only the planehuggers who have raised this ridiculous fantasy in trying to support the mythical WTC planes.

And then they turn around and falsely attribute their own luncay to us, in relation to the pentagon strike.

But it didn't bother Hoffman that the debunkers resorted to flat out lying about what the no pentagon plane case was based on.

When Hoffman spat the dummy about the debunklers lying about what was on his site - and rightly so - his outrage about the debunkers lying about the Pentagon argument was conspicous by its absence.

At no point did Hoffman try to correct them and say, "well that's not actually what the pentagon no planers are saying."

No, he was perfectly happy for the debunkers to lie about that, and even supported their claims by merely agreeing with them, thus implying that they accurately reprsented the argument.

So we have the planehuggers asserting that the cartoon type hole in the WTC is proof that it was a plane of that size, while ridiculing the pentagon no planers for allegedly using the same argument - when in fact they never used it.

Not only do we have a cartoon hole (but only at the WTC it seems) we have a bomb which blows the plane into nothing without damaging the building, because the plane is so fragile compared to the building - even though the fragile plane had just effortlessly sliced through the strong building to make a cartoon shape of itself.

This is loony tunes stuff. In years to come, when people have come to their senses, this will be described as the "war of the cartoons". Cartoon planes, cartoon physics, and cartoon villains.

You Know Where Some Blueprints Are? 13.Jun.2005 19:34

Mitch

TS,

YOU and some others know where to get a set of blueprints for WTC 1, 2, OR 7? I have searched and asked around but all is a deadend. It would be easy for someone to cut the blueprints up, scan the sections as hi-resolution jpeg images (600 dpi), then put them on CD and mail them anonymously to 9-11 activists and others. Having a digital set of blueprints floating around on the internet would certainly motivate more than just a handful of individuals to do analysis. Engineers would have REAL data in their hands! The blueprints would be key in making the demolition theory irrefutable. From there, the unraveling of 9-11 will be a domino effect- a "pancake" collapse, if you will.

Here is something for all of you who sense an unhealthy relationship with the government. Do what a Florida programmer did. He was assisting in an investigation. His dog got poisoned, then the investigator he was helping mysteriously commits suicide.

 http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm
 http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/scoops/Lemme.htm

In response, the programmer went public. He made a sworn affifavit revealing what he knew and what was going on. This got him publicity. He is alive today. FYI. These are the type of precautions whistleblowers have to take nowadays.

/////////////
Mitch
////////////

Excellent job my friend! :-) 14.Jun.2005 02:14

James Woods

Jack Straw,
Your theory about low/high resistance is very good. You prove that the wtc collapses could not have been caused by anything else but controlled demolition. The government theory is not just implausible, or low probability. It is impossible.

Could you reword your theory in simpler terms that can be presented to a layperson who has limited math/science skills? Perhaps accompany it with an easy-to-grasp analogy? As it reads now i think it is too abstract for the casual reader. The average Joe needs to be able to comprehend this.

This theory should be on every 911 researchers website. Is there a way to get this theory endorsed by a university? This needs to be publicized. This is amazing. You have proven using irrefutable visual evidence, that any theory other than controlled demolition is impossible.

Excellent job my friend! :-) I hope everybody is paying attention to this man! Listen up!

re jack straw 14.Jun.2005 10:41

fxl

you seem desperate for attention so here are some facts.

check out:  http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/AIBS_2002_wtc.pdf

on page 4 it shows that steel subjected to 600 deg c (or about 1000 F) for one hour loses about 50% of its strength. as has been mentioned before on this forum, steel only melts at about 1500 deg c.
look at the foto showing the truss floor supports. these are put at every second col. the concrete is only 100mm thick and spans only 2m or twice the col spacing of 39 inches. as concrete buildings go this is very thin and flimsy

another point of confusion. check out :  http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

under world trade centre commentary it says:

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.

note all the wind loading is taken on the perimeter columns and NOT on teh core. the core only takes vertical loading, approx. half of the total floor loading.

I repeat, a particular structure cant have high and low resistance.

regards
fxl

Answers to James Woods, fxl 14.Jun.2005 11:13

Jack Straw

James Woods: thanks very much, it is a very simple proof, even if fxl can't grasp it or (more likely) strenuously avoids explaining it. It is actually not mine, a more detailed exposition of it is at
 http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.shtml
the author has degrees in physics and architecture, works in the field of construction.
It is pretty simple. The material from the upper floors is falling through the remaining structure as fast as it is falling through the adjacent air, and at the same time the upper floors are being reduced to dust and small steel pieces. An explanation which asserts the towers fell due to plane impacts and fires followed by the free fall of the structures would thus have to state that the lower floors offered no more resistance than air, to account for the rate at which the material fell, and AT THE SAME TIME state that the lower floors offered a very high resistance which caused the upper floors to turn to dust IN MID AIR. This is clearly a contradiction that's impossible to resolve, as even fxl admits material can only offer one level of resistance. Demolition on the other hand can explain both phenomena, both of which are clearly visible.
Indeed, this should be widely publicized, it is a gottcha!

fxl still weasels out, still says the structure only offers one level of resistance, but refuses to say whether it's very low, to account for the quick rate of fall, or high, to account for the upper portions being turned to dust, middle level would explain neither, but either high or low would fail to account for one of the two, which is why he avoids the question.
And he quotes charts to the effect that 1000 deg F would cause steel to lose half its strength, when in fact as Kevin Ryan's letter shows
 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA411A.html
almost all structural members were subject to fires no higher than 500 deg F, well short of such a level. And even if the steel were to half its strength, standard design is for a 5 times overdesign, so even if a 50% reduction were to occur, the structure can still hold up 2.5 times its weight. Huge fires in other steel structures, ones that have lasted days, still did not result in any structural collapses, only 3 times have steel hi rises collapsed due to fires, all on 9/11, the only thing all 3 had in common was fairly SMALL fires (real small in 2 out of 3), 2 were hit by planes but in different manners, one wasn't even hit. Lots more wrong with fxl's obfuscations, but these two are basic.
Kevin Ryan has come out with a new statement, can be read at
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00144.htm
Glad there are people like him willing to speak out, makes up for obfuscators.

Worse than not perfect 14.Jun.2005 13:02

repost

>>  http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwslter68d.html
(the most recent update to his growing analysis of the Pentagon event, by no means a perfect article:-))

Not even by no means perfect, but a vitriolic attacker and promoter of hoaxes.

davesweb.cnchost.com
 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

A newsletter titled "Center for an Informed America" (CIA). The "CIA" offered accurate information about 9/11 complicity immediately after the attacks. In 2004, the "CIA" claimed that Peak Oil is not real, published numerous attacks against Michael Ruppert (without mentioning his research on the 9/11 war games), tried to disrupt planning for the International Inquiry into 9/11 (in San Francisco in March 2004), and has made extra efforts to promote the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claim even while many 9/11 Truth advocates have documented it was just a hoax.

The CIA website claims that oil is infinite and pushes the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax.
See  http://www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html for analysis that points out the "abiotic" claims for oil predate the theory of plate tectonics.

More bogus from fxl... 14.Jun.2005 13:06

Tony Blair's dog

"the concrete is only 100mm thick"

Only?

That is 3.937 inch. thick concrete!

Make or take a concrete slab that thick and set fire
to the top with some liquid like gasoline to simulate
aviation fuel (yes I know it won't be the exact same
thing but close enough to expose the official hoax).

You can also use a blowtorch and go at the upside of
the slab (though you will not be simulating close to
what was said going on in the WTC towers).

Now, at the same time hold your hand on the underside
of the slab.

How many hours do you have to wait before you even start
feeling the heat from the fire on the top?

5 hours, 10 hours?

How much longer must a fire on the top be burning full force
to be able to make the bottom side close to as hot as the top?

Concrete does not conduct heat easily.

Getting the picture?

TSG 14.Jun.2005 13:32

reader

>>I kept my mouth shut over the first bombing for two reasons. I was no longer in NYC, and Kurt & Jim were definately trailing me at the time. Had I spoken out THEN, I would not be living today. Actually, it's diminished my life greatly to know that I could have possibly prevented these things. All I can do now is try to revise my documentation to make it more readable. I do remember some tiny details, now, after seeing Mary's picture.

>>Had I spoken out THEN, I would not be living today.

and

>>Actually, it's diminished my life greatly to know that I could have possibly prevented these things.

But it hasn't ended your life. So now you can speak out, apparently.

Posting your information to sites like 'Rense' is problematic. You won't be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, shouldn't you be trying to get it into a newspaper or magazine like Harpers or Hustler or even just *any* non-internet publication? Have you tried?

People are on the record as saying they have the prints, but from what I've heard they don't want the risk of showing them. Maybe someone like you could sway them.

Can't Touch This..... 14.Jun.2005 13:50

James Woods

The government can't touch this hi/low resistance theory. And since this theory deals with something as simple as "falling rock", anybody can grasp the concepts. If this theory could be worked into bumper sticker sound bites, it would spread like a virus. I am already envisioning tradesmen at worksites arguing about it at breaktime. "It can be one or the other, Jack, not both! The government is lying to you." They then go home and relay to their family and friends. People don't even need to listen to anything the government says. They have the volumous picture evidence that clearly shows demolition, and that anything else but demolition is impossible.

We need to give this theory a name. This is about salesmanship. Once the minds of middle-America is infected with this truth, as one poster put it, the government's "game is over". Indeed.

Can't touch this.....

well fxl? 14.Jun.2005 14:02

racerX

what do you have to say to that fxl? sounds like the buildings were pulled! did you do it?

racerX

re jack straw comments.. 14.Jun.2005 14:58

fxl

where did the story of 5 times overdesign come from???any engineer that designs a building that strong is not going to have many clients very soon.

building codes specify on average a 50% safety factor on all loads. this means the so called overdesign is only 1.5, so losing half your strength is a big problem. by far the biggest single load condition in a large building is its own mass.

the first article quoted has absolutely zero info on the structure of the building. the only fact given is the time taken for the building to fall. so why quote this example.

I suggest you do yourself a favour and check your facts before making sweeping statements. by the way, good manners cost nothing. the rudeness of your answers makes me think you have something to hide or nothing to say.

fxl

Sweeping statements ? Documentation of other high rise fires. 14.Jun.2005 15:53

Gerard Holmgren

fxl writes

[[check your facts before making sweeping statements.]]

You mean like a structure not ebing able to exert both high and low resistance simultaneously ?

So fxl, exactly where would we check the fact that this is possible ?

One impossibility piled on top of another. Not only is it impossible for a buidling structure - wether weakened or not to only provide as much resistance as air, then we're expected to believe that it also provides a high resistance at the same time.

Hey fxl, perhaps that steel was so light-weight that it was actually less solid than air ? And it was actually air resistance which shredded the top part of the building?

James Woods seems very excited about this which is good to see. James, I suggest that you also tell people about the fire in the 32 story building in Madrid recently which so hot and bright that you can't even see the building. Its just a giant torch. And this went on for hours and hours. And it didn't collapse. That provides a good anecdotal companion to the proof which Jack has presented. There are photos available on the web of the madrid fire. I don;t have the link handy, but if you're really keen, you could print one of the photos and carry it around with a note for how long the building at that intensity for.
I think it might have been about 24 hours, but I'd have to check the documentation on it again to be sure. Definitely more than 10 anyway.

Also, this might be helpful. This is a paste from an another IMC debate where Jack and I teamed up to demolish a bunch of trolls on S11.

It was a long mauling which ranged across three issues - the failure to scramble fighter craft, the demolition and the non existent pentagon 757.

This is a paste of one of my posts about the demolition, which has some valuable documntation in it.

The following comparable situations are sourced from
 http://www.firetactics.com/HIGH-RISE.htm

In 1990, the 102 storey empire State Building caught fire on floor 51. It took two hours to control. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the building is still standing.

On May 4 and continuing into May 5 1998, the 62 storey First Interstate Bank building in downtown L.A. caught fire, destroying 4 floors. It didn't collapse.

The 38 storey Merdian Bank Building in NY caught fire on the 22nd floor, on Feb 23, 1991. it burned for 19 hours and completely consumed 8 floors. it didn't collapse.

The top 5 stories of the 12 storey telstar House in London caught fire on July 30 2003. It burned for several hours and didn't collapse.

On Nov 21 ,1996. The 16 storey Garely building in HK burnt for 20 hours in the top 3 floors before being brought under control. It didn't collapse.

A "waterfront high rise" (height not specified in this report) in Florida burnt for an hour. It didn't collapse.

And as we all know, a plane hit the empire state building in 1945, starting a fire, and considering that it was still there in 1990 to survive the next fire, I think we can safely deduct that it also didn't collapse.

Hoaxes 14.Jun.2005 16:38

Gerard Holmgren

repost wrote

[[>>  http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwslter68d.html
(the most recent update to his growing analysis of the Pentagon event, by no means a perfect article:-))

Not even by no means perfect, but a vitriolic attacker and promoter of hoaxes.

davesweb.cnchost.com
 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html ]]

And the funny thing is, the Dave McGowan of Davesweb attacked me as a disinfo agent for my promotion of the no WTC planes. I gave him quite a towelling over it in an email list debate.

But while I had my differences with Dave, he is spot on with some things.
Lets check the credentials of the laughable site where this criticism comes from.

oilempire.us the spinner of which is the despicible but often amusing Mark Rabinowitz.

MR tried to spin away my BTS research (which shows that there were no AA11 or 77 flights on Sept 11 2001 ) with the following statement.

[[An obvious rebuttal to Holmgren's assertion is that since the planes didn't complete their flights, it might not have been appropriate to include them in a database of completed flights. ]]

 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

In making this statement, its clear that MR has either never even been to the BTS database in question, or if he has then he quite conciously lied about what it records.

Because it is not a database of "completed flights". It is a database of *scheduled* flights.

This is how the database is defined.

 link to www.transtats.bts.gov

"This table contains departure delays and arrival delays for non-stop domestic flights by major air carriers, and provides such additional items as origin and destination airports, flight numbers, scheduled and actual departure and arrival times, cancelled or diverted flights, taxi out and taxi in times, air time, and non-stop distance."

And goes on to define a cancelled flight as

" A flight that was listed in a carrier's computer reservation system during the seven calendar days prior to scheduled departure but was not operated. "

So even a flight which started booking passengers but was then cacelled 7 days or less prior to departure has to be in the database. And when you look through the database,you will see occasional flights with a take off time of 0.00, meaning that they were scheduled, but cancelled. On sept 11, you see this for all flights after the shit started going down and whole columns of cancelled flights for the days after, while aircraft were grounded.

"Database of completed flights" ????

There's even a special search facility to check on the frequency of cancelled or diverted flights as defined by various parameters including flight numbers. In fact thats the whole idea of the database , to log the historical reliablity of scheduled flights - including how often they are cancelled or diverted. What would be the point of such a database if it only included "completed flights?"

So lets look again at how Rabinowitz describes it

"a database of completed flights"

So he's either never even looked at the database, or else he's lying about what it is.

This is the qulaity of analysis upon which repost relies as worthy of quoting for generalized concluding judgements upon the rearch of others ?

Rabonwitz's only argument against the no 757 at the pentagon is keep saying that its disinformation and to quote other people who say it. In order for something to be disinformation, one first has to prove that its not only incorrect, but so wildy and ridiculously out of whack that its not possible for it be an honest mistake. Simply calling it disinformation doesn't make it so.

Especially when such a sweeping generalized accusation comes from someone who claims that a database which includes cancelled and diverted flights is a "database of completed flights"

Since some people on this list have seen the good sense in Jack's WTC argument, perhaps they can also see the sense in the fact that a plane, the extremities of which measure 125 ft wide by 40 ft high, cant go through a hole 16 ft wide and 12 ft high and then just disappear.

Especially if the flight didn't even exist to begin with.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

structural info 14.Jun.2005 17:15

fxl

for anyone interested, check this

 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

this nist appendix gives the building designer's calcs. there is enough info here to get a good idea of the structure if blueprints are not available.

fxl

Thanks for the link 14.Jun.2005 17:38

Gerard Holmgren

Thanks for the link fxl.

Just to help us out, could you please quote the section where it explains and calculates the two contracitory but simulataneous resistance figures ?

I just have one more question..... 14.Jun.2005 18:10

Mitch

fxl. Answer this:

1) Explain how ALL the fireproofing on ALL the relevant columns could have been damaged and/or removed in order for the steel to weaken to failure in a uniform manner at the temperatures and within the time frame asserted. The best irrefutable evidence available on this are pictures and they do not show this possibility.

2) Explain how fire was burning every-where, all-at-once, and at necessary hot temperatures, and in a precise manner in order to weaken the building structure to make symmetrical collapse possible. The best irrefutable evidence available on this are pictures and they do not show this possibility.

3) Explain how the low/high resistance theory put forth by Jack Straw is wrong. The best irrefutable evidence available on this are pictures and they clearly support this theory.

4) Explain why the governmnent and its agents repeatedly refused to investigate for explosives regarding the WTC collapses eventhough parties such as the FBI and FEMA were involved which would make this standard terrorism procedure, that the collapses were not explainable at the time, that the building collapses looked like controlled demolition as reported on the news, that bombs and explosives were repeatedly reported by witnesses such as firefighters at ground zero, that bombs were used before on the WTC, and other.

De-program yourself.

/////////////
Mitch
/////////////

Leaking the WTC Blueprints 14.Jun.2005 19:15

Black Knight

There is a dilemna with this. Any copy of the blueprints would have artifacts unique to it. The government could match the leaked document if it knew where the original copy was. One could destroy or relocate the copy, but its absence would be telling. Leaking would be easy if the government was unaware of the copy used in the leaking.

If one has access to a copy of the blueprints that the government is unaware of, it is simple to leak anonymously. Just make copies and send them out. The key thing is to create a bio-data barrier in your handling the leaked materials so it cannot be traced back to you. That is, if you want to remain anonymous. Don't lick the envelopes or stamps. Don't cough or sneeze. Consider using surgical gloves or similar when handling things. Don't smoke. Make sure that the stray hair or dead skin does not get into the package. Suggestion, take a shower so you are wet and wear a hat when doing this. Don't use your own computer equipment. Printers and CD-burners leave artifacts. Hard drives retain deleted files, temp files, and meta data. Consider using public accessible or throwaway equipment.

If the only available copy is known to the government, it gets trickier. You have two barriers: 1) reproduce without its identifying artifacts; 2) not leave evidence of recent handling/bio-data. You could trace out the blueprints by hand. That would be a lot of work. You could also take the plans and plug the numbers into a CAD program, then release the CAD file. But that would be a lot of work too.

As suggested by another poster, you could go public using a sworn affividavit and attach the blueprints to this. I recommand sending copies to others beforehand just in case the plans get snatched up by the government. Better yet, go public with a copy of the original and put the original in safe hands that then can later be subpoenaed in court. The government may invoke states secrets and/or anti-terrorism law. Do a shotgun approach when you send out copies- ensure that the blueprints become public knowledge.

If many people have access to a set of blueprints the government knows about- such as in NIST- it might be safe to copy and distribute it and the government can only suspect who might have done it. Be prepared to do a mandatory lie detector test. I have taken them, they are fake. Those who fail them are intimidated by the interrogator and/or the surroundings. It is not science- it is psychological. But since most leakers are not straight face liars, try to avoid.

Truly Yours,
Black Knight

NIST Report 14.Jun.2005 20:53

Mitch

First the disclaimers of the report. I noted this one:

"Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is "voluntarily provided safety-related information" that is "not directly related to the building failure being investigated" and that "disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information" (15 USC 7306c)."

"In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements."

The preamble given on WTC 7 is a read. Basically, it says very little information on the building structure is known. No mention is made of the reinforcements done years after it was built to make a command center. All this absent information must be bound up in those nondisclosure agreements. Or maybe it did "disappear". Incidentally, no meaningful data is givern about the structure for WTC 7. Coincides exactly with the cover-up.

I looked the report over for information to construct a model. Is it enough to build a model. I don't know. Is it enough to build an accurate model of the steel structure of WTC 1, 2, or 7. No. Some documents that detail the truss design and floor design that might have been useful are blurred out. When you try to zoom in, you see nothing. Some notable pages: 42, 91, 92, 93. However, there is some information regarding load capacity that could be used to create a like-model, meaning a model that has columns and things but is not an accurate model of the WTC.

But maybe this would be good enough to to dismiss the government's claims- for starters. Make a like-model of just the metal frame. This would be a steel frame without fire proofing or concrete enclosure supporting generic loads- worse case scenario. Put some fires in there, spread them around, and make them real hot. Let them burn for 24 hours. The buildings are not going to collapse as documented. Introduce some asymetrical damage- make it severe, more than any possible plane crash. Hey, do multiple damage. Kick it around. The buildings will still not collapse as documented. There is too much redundancy in its design.

One does not have to run real-time simulations. Plug in fires so big, so hot, put in the length of time... what is the result. A personal computer can do this type of modeling. Quesiton is, what free/demo modeling software is out there that allows accurate basic analysis of steel structures with regard to fire, wind, and damage?

fxl, perhaps with your resources, you can come up with some suggestions. Like to hear from you on this.

/////////////
Mitch
/////////////

People will either believe common sense or they wont 14.Jun.2005 23:33

Gerard Holmgren

I guess all of this talk about modelling can't do any harm, but make sure it stays in perspective.

The case is already proven, 100% - slammed shut. There is no sensible counter argument. Any one who is still arguing about it either hasn't yet been aware of the proof for long enough so they're still mulling over it to adjust their preconceptions, or else they're beyond rationality.

Just the time of the collapse alone is enough. Some troll recently argued against this that the law of gravity was "only my opinion."

When i challenged this, then they claimed that it was only meaniful if you measure the time of the collapse to within 1/1000th of a second.

Someone else started a philisophical discussion on the "nature of truth", "how does one define proof ?", "is there really any objective reality?" etc.

More proofs wont make any difference to these morons. The problem lies not in the qulaity of the information but in the quality of their thinking, which appears to be severely impaired by deep psychological fears of the truth which this brings up.

By all means, find new ways of modelling the issue, but don't imagine that this in itself will make any difference to those stuck in blind denial.

If anything, we may just get sucked in to arguments which become so uneccesarily technical that ordinary people become intimidated and confused by them. This could well be what the trolls are trying to achieve.

Most people who aren't afflicted with this mind control blindness, only need a bit of a nudge in the right direftion to see that it was a controlled demolition.

Ditto no pkane going into the pentagon.

Ditto the WTC "planes" - once one looks critically at the videos with an open mind and allows oneself to see whats really there.

People who are beyond rationality - well I'm not sure of the best way to reach them, but it surely must be more at the psychological and emotional level because proof after proof after proof only seems to make them more scared and to retreat into stronger denial.

It is a Psychological Thing 15.Jun.2005 03:58

Snake

The only people that are convinced right now are us and the few who have read this thread with interest. It took (4) years to get to this point. Analyze what the government has done then reverse engineer it. It takes creativity to fool people- think what magicians do. It is going to take creativity to reverse this. Not everyone responds in the same way. What works for you may not work for others.

fxl Runs, But Can't Hide 15.Jun.2005 11:20

Jack Straw

fxl runs, but can't hide. Again and again he hides behind meaningless figures, says the building's resistance is only value, but refuses to say whether it's high, or low, or anything, since he knows whichever he picks conflicts with the evidence, at least as far as any notion of gravity-driven collapse. And again he contests the weakening of steel, never mind that the fires weren't anywhere close to the 1000 deg F he cites (according to the NIST's own tests, as Kevin Ryan points out), maybe he expects people to forget that. He is indeed just like another troll Gerard and i once confronted at Portland IMC, Keith, who after a while seemed to basically just trying to be dancing and moving, hoping his very ability to stay on his feet would distract from his being proven either a liar or an idiot.
Repost is indeed more of the same crap from Rabinowitz, who never stops trying to promote his Oil Empire, he tried for a while to argue that the planes brought down the WTC towers, the buildings just didn't fall because they took their time. His Pentagon take is beyond laughable.
And, i focus on the WTC collapses because i think it's easy to show the gov't story false in this regard (and i'm glad James Woods really likes it, so do i, it's simple junior high school science, an object or structure or whatever can only exert one sort of resistance at a time, and the motion of an object through a medium, be it air,water, steel, ...depends on the resistance offered by that medium (as well as any other force acting, eg gravity, engine thrust,...), nothing complicated, just basic science). But i think the work done by Gerard, Nico and others which shreds the official story regarding the 9/11 planes is superb, and people should check it out as well. The official story is being demolished at all sorts of levels.

Perceptions and a captive audience 15.Jun.2005 12:47

Eng Doc

Snake has a point.

It's all perceptions and a captive audience - (although innocently living in bliss).
Old Smoke and Mirrors/make-believe tricks. Sad but true. Some seek the truth.
Others will never know the truth. It's been so since year dot.
"Seek the truth and it will set you free".
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction! (and hidden in unexpected places).
Some will 'think' they know, whilst others will know the truth.
Gifted with a discerning spirit, perhaps.
Then generally we have the sheeple who know not.
Their spiritual minds are closed.

Nothing in the Cosmos happens by itself!
All cause and effect. Nothing runs without a plan.
You cannot have light, if there is no darkness, etc.
Problem is GREED - think about it... merely human nature - but can bring about man's final fall, if not governed.
Likewise Good and Evil exist. Just enter GREED into Google and read more. Then we have Huntington's Clash of Civilizations - worth a read.

The closer we are to a 'problem' or an enigma, the less we 'see'. Need to stand back and objectively ask yourself:
Where did all this begin? Who stands to GAIN from from it all?
Man's inhumanity towards his fellow man has not changed, only the cosmetics and the scale has.
In the jungle, we know only the fittest (wisest) survive.
As ordinary citizens of the free world we need to learn all aspects of basic survival in a future choatic crashed world. The time is not far-off. Imagine living without your comfort zone: no lights, no gas, no decent clean water, intermittant Net access, maruading lawless gangs looking out for the take and no medical. Shit can happen. A-ha, you think any system in the world will be fully operative and at your beck and call? One could just as well visit Neverland...! The game of politics is a mugs game! Eyeblind disinfo.

Remember the movies: Escape from NY and BladeRunner.
The Tribulation is now near. Have you not noticed all the 'isms' are being collapsed intentionally so by their controlling masters/banksters. Is capital-ism also doomed? Certainly commun-ism has fallen by the wayside. These system are merely tools to converge all enities in a One World Order.
Whether the whole idea of a One World Order will save mankind from extinction, remains to be seen.

The Time of Sorrows has already come to pass on September 11, 2001.
Even Nostradamus saw the vision of a great fire in a big building in the City of York. The fire will be at 45 degrees.

WTC is part of a wider NWO matrix.
The Hegelian principle?

If you have E-mule P2P software on your PC search for: The Secret Evil of 911 (11,74Mb vid. file).
It's certainly a must see.

Eng Doc

what do you have to say to that fxl? 15.Jun.2005 15:34

racerX

can you answer the $million questions fxl? it looks like the american government murdered 3000 of its citizens. ground zero is a shallow grave. are you part of this?

racerX

The mirror 15.Jun.2005 16:11

Gerard Holmgren

Well put, Racer x.

Now perhaps you'd like to answer some of my points regarding the non existent planes, because on that score you seem to be as unwilling to examine the evidence rationally as is fxl on the demolition.

Your last comment on this was simply to label me as a disinfo agent and express a wish for me to finish up the gulag.

FYI, I was (to the best of my knowledge) the first person to realize that the towers that fell at the speed of almost a free fall and to attempt to model the problem mathematically and start spreading the idea around the web. It's highly probable that other people of whom I was not aware also thought of it independenltly, but nevertheless, think about that the next time you accuse me of trying to distract from the evidence which I actually helped to pioneer.

But no need to apologize, I know that can be difficult when we say things in haste that we might regret later. But if you are not prepared to now look at the no planes question,and sensibly and openly examine the evidence, then take a look in the mirror next time you sneer at someone like fxl.

How can you demand that other people change their minds about something fearful to them if you are unable to do that yourself?

And are you going to accuse Jack Straw of also being a disinfo agent for his endorsement of the no planes work ? Or are you going to call him an idiot ?

Who is prepared to look at the video of the object approaching the Nth tower and say that its any kind large passenger jet, let alone specifically a 767 ?

Some people say its a small plane of some kind, and although I disagree,and am prepared to debate that, I can at least concieve of how someone could honestly come to that view, but the idea of it being a large passenger jet is just off the wall.

Comparison videos here.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

What do you have to say about the fact that official flight logs say that there were no such flights as AA11 and 77 that day?

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

What do have to say about the fact that FAA aircraft registry, says that the planes which flew the UA flights that day (supposedly vapourized beyond any evidence of their existence) are still registered as valid aircraft ?

Supposedly 4 planes crashed that day. We have no identifiable wreckage of
*any* of them.

Go to a site like airdister.com to see what wreckage of real planes i real crashes actaully looks like.

The same media which covered up the demolition of the buildings, gave us the fat bin laden video and the fake beheading video, and refused to investigate the failure to scramble fighter craft, and lied about Bush's movements on the morning to cover for him, and gave us a crowd of cheering Iraqi's made up from a photoshopped collage, tells us that 4 planes crashed that day - despite all the evidence to the contrary - and you not only believe them , but label anyone who even questions it as so loony that you refuse to even ackowledge or debate their evidence and advocate their exile to the "gulag" - even when that evidence comes form someone who played a role in pioneering the demolition evidence.

Mirrors anyone ?

Could it be... 15.Jun.2005 17:00

Tony Blair's dog

that since Flights 11 and 77 didn't even exist as "real"
flights that they were part of the "war games"/"terror drills"
played out that day as a "cover" for the administration
to kill 3000 of it's citizens in order to hijack the
country and tax money vault.

And what about the transponders shutting off in order
to hide the shuffling around of different aircrafts
so the air-controllers couldn't follow what planes
went where?

It would be really interesting to hear from one of
the air-controllers who were working that day,
to hear what they saw and what secrets they
have been ordered to shut up about.

PLANE Truth or myth? 15.Jun.2005 17:23

Eng Doc

Consider the geometrics of the various planes and super-impose the options to scale - also a possible option for a simpler graphic modelling excercise. Hence one may be able to fit the 'plane' to the available videos, amateur and otherwise. Still pics (or vid.rips) could also be used, depends on banking angles/views.

(High Graphics CAD or Graphics Soft would most defintely help here).
The whole idea would be to PROVE a plane fit, Not to make it APPEAR to fit any old plane.
There is a substantial overall dimensional difference.

This should'nt be so difficult to setup.

I dont think that there would be that much difference in doing so rather dynamically than statically -just need a fit. The planes all have varying degrees of geometric values - theoretically only one plane type should fit the now well known pic showing a banked 'plane' just prior to smashing into the WTC S-tower.

Any ideas anyone?

The same outcome would then apply. To present, test and show up a quite different plane perhaps!
PLANE Truth or myth? Or perhaps next level.

Plz visit...>>>  http://www.tomflocco.com

Eng Doc

ps. Playing out with U2 - City of Blinding Lights.

To the WTC Fallen - we shall Never Forget

Planes 15.Jun.2005 18:11

Gerard Holmgren

[[that since Flights 11 and 77 didn't even exist as "real"
flights that they were part of the "war games"/"terror drills"
played out that day as a "cover" for the administration
to kill 3000 of it's citizens in order to hijack the
country and tax money vault.]]

It's quite possible that some kind of military or charter flights pretending to be AA11 and 77 could have taken off with passengetrs aboard. That way, they wouldn;t have to be in the database, because they are not actually domestic flights under the definition required for reporting to the BTS. But if they were in the place of domestic flights would normally took place at that time and place - as AA11 and 77 were normally schedukled at that time - then a relatively small number of airport and airline empoyees would need to know of the switch.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened, but it's certainly plausible speculation giving grounds for inquiries in that direction. Note that some media reports had AA 11 as leaving from Gate 26 and others from gate 32.

This could just be the confusion which normally arises when they scramble for a cover story, but it could also indicate some confusion about what was actually masquerading as flight 11.

Also note that the passengers of 77 contain an extrodinary number of scientists and quasi military types - just the types who the govt might want to dispose of because they had become inconvenient - or alternatively the types who might be prepared to take a new ID ( remember Northwoods).

As for the models suggested by Eng Doc - Marcus Icke has already done a lot of work modelling perspectives and so forth on the plane videos. Marcus is severley challenged in the area of holistic thinking - that its - being able to draw sensible concluasions from his work - but nevertheless he has excellent technical skills in this area, so anyone thinking of flight simulation models should check on what Marcus has already done, otherwise they'll be at the risk of re-inventing the wheel.

The team of Marcus doing the technical analysis and webfairy doing the thinking has provided a very powerful team on this which has already compiled some compelling proofs.

Also,the following points need to be kept in mind. It doesn;t matter what *kind* of plane you think the Sth tower plane is - it isn;t a real plane, for all the reasons I've explained. This is why the "pod" theory is so silly, but it contains a small grain of truth. Therre is definitely something wrong with the shape of that "plane" - that much is true. But it takes some imagination to identify it as a "pod" attached to an otherwise normal plane.

Secondly that while podders examine in minute detail this anomaly, they are conveneiently blind to all of the other glaring anomalies which show that pod or no pod - its not a real plane.

As far as the Nth tower object goes - its quite a different problem. It doesn;t even look like a plane. It has a strange "flapping motion" and seems to have shapeshifting and colour shifting abilities. And it "crawls" down the front of the building before hitting.

There's actaully quite a lot of research around about prototypes which the Nazis were working on which indicate that this could be a descendent of those weapons, but at the moment, more important than establishing exactly what it is, is establishing that it is not only not a large passenger jet, but not any kind of plane at all or any commonly recognized type of craft.

My article  http://members.iinet.net/planevideos.html has links to missilgate and thewebfairy.com, where you can get a good look at slow motion close ups and stills.

Also see  http://thewebfairy.com/911 for very good still and slow motion closeups of the Sth tower plane as it disappears into the building without making a hole or breaking off any parts - like going into a bucket of water without making a splash.

And for absolutely phony take a look at this series of stills from the CNN hit.

I suggest you fast forward it to jpeg 75, where its just about to "hit" the building. And then go forward one frame at a time. Anyone who thinks this is a real plane is living in a cartoon world.

 http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash

(Note, the webfairy site has recently had bandwidth problems. I think it's back on board now, but if it isn't then check back later)

I also suggest discussing any questions you have WF.  webfairy@thewebfairy.com

Sorry, mistyped the link again 15.Jun.2005 18:20

Gerard Holmgren


$1000 If You Can Disprove This! 15.Jun.2005 21:18

James Woods

Someone should offer a chunk of cash to anyone that can disprove the demolition theory and/or prove the government's theory irrefutable. A contest with decent money should at least get casual mention in the mainstream media, even if in ridicule. "People offering money to disprove those wingnut conspiracy theorists? How absurd!" There was that $1000 someone offered to anyone who would ask the yes/no question to the president about the Iraq war. This could be a fast way to get the demolition theory out there so people can start thinking about it. We all know this is explosive stuff here (pardon the pun). People will be flocking to the internet with the false belief that they are going to collect "easy money". Man, aren't they set up for a eye-opener!

Is there a 9-11 benefactor willing to prove a theory in public debate that will lead to the first major unraveling of the 9-11 conspiracy? Maybe we should pool money. I'm sure a number of websites would be willing to host "the battle" pro bono. And with a demolition theory expert panel with the likes of Jack Straw and others, no one is going to win that money. I suggest that the money goes to the expert panel (for their hard efforts) if no one is successful in the challenge. If there is no successful challenge, this would generate even more media attention. "Why is it so hard to disprove those wingnut conspiracy theorists?" One could even advertise the challenge as "Put Up or Shut Up".

This challenge idea could be used with other 9-11 research that has had trouble breaking into the mainstream. One could use these challenges as a 9-11 research portal, with links to other 9-11 research websites and even act as a guardian to help steer newcomers away from hoax websites and disinformation.

Hey, i think this is such a great idea, i offer US$100 to anyone who can disprove the demolition theory in this thread. Put up or shut up!

Music 15.Jun.2005 22:06

SkinChamber

Some of you listen to christian music. I listen to death metal when i read this stuff. But it is ok. Despite our differing views on a religious level, we share the same concerns about the government. My guns are locked and loaded.

I read that Tom Flooco piece. Here is a direct link to the article:
 link to www.tomflocco.com

I have concerns about this Karl Schwartz character running for president 2008. My intuition tells me he is an agent for the wealthy class. The wealthy class has come to the realization that the republican party is headed for self-destruction. 9-11 will destroy it. The wealthy class is now in the process of creating an alternative. Since creating a new political party will take some time, and it cannot re-use the republican party infrastructure until it implodes, and i don't think the Libertarian, Green Party, Socialist and other independant party are going to allow themselves to become agents of the wealthy class, and the democrats will have been mortally wounded from their complicity with the republicans- the only choice the wealthy class has right now is push an independent candidate. Enter Karl Schwartz. He suddenly got involved with the 9-11 movement within the past year. What a pefect crime- make their agent a 9-11 truth candidate. So just be aware that the wealthy class is not stupid.

We are still here 16.Jun.2005 01:24

Alex Ansary alex_ansary@hotmail.com

I will try my very best to focus on the very best smoking guns of 911. Im not so interested in whether or not the pentagon was hit by an airplane or not. Why does that even matter when the issues of insider trading, forewarning, Bush lying at the commission about know ing about the terrorist plot. The evidence goes on and on. Im looking for the very best of the best aricles from the biggest sources. That catches peoples eye, especially if the story isn't retracted. DOnt get my wrong, i love alex jones, and his 911 archieve is true, but when examining 911, always get it from the horses mouth.
Heres my new site and show info... any suggestions?


Shwarz is a lying con man. 16.Jun.2005 03:39

Gerard Holmgren

Skin Chamber - your intuition about Schwarz is good. The guy is such a pathetic liar that the only scary thing about him is that anyone's believing him. Myself and a group of friends have just done a demolition job on Schwarz. Read some of it here.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml#183278
Schwarz caught with his pants down

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml#183281
Why Schwarz lied about the A3

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml#183282
Why Schwarz lied about the 737

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml#183283
Karl Schwarz - arms dealer or liar

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml#184296
Who else is Karl Schwarz selling weapons to ?

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml
Karl Schwarz- unfortunate son

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316680.shtml

Karl Schwarz - spook or strutter ?

And there will more to come when we can get around to writing it up.

Alex writes

[[I will try my very best to focus on the very best smoking guns of 911. Im not so interested in whether or not the pentagon was hit by an airplane or not. ]]

Hmm, so the fact that the hijackings and plane crashes were complete fiction does not matter ? Lets see now, we went to war because a group of nasty Arabs supposedly hijacked four planes and crashed them. The fact that this simply didn't happen is irrelevant to the issue ?

Wouldn't you just love to have Alex as your attorney ? You've been charged with stealing a car and crashing it and writing it off. You have proof that the car never even got stolen and is still registered, but Alex says that's irrelevant. He'd rather focus on whether they provoked you into stealing it by leaving the keys in it.

Nice try Alex...

Continuing... 16.Jun.2005 06:15

Tony Blair's dog

with the fake Flight 11 and 77:

IF they were indeed fake flights used in the
"war games"/"terror drills" there was no need
for real any passengers to be on the actual flights.

Picture this; the Bush administration wanted to create
a spectacle by murdering 3000 of their citizens, a spectacle
that would let them hijack the country and the taxpayer's money.

They let the Joint Cheifs of Staff put together
a brand new "Operation Northwoods" but this time the
enemy was not purported to be "Cuban terrorists"
but "muslim terrorists".

They put together a grand operation involving FEMA,
the Airforce etc. etc, BUT, instead of just doing
the big "drill", they go through, ALL THE WAY
with the scenario of "terrorists" attacking the WTC.

(Just like the FBI stunt back in '93 where the patsy
was told it was going to be a drill but in the last
minute he was told to use real explosives.)

This set-up would not need any real passengers on any
planes, but, if the persons said to be on the fake flights
was to be killed or just getting new identities they could
kill two birds with one stone saying they were passengers
on "hijacked flights".

While in reality the same persons were either picked up
at the airport, never bording any flight whatsoever or
never went to the airport to start with.

And, the Pentagon smoke and mirrors is best exposed
with the very smoke seen in the security cam frames.
Because if those images are real, although the date
is wrong, the smoke seen in those images is from
a missile, not a plane.

I have a feeling that the Pentagon attack was not
in the original "terrorist" drill plans but was
done in order to kill certain persons in the Pentagon
who were likely to speak out about the drill being
turned into reality by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

re racerX 16.Jun.2005 11:34

fxl

to racerx and gerald holmgren...
man what sewer did you guys crawl out of..
all you guys seem capable of is making defamatory statements.
this discussion started out quite positively but has now degnenerated into a mud slinging match.

I did learn a lot more about what happened on that day, but I dont like wasting my time talking to rude loud mouths.
regards
fxl

Unable to answer question, he walks away 16.Jun.2005 14:20

Jack Straw

UNABLE to answer the question i (not Gerard or RacerX) posed him, fxl walks away. In a way, that's smart, for what would he say? If he chooses low (value of resistance), that fails to explain one major characteristic. If he says high, that fails another major characteristic. Middle value fails both. Even trolls know when they are up against the wall. He wasn't gonna admit he was/is wrong, no way, so why not simply attack participants in the discussion and walk away as if it's the tone that's the problem. Looks like we got a foolproof evidence of demolition, at least it withstood that particular fool.

not me 16.Jun.2005 14:25

racerX

i have not said a bad word to anyone. but i like a good debate. can anyone prove the government's theory?

racerX

Mirrors for racerx ? 16.Jun.2005 15:04

Gerard Holmgren

Well put Jack. fxl used the excuse of (alleged) abuse towards him/her as an excuse to continue to deny the proven fact of the USG's murder of approximately 3000 people (mostly US citizens) as an excuse to invade other countries and kill, main, traumatize and disclocate countless more.
Well done fxl !

Remember all those Germans after the Nazi era saying "We didn't know ! We didn't know ! " ? Better go and start practicing that line fxl.

Racer x commented

[[i have not said a bad word to anyone. but i like a good debate. can anyone prove the government's theory? ]]

Well... thats not strictly true, racer x. You did express a desire for me to finish up in the "gulag", precisely because I happen to dispute the govts theory about planes being hijacked by wild eyed Arabs with tiny knoves and flying into buildings - a theory which you appear to support, and more to the point haven't made any effort whatsoeverto debate.

So, racer x, since you've declared yourself a supporter of the govt story, perhaps you can set an example to fxl and try to actually argue your case.

Heh! fxl at least tried to present an argument, before weasling out, which is more that what racerx has attempted, so racer x is caaling kettles black in smugly asking if anyone can prove the govt's theory.

Unlike fxl, I don;t walk off in a huff, even when even someone says says that I belong in a concentration camp.

Mirrors for you , racerx ?

War Games Alibi 16.Jun.2005 15:39

Skin Chamber

My intuition tells me the wargames is the government's official story. It is to be used in case 9-11 gets exposed like is happening now. With a false flag operation the size of 9-11, there was much uncertainty whether it could be pulled off successfully. The perpetrators surely had auxillary plans in case things backfired.

It will be asserted that the war games either: 1) confused the government's response; 2) got out-of-hand leading to accidental deaths. This would explain a host of things. Why the apparent standdown of the military, why procedure was not followed, why the secret service did nothing, why no one has been held accountable, why a plane other than an airliner crashed into the Pentagon, why the suppression of information, why the many lies, and much more.

The government will assert that because it was so embarassed and so guilty of what had happened, it covered up. It was a reflex action. It will apology profusely to the public. It will show that the accidental deaths were compensated for, and other. It will show it did its best to make good on a mistake, to turn a wrong into a right. This will get pretty much everyone off the hook, from the military to the president to the 9-11 commission to the mainstream media. Maybe a scapegoat or two will retire early.

However, there is one fatal flaw to this war games alibi, and it has been documented in this public thread. The irrefutable evidence that controlled demolition took down the WTC. This refutes the alibi to its core.

The government is in a very serious position right now. It has no credible alibi. I would not be surprised if another false-flag operation occurs in the near future to trigger martial law. To prevent justice for the murder of 3000 people. What would you do if you were the perpetrators and your days were numbered? Would you meekly give yourselves up to a death penalty? Historically, what have outlaws done? Don't believe this is a reality? Look at what the government is doing today.

 http://www.chromance.de/wtf/lol.htm

It has mandated that keyloggers, devices that record your every keystroke, be installed in computers. And it is to be done in SECRECY. Did you know? If the government was part of 9-11 then all these security measures are obviously for another agenda. You connect the dots.

Truth is stranger than fiction. 2005 is definitely stranger than 1984.

You Don't Want to Make $100!!!??? 16.Jun.2005 16:01

James Woods

fxl,

You don't want to make $100? Easy money! Prove the demolition theory wrong. I have a Ben Franklin here waiting for you. Anybody a taker? No one wants to make $100 by disproving the wingnut conspiracy theorists? Oh, come on!

James Woods

sorry 16.Jun.2005 16:16

racerX

gerard, you did sound like a quack or disinformation agent in your earlier posts. you sound more sane now. keep up the good work! :-)

racerX

Email from Web on WTC 16.Jun.2005 16:17

Eng Doc

Eml. From the Net:

Thanks for the critical thinking, and for forwarding your friend's response.
I did not read the Reynolds article thoroughly before forwarding it, which
I perhaps should have done. After reading the comments, I looked specifically
at the paragraphs that your friend included with his comments.

I agree that a number of these statements are very questionable .
It helps to have Hufschmid's photo of the hole in the north tower in
front of you when you read Reynold's account. His dimensions are
wrong; he notes 45 exterior columns were severed in the north tower;
good for about 125 feet, but fails trigonometry, since it did not register
to him that airplane hit the north tower rolled at an angle of about 30
degrees. The result is the wingspan of a 767 planted in the north tower.
The other details he notes; for example the outward pointing columns
(which were hard to verify) and the "even breakage" of exterior
columns could very simply be due to natural physical processes without
any reference to demolition. His claims about the south tower hole,
missing engine, etc are not supported by any documention I have seen.

The article was long, and I have to say that, as with most well
intentioned studies, there is some inaccuracy and error mixed in
with other information which appears accurate and widely
accepted; for example, in this case, the size of the hole in the
Pentagon strike; absence of other cases of collapse of steel framed highrise
buildings due to fire; unlikely almost free fall speed of collapse if each floor had
to be broken by "pancaking"; molten steel in the basements;
brief low temperature hydrocarbon fuel fires,
people walking around inside the crash zone; refutation of the
"pancakeing" theory by the NIST investigation; lack of a NTSB
investigation of the crashes; concrete pulverized to dust,
desintegration of the structural core, Bush connection to WTC
security, etc.

Reynold's appeared to be playing devil's advocate against the official
story to the point where he undermined his own credibility. Obviously this
is very dangerous to a serious attempt to find the truth.

Although intentionally inserting bogus information with accurate information is a
method that can be used by the opposition to undermind 9-11 truth credibility,
(maybe Reynolds is still a Bush supporter) I do believe his final conclusion was
quite reasonable:

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a
scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. "
.
We need to have that debate with people like your friend in Iowa.

I absolutly agree we should not accept written material based on an author's credentials
without question. On the other hand, if we are really looking for truth, it would
also be a mistake to discredit everything an author says, especially if it
corroborated by other sources. Getting to the truth is a painstaking process.


Rodger H

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donna Andrews" < dandrews@speakeasy.net>
To: "R. A. Herbst" < raherbst@seekinglight.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: Fw: another academic takes a stand on the twin towers


> Roger,
>
> I forwarded your recent email to my Iowa friend. He has raised an issue of
> concern about these theories, which I thought of too.
>
> This email that you forwarded with an article by a professor in Texas, who
> use to be in Bush's administration, doesn't make sense when talking about
> the hole in the towers not being big enough for the planes that attacked
the
> buildings.
>
> What in the heck does that imply? That planes didn't actually go through
the
> buildings? Or it wasn't the big planes we saw on TV but rather some
smaller
> type? There were witnesses who saw planes going into the buildings.
>
> See comments below, followed by a clip from that article that talks about
> the holes not being big enough for the planes. Let me know what this is
all
> about.
>
> Donna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mpieper" < mpieper@iavalley.cc.ia.us>
> To: "Donna Andrews" < dandrews@speakeasy.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:18 PM
> Subject: Re: another academic takes a stand on the twin towers
>
>
> >
> > Donna,
> >
> > This conspiracy theory gets wackier the longer I read it. Now someone is
> > trying to either prove that no planes crashed into either tower (???),
> > or that they are not the planes that were said to have crashed into the
> > towers!!! As a true conspiracy nut, he is questioning all established
> > facts, and not just the ones that may be open to interpretation. We have
> > the planes on video crashing into both towers and someone is trying to
> > disprove that? Amazing!! Next thing you know, he'll say that all those
> > impact shots were merely special effects shots created in a Hollywood
> > studio and all the networks were given the video beforehand and were
> > asked to play it at the same time!!
> >
> > Any aircraft expert can just look at the video and see that it's a 757
> > or 767 or whatever. And if we go along with this looney-tunes theory -
> > that those weren't the planes, where are all the passengers that were
> > presumed killed on those planes? Were they taken out somewhere and shot,
> > just so this 'conspiracy' to fool the American public would be
> > successful? Try telling that ridiculous story to the family members of
> > those killed in those aircraft.
> >
> > This is just insane! I suspect the person who wrote this stuff knows
> > absolutely nothing about airplane crashes and how they break apart on
> > impact, and yet he is using his meager knowledge to try to disprove all
> > the facts, at any cost (making false assumptions at every turn).
> >
> > Read this part, if you haven't already:
> >
> > The engineering establishment's theory has further
> > > > difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the
> > > > west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter,
> > > > was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the
> > > > North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767
> > > > either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA
> > > > Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed
> > > > as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155'
> > > > 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole
> > > > in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole
> > > > undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last
> > > > few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break
> > > > through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p.
> > > > 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I'd call that a
> > > > substantial difference, not "the last few feet,"
> > > > especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be
> > > > three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the
> > > > fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings
> > > > send things smashing about in a big way. The small
> > > > size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the
> > > > airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional
> > > > demolition again. There were no reports of plane
> > > > parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision
> > > > and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the
> > > > tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few
> > > > small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68-9)
> > > > and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
> > > >
> > > > Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture
> > > > in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on
> > > > the left side of the northeast hole were so short,
> > > > probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27).
> > > > Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an
> > > > opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not
> > > > minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special
> > > > problem because each engine is enormous and dense,
> > > > consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 24 to
> > > > 28.5 tons, depending upon model. No engine was
> > > > recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could
> > > > possibly vaporize it.
> > > >
> > > > The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because
> > > > it did not even have a continuous opening at the
> > > > perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC
> > > > material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105).
> > > > This material appears integral to that area, so it did
> > > > not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no
> > > > clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners
> > > > weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight
> > > > of up to 193 tons.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL
> > > > Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as
> > > > still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact
> > > > that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied
> > > > that the right engine would miss the South Tower.
> > > > Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are
> > > > unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent
> > > > jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the
> > > > contrary. Further contradicting the official account,
> > > > the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south
> > > > tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The
> > > > government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it
> > > > recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al
> > > > Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic
> > > > collapse of the North Tower. The government has not
> > > > produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in
> > > > the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a
> > > > fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major
> > > > domestic crashes.
> > > >
> > > > Adding to the problems of the official theory is the
> > > > fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no
> > > > evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable
> > > > wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site.
> > > > While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the
> > > > landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the
> > > > North Tower and was found several streets away could
> > > > easily have been planted by FEMA or other government
> > > > agents. I've never seen any objective analysis of this
> > > > wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact,
> > > > the government has failed to produce significant
> > > > wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that
> > > > fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash
> > > > site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch.
> > > > 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable
> > > > as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground.
> > > > Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the
> > > > hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation
> > > > Safety Board have investigated or produced any report
> > > > on the alleged airliner crashes.
> > > >
> > > > The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being
> > > > too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was
> > > > too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing
> > > > 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially
> > > > smaller than the North Tower hole.

Not just one 16.Jun.2005 16:30

Gerard Holmgren

[[However, there is one fatal flaw to this war games alibi, and it has been documented in this public thread. The irrefutable evidence that controlled demolition took down the WTC. This refutes the alibi to its core.]]

You forgot something, skin chamber. The fact that they put a fake video to air of a plane hitting the WTC - and did so in real time is even more damning evidence than the demolition. Now I don't say that to get into a pissing contest about "this evidence is better than that evidence " , in fact that's the usually the line pulled out by the planehuggers.

As I've pointed out before, I energetically promote all aspects of the evidence.

Summary article  http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html

Detailed research and documentation

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

Once they're backed into a corner on the cartoon plane, they start saying, well it doesn't really matter, we already have enough evidence.

Think about it. The fact that there were plane crashes.

That in itself makes the deliberate demolition axiomatic. The first half of Sept 11 - a) the plane crashes - simply didn't happen. It was a movie.

The second half b) the buildings coming down - did happen.

The govt claims that a) caused b). Once we know that a) didn't even happen, then its obvious that something else caused b).

The no planes proof is also proof of the demolition - and a lot more.

It proves that this wasn't just a rogue administration being subsequently covered up by a corrupt and cowardly media. It proves that we are being subjected to a matrix reality - where cartoons and movies are passed off as reality. Not in an ad hoc manner but in a precision controlled and planned, highly organized psy-op that pervades every aspect of our lives.

And that its world wide.

And this is the reason why its being so hysterically opposed by the Owellainly named "911truth movement " - a worse bunch of liars than the Bush regime.

As I pointed out in the case of two faced Hoffman - everyone and their dog is trying to use S11 for their own agenda. The agenda of some dictates that they believe in mad Arabs with little knoves. The agenda of others mandates that they think its a Jewish plot ( like just about everything else). The agenda of others mandates that it was the despicible Bushies and that we need a good honest democrat to clean things up. The agenda of others says that the Both the Rps and Dems were in on it, so we need the UN to come in take over. Etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately none of these agenda are interested in the truth. They just want to cherry pick those bits which suit their agenda. Many of those who are pointing the finger at Bush and co are doing so, not because they are concerned with truth or justice or putting an end to all this shit. On the contrary, they want to keep it going. They just want a different clique in the power chair.

The no planes proof does not suit any agenda - except the truth. It sweeps away all of this bullshit in one strike. The news is just a movie. Our so called opposition, the left, the mainstream peace movement, etc are worse liars than the creeps in "power". What passes as free speech and alternative media is just a fixed sparring match for the booing and cheering of the circus, with the NWO not caring whether you follow Bush, Daschle, Chomsky, Ruppert or Hoffman as long as you swallow the bullshit that at least one of them is spinning. They don't care whether you are for the war in Iraq or against it.

Its time to take the red pill.

And the no planes proof - along with the proof that higly advanced, supposedly non existent technology was used -along with the proof that the demolition of the towers was not done with conventional explosives - along with the proof that much of our news is *total* fiction. This proof popped up its nasty little head to start ramming the red pill down people's throats.

And they don't like it. Which is why the 911untruth movement, and the rest of the fake opposition are so desperate to hush it up.

The cover up has many levels beyiond the offical story. Firstly, the LLL's eg, David Corn. "The repsonse is wrong - we need a better way to handle terorism"

If people get past that, the next trap is "they let it happen". We need an "inquiry" and a trial (yeah like the courts are less corrupt than the govt - LOL )

If they get past that "they made it happen" they used remote controlled planes and demolished the towers. (Because there were planes ! The media wouldn't lie to us. They might lie about WMD and show us a fat Bin laden video, but wouldn;t tell us there were planes if there weren't ) The media tell us some whoppers from time to time, but they'd *never* run a scam that big. At the fundamental level we can still trust our media as long as we think enough to see through some of the bullshit...

Mirrors anyone ?

More Urls on WTC 16.Jun.2005 17:00

Eng Doc

Here's more urls on WTC + plane sims

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orX-11.html

 link to letsroll911.org


Rock 'n Roll or what?
Methinks.

Regds
Eng Doc

More Holmgren Bogus Crap 16.Jun.2005 17:07

repost

>>gerard, you did sound like a quack or disinformation agent in your earlier posts. you sound more sane now.

Sorry, but a 'no-planer' is a no-planer and there are no two ways about it. It's called disinformation - there is no real evidence to support any theory that there were NO PLANES at the WTC, or FAKE PLANES, UFOs, or other UNKNOWN OBJECTS at the WTC on 9/11.

This is a bunch of BS to try to discredit the serious 9/11 work.

Also, any links seen above to sites like TomFlocco or the Webfairy are more disinfo efforts that are so transparent it's laughable.

The future? 16.Jun.2005 17:21

Eng Doc


"Skin Chamber" 16.Jun.2005 17:47

Tony Blair's dog

"My intuition tells me the wargames is the government's official story. It is to be used in case 9-11 gets exposed like is happening now."..."It will be asserted that the war games either: 1) confused the government's response."

Your "intuition" serves you right, because the corporate media
mentioned various parts of the "drills" some years ago, though,
for some reason lied about the objectives of some of the drills ;-)

You make some strange assertions which would be dandy if you could
elaborate further on though, especially this part:

"The government will assert that because it was so embarassed and so guilty of what had happened, it covered up. It was a reflex action. It will apology profusely to the public. It will show that the accidental deaths were compensated for, and other. It will show it did its best to make good on a mistake, to turn a wrong into a right."

I fail to make out any logic out of that part.


For more information about the "war games"/"terrorist drills"
being played out on 9/11 check out the various links below
(they present various amount of details, why researching
further is advised).

9/11 War Games - No Coincidence
 http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=387

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
(general description of the "war games"/"terrorist drills",
this page still runs with the real "hijacked" aircrafts story,
something which I'm personally starting to believe was a hoax too,
i.e. no real hijacked planes, only the ones in the exercise.)
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html


Everyone interested in the WTC circus may find these two links
quite interesting too, if you have not already done so ;-)

Proof of the Demolition of WTC 1, 2, 6, 7 by Internal Explosives
(This is a really hefty piece of work but be sure to give it a shot,
you will most likely find some stuff you havn't read earlier there.)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292330.shtml

Was the WTC 7 pulled?(Yes I know the title is off since Silverstein
himself has admitted that he ordered WTC 7 to be demolished just hours
after WTC 1 & 2 were taken down. But it has some good information on
fires in other steel buildings etc. so it's worth a visit.)
 http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html

Conclusion is not the same as argument 16.Jun.2005 18:05

Gerard Holmgren

Notice that repost is unable to provide any evidence or semblence of an argument. Simply restating a blanket accusation of "crap" and bogus" and "disinfo" is not an argument. In fact it's a sign that repost doesn;t have one.

But I'm glad that repost raised the question of "disninfo", because we have proof that repost has indeed used disinformation to try to counter some of the evidence which I've presented.

First lets define "disinformation".

It's the deliberate spreading of information not only proveable as false, but as so obviously false that the person involved can only have been reasonably assumed to have been well aweare that it was false.

Repost is guilty of this act in a previous post, as I shall shortly point out. But before i do that, I remind readers that I have repeatedly challenged anyone to quote any section of my work which comes into this category. With links and direct quotes showing falsified information, fraudulent documentation etc.

There have been no takers. None. You'd think they'd be queuing up with it it if they could find any. But all we have is empty rhetoric. While the shrill accusations of "disinformation" continue to be shrieked, no-ones willing to provide any specific examples. Ain't that strange ?

But here's a specific example of disinfo perpetrated by repost.

In an earlier post, repost ridiculed the BTS work, claiming that the reason that the planes didn;t show up on a database of "completed flights" is because they weren;t completed.

As I showed in an earlier post, this statement is so utterly false that it is almost certainly disinformation rather than just an extrememly stupid mistake.

Even the most cursory examination of the BTS database reveals that it not a database of "completed flights". it is a database of "scheduled flights".

Parts of it's very reason for existence is to record both percentages and specific instances of scheduled flights which are not completed.
Thus it includes all completed flights and all uncompleted flights.

No-one who has actaully visited the database could possibly have been unaware of this fact. And in my article, I did strongly recommend that people check the results for themselves. Furthermore, even if one is too lazy to do that, simply the data relayed in my article

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

is enough to make it obvious that the datbase includes all flights whether completed or not.

So we have proof here that repost lied in attempting to spin this piece of evidence about. It simply isn;t possible for anyone to have given any critical thought or examination to my article to have been unaware that the claim about it being a database of "completed flights" was factually incorrect and grossly so.

And if someone commented on my article without even reading it properly, to the extent that they could claim this to be an honest mistake, but then implied a claim to have examined the article in any depth, to the extent that they felt qualified to comment on it, then we also have proof that they are lying.

So there's game set and match on the disinfo front. "Repost " lied to readers about the contents of the BTS database.

The post above quotes some links from Salter about the no planes issue.
(The questionsquestions links)

Salter thouroughly debunked here

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html

and here

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html

Still in this entire thread, not one person has presented the slightest shred of argument to refute the no planes proof. The opposition has been limited to writing my name in capital letters and apolplectic tones , and the constant use of such meaningless words as "crap" and bogus" and the constant shrill cries of "disinformation", with no supporting evidence such as that which I just used against repost. When that hasn't worked, we've had the "you might be right, but it doesn;t matter because we have better evidence " line, along with obligoatory " I saw it myself, and so did my friends ".

What's ironic is that of those who openly defended the govt story, the most maligned has been fxl - who thouroughly deserved it- but was actually more credible than people like repost and racer x, because (s)he at least tried to present an argument (even if it was a stupid one and then running off in a fit of pique when backed into a corner.
)
But at least fxl was prepared to present (and lose) an argument.

Some planehuggers on this list, while smugly taunting fxl for this, show
themselves to be of even lower character by not even having the guts to try to present an argument at all, thinking that they can get away with merelty shouting personal accusations and bellicose conclusions as a substitute.

Repost has been exposed as a deliberate liar.

Would anyone like to present an argument please? (In case you hadn;t worked it out yet, simply stating a conclusion over and over, is not the same as presenting the argument used to reach that conclusion)

What You Don't Get 16.Jun.2005 20:35

Skin Chamber

Basically, what i am saying is that the government will assert that the war games caused it to blunder, either by failing to stop real terrorist attacks, or that the war games got out-of-hand, became real, and killed people. In final, the government did not intentionally cause 9-11. Everybody gets off the hook. What position the government takes will depend on how much of the 9-11 conspiracy is uncovered. The government has currently taken a less extreme position by claiming blunder of intelligence and blunder of competance.

But i think the government has its back against the wall now. The irrefutable proof of controlled demolition of the WTC shows that the government did intend to make 9-11 happen. You don't put real explosives in downtown office buildings used by thousands of civilians for a game, exercise, drill, or whatever.

I first read articles about the war games a couple years back. This is not deja vu. You have to think like the criminal to understand what the criminal's plan is. I think the war games was part of the plan. The perpetrators had to have one or more auxillary plans to cover their butt in case things backfired or went awry. Worse case scenarios were worked out or i don't think 9-11, because of the sheer scale of the operation, would have gone forward.

It can be easily proven now that the WTC was taken down by explosives. It is time for people to take this into their own hands. The government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced.

Regarding those who entertain the Armageddon conspiracy theories. Keep in mind that we have been given power to make choices. This gives us power to control the future. If someone tells you otherwise, they are manipulating you. You can choose not to listen to them. Men created this false flag operation by choice. Men can bring them to justice by choice. If men attempt to create an apocalyptic situation by choice, men can put a stop to it by choice. Power of choice.

Not Convinced 16.Jun.2005 21:03

Jerry

I am not convinced about the no plane theory. This is because there is not enough evidence to make it irrefutable. A few fuzzy frames from a video is not much. Same goes with the faked video. Show me footage of plane impacts that prove planes do not crash as captured on the 9-11 videos. Get someone from one of the news networks to come forward and swear video was faked. Then i may become convinced. In the absence of better proof, i will remain a skeptic. Yes, you have shown other inconsistencies such as the flights may not have existed in official records. But that is not irrefutable proof. Try again, buddy.

"What You Don't Get" 17.Jun.2005 02:51

Tony Blair's dog

Dear "Skin Chamber", listen to your own words.

You are arguing against your own better knowlege.

We all know that the towere were brought down with
explosives on 9/11. It proves that they lied.

But that enough will not hang them, because they may
claim that they had to do that so the towers were not
going to destroy more property and more lives.

Though, when you combine the demolition of the towers
with the precursory "war games"/"terrorist drills"
which were rammed through ALL THE WAY (and not stopping
before the peak as is custom) it becomes apparent that
the very plan was to create a fake "terrorist" event.

And if for example the story about the young officer coming
into the command bunker asking "Do the orders still stand?"
and Cheney answering "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?" is true
(as reported by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta
who was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center
with Vice President Cheney, then Cheney and a lot of other
people will indeed hang.

Towers Demolition is an act of murder 17.Jun.2005 11:46

reader

>>>But that [towers demolition] enough will not hang them, because they may
claim that they had to do that so the towers were not
going to destroy more property and more lives.

Wrong. They murdered over 400 NYC firefighters in the demolition. They'll have their limbs ripped out if they are found guilty of this and don't have armed guards around them. Not to mention the issue of hanging, treason, impeachment, etc.

Could Anyone Forward This On To Jimmy Walter 17.Jun.2005 14:20

James Woods

I was unsuccessful sending this letter direct to Jimmy Walter at his personal website. But i really want him to review this idea i have since he is a major benefactor of the 9-11 truth movement. I want to ensure he gets it. If one of you readers who has privy to his email address could forward this on, it would be greatly appreciated.

James Woods


---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jimmy Walter,

Recently i came up with an idea relating to the WTC collapse. But i see you have come up with a similar idea! $100,000 to PROVE the government's theory. A good challenge but it might seem unfair because no one has access to the same data the government has, such as the WTC blueprints. Have you thought about making a similar challenge to DISPROVE the theory of controlled demolition? Did you know it has been irrefutably proven that the WTC was taken down? Yes, indeed.

No one has given it a name but i call it the low/high resistance theory. Here it is in a nutshell (put on your thinking cap). In a gravity collapse, the falling floors cannot exhibit BOTH extreme low resistance (falling almost free fall) AND extreme high resistance (the pulvarizing of floors above it). It has to be one or the other, or an in-between state. Only controlled demolition can exhibit the extreme states simultaneously. The irrefutable picture evidence clearly shows the collapses having both extreme low and extreme high resistance. This is impossible to resolve in a gravity collapse theory. As one 9-11 researcher put it, this is a "gotcha".

Here is an article that elaborates on the theory. Discussion begins in the second section.
 http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

This low/high resistance theory has been in the public domain for almost a year, but has not caught on until recently. Once you grasp it, you realize how instrumental it is in proving controlled demolition. This theory has been forum tested and repels attacks by the disinfo crowd. Since this theory deals with something as simple as "falling rock", everybody is capable of understanding it.

By getting people to challenge the controlled demolition theory, you bring the 9-11 issue to Middle America. How is that possible? The theory is intriguing, it is simple, it is bizarre- it appeals to the average Joe. Who would turn down the opportunity to disprove a "wingnut" theory for "easy money"? No one i know. When they take on the challenge, they will have to "walk inside" the theory in order to find its weakness. They are going to get intimate with 9-11 facts. They are going to visit 9-11 websites. They won't find anything wrong with the theory. But they will see that the WTC buildings were taken down. And they came to that conclusion all on their own. Convincing people about the truth doesn't get any better than that!

They are going to start asking the questions.

Best Regards,

James Woods

Plane holes 17.Jun.2005 21:58

Jack Straw

By the way, i'm glad to see the structure resistance paradox is getting across!

Someone asserted above that Reynolds really blew it by focusing on the way columns in the building holes were bent outward and claiming this shows planes didn't hit. So how _could_ columns be bent *outward* after being hit by an *incoming* plane? Reynolds specifically tackles the notion that they were bent first inward and then outward by the plane's explosion, as the columns could not move back and forth like that, and not all were bent outward, as if showing a pattern of explosions.

Repost is continuing his work, and continuing to show he's totally inept, missing the big point about the BTS data.

fxl couldn't answer my question. I suggest people stop calling Gerard names and answer his questions, explain the BTS data in some way.
 http://911foreknowledge.batcave.net
has lots of excellent questions about the "plane" that supposedly hit WTC1, try answering those as well.

HOLOGRAM CLUE for clueless Mitch 18.Jun.2005 00:58

clue gatherer

READ THIS LINK!!!  http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm

Hey, clueless Mitch:

There is a difference between "peddling" "hologram theories" and considering the possibility.

Are you trying to ridicule and shame people into not considering all the possibilities, Mitch?

Unreal airplanes are the best kind for skidding across lawns without leaving marks, you know. In fact, if you know of any other kinds of planes that can accomplish that feat, please let us know.

Four more things to ponder (after you've digested the link clue above):

1. Does anyone believe that the Aussie AF can do the hologram trick and the USAF can't?
2. Therefore, every intelligence agency in the world knows the USAF can do the hologram trick.
3. Therefore, from whom does the USAF believe it is keeping the hologram trick secret?
4. A: Perhaps the "unsophisticated adversary" (mil-speak for "civilians") mentioned in the AAF page!

Ref to Batcave above . . . 18.Jun.2005 10:07

reader

911batcave (has probably the lowest quality photos that try to prove a "pod" under a plane of any of these sites)

This site seems to be mostly a fan of the pod story, not a primary source for it. It's strangeness is mirrored at a variety of domains (the author is "Brad M," whoever that is, it is a person with the ability to register lots of domain names, but without the ability to differentiate strong evidence from photoshopped fakery).

These photos from the 911batcave website are supposed forensic evidence for the "theory" that the plane that hit the second tower had a pod under the plane that proves it was not the passenger jet it was supposed to be. The photo on the left has a number of attributes that show it has been dramatically altered, and the photo on the right looks like an image on a tie dye t-shirt, not evidence that proves anything other than certain peoples' gullibility.
 http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html

Holograms are no different than ghosts 18.Jun.2005 10:20

reader

>>There is a difference between "peddling" "hologram theories" and considering the possibility.

Is there? There could just as easily have been UFOs, Ghosts, or the planes could have actually have been made of Diamond.

In fact, I could write ANYTHING about it, and make a case, as long as I don't have to actually provide any hard evidence.

Just like a hologram. No actual evidence.

What You Don't Get 18.Jun.2005 15:50

Skin Chamber

Tony Blair's dog wrote:

"You are arguing against your own better knowlege.

But that enough will not hang them, because they may
claim that they had to do that so the towers were not
going to destroy more property and more lives."

Could the government credibly claim this? I think you may be arguing against your better judgement. How could the government plan and wire a 110 story building for controlled demolition in less than an hour? Will they claim the building was pre-wired as part of its design? Or wargame? And told no one about it? Larry Silverstein didn't know? Insurance companies don't know? And why was the take down made to look like a pancake collapse instead of traditional demolition? So that it would collapse better? And why couldn't the government wait to get more people out of the building before they slammed down that detonator? Why didn't they inform the fire fighters of what was planned?

No reasonable person is going to buy this. Put simply, there are going to be heads on top of pikes before this is over. The mutilation that happened to those 4 security guards in Falluja is nothing compared what is going to happen to top officials in our government- including those in Congress and the Judicial branches. They are not going to be protected. Our boys will voluntarily "stand down" and let justice occur. As one poster put it, arms are going to be ripped off. There is going to be one helluva angry mob of people when the truth gets out.

By the way. I didn't mean to push hoaxes. In an earlier post i gave a link about the government putting keyloggers in computers. It has been shown that this may be a hoax. Sorry for jumping the gun.

Reader, eh? 18.Jun.2005 16:23

Jack Straw

"Reader" is "repost's latest alias, and to think he attacks Brad M for using different names. And note how he attacks Brad for something totally unrelated to what i posted about, rather than deal with that item, that's his tactic, that's been his tactic, trying to tear apart personally those whose ideas he doesn't like because they scare him, and because they show what a limited hangout artist he is.

Clueless Mitch 18.Jun.2005 16:29

Mitch

I think it has been demonstrated, in my post and elsewhere, that the probability of holograms making the images seen on the 9-11 videos is so remote that one might as well group it with my pet Elvis theory. Go reread my analysis of the hologram theory and see if you can explain away what i assert.

I don't rule out possibility, but i do rule out ridiculousness. And so do most people. Remote possibility does not prove a theory. Considering how unlikely a hologram theory is (according to common sense and science) it sure gets a lot of publicity. Arguably, it gets more publicity than the theory of controlled demolition, a theory that is irrefutable! You do not find this odd?

So get your priorities in order. 9-11 unravels with the WTC collapses. So put 80% of your effort toward the controlled demolition theory and getting the truth out there. Spend the other 20% investigating the other theories. Hopefully one day you will uncover the irrefutable. But don't spend 80% of your effort looking for a needle in a haystack! If what you are doing equated to running a business, you would be out of business pronto!

/////////////
Mitch
/////////////

InterNet based WTC COLLAPSE MODEL 19.Jun.2005 09:47

Eng Doc

I appreciate Mitch's last sentence- "If what you are doing equated to running a business, you would be out of business pronto!"

Too true, too true!
Need to focus on the most attainable to expose the whole gamut.
Any urls to fullhouse WTC modelling as yet? Plz post any new.
Anything on UseNet??

As I wrote before that one should assume certain criteria (pt of departure/datum)and embark on
setting up AN INTERNET BASED WTC COLLAPSE MODEL to which everyone on the Net can add/upload their input and suggestions. Amateur vids and still pix would also be useful. A supplementary forum could help.

I ponder when anyone out there will take this challenge so we can start to Rock n' Roll!
In the meanwhile I will endeavour to present this concept on other WTC s911 Net forums.

Eng Doc

9/11 attacks 19.Jun.2005 10:29

Mr. Perfect

I think you guys underestimate the neocons. Sure, the Iraq war now looks like a mess, and it could be argued that the neocons who instigated this war are dumb and incompetent for not anticipating what would happen or being so completely wrong about the WMD.

Here's the thing: the neocons are not dumb, and they DID see all this coming, just like those of us who criticized the war before it even started. The problem is, they didn't care that this would happen. It was a neccessary step along the way to accomplish their goals. They knew full well that the Iraq war would not be over in a week or two, despite their public statements to the contrary. I had posted a turkish news report before the war, in which the American ambassador to Turkey was quoted as saying the US would remain in Iraq for 20 years. Back then, rednecks called me nuts, and ridiculed the turkish media for making up fairy tales. A few months later, the official estimate of how long the US would remain in Iraq suddenly increased, from weeks, to months, to years, to decades. Soon after, the first reports of permanent US bases surfaced.

Although Bush and co now pretend these are recent developments, brought on by an "unexpected" insurgency, and an "invitation" by the new Iraqi (puppet) government to keep US troops in Iraq, the secret plan had always been to establish a PERMANENT US foothold in Iraq - long before anyone in the US wanted to believe it. By now it's common knowledge that the US will establish permanent bases there. But before the war, those of us who knew it was coming, thanks to the article in the turkish newspaper, were treated like conspiracy nuts.

When we complained about how dumb Americans are for believing the garbage in Powell's UN speech about Anthrax factories and mobile labs, it wasn't that Powell really didn't know better. He DID know better. Remember those reports of him privately yelling "I'm not reading this bullshit?"

The Downing Street memos confirm once again what we have known all along: The Iraq war was a huge scam. Bush and co had planned all along to invade Iraq and deliberately cooked up an excuse to invade.

That much has come to the surface by now. They calculated and deceived in cold blood, and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people have died as a result.

To believe they could never be so evil as to kill 3000 Americans in a false flag operation is naive in my opinion. There is absolutely NOTHING these people are not capable of.

The other reason why some people don't want to believe the possibility that Bush and co might be behind 9/11 is because we look at them as incompetent fools for screwing up Iraq so badly, getting the intelligence all wrong, etc.

But that is not the case. They brilliantly scammed, schemed and lied us to the point where we are today. They deliberately cherrypicked intelligence reports to create the figleaf for the invasion. It's not that they were dumb or incompetent. They were cunning, ruthless, and deceptive.

These people (not Bush) are absolutely brilliant. When Rumsfeld and co now act all befuddled and say "Ahh, shucks, who could have seen this coming?" they're lying once again.

They KNEW the Iraq war would not reduce terrorism, but increase it. Just as those of us who opposed the Iraq war, knew this all along. But combating terrorism was NEVER the reason for this war. If even armchair critics like us could forsee what would happen, and dozens of US and UK experts came forward before the war to warn Bush and co of what would happen, it's naive to believe they were really so out of touch with reality that they didn't know what was going to happen.

The Iraq war never made sense from a "war on terrorism" standpoint. It only made sense from a "we need their oil" standpoint. The neocons are not a bunch of hapless numbnuts. They are exactly where they wanted to be, and did exactly what they wanted to do, for reasons they will never admit publicly, because colonial wars for resources are no longer politically correct.

It's difficult to wrap your mind around just how unbelievably ruthless, coldblooded and immoral their schemes are. It's easier to just tell yourself, "well, they're just a bunch of idiots who royally screwed up."

But as I've pointed out several times in the past, long before they got into power, the neocons have written books and policy statements about what they wanted to do, about American world dominace, control over the world's energy reserves, the American's public hesistance to support oil wars, and the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to get the ball rolling. These things can't just be dismissed as weird little coincidences. Not after these people have been exposed as criminal liars, whose lies resulted in the deaths of countless innocent people.

It may sound like a mind-boggling movie-like conspiracy, but I think 9/11 was a false flag operation. And whoever was responsible for the false flag Anthrax attacks, was also responsible for the false flag 9/11 attacks. Go read up on the Anthrax attacks and refresh your memory of what the notes said, who they were sent to, and how they referenced 9/11, and how the media was abuzz with speculation that Iraq was behind the Anthrax attacks. Then think of all the lies Bush and Cheney and co have told us to lead us to believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. To this very day, millions of Americans still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11.

If someone had wanted to cause a truly horrible disaster, and truly cripple the US, flying a plane into the nuclear powerplant 35 miles north of New York would have been far more devastating. It would be silly to assume the hijackers, whoever they were, didn't know that.

They just had a documentary about that nuclear powerplant on HBO. Some people like to claim that the cement walls of the powerplant could withstand a plane crash. The document proved that to be false, and the plane could have been crashed into any of the unprotected buildings and caused a core meltdown without ever having to penetrate any thick cement walls.

The resulting contamination would have made the entire city of New York uninhabitable for thousands of years. The airspace above the nuclear powerplant is not restricted or protected (even now, after 9/11) and one of the hijacked planes actually flew right over the powerplant as it approached the WTC. So, why not go for the target that would inflict maximum chaos and destruction?

Now look at the Anthrax attacks that happened one week later and referenced 9/11 in those handwritten notes as if both were committed by the same people. Why were only a handful of those letters sent? Why to media heads, rather than contaminate vital areas, like the food supply? Why were the notes made to look like they came from Arabs, although it has become clear that no Arab could have gotten his hands on this particular strain of Anthrax? There were far worse things they could have done with Anthrax. But they didn't. Just like the 9/11 attacks, they didn't go for maximum casualties or desctruction, they went for symbolism and hype instead. Whoever was behind 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks went for maximum media effect, as if the goal of both attacks was not to inflict maximum damage, but sway public opinion... create a bloodthirsty warlust in America, just as the neocons had written a few years earlier when they spoke of the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to get their policies started.

How many people had ever even heard the word Anthrax before those letters were sent to the media? And it just so happens that Anthrax was the main topic of Powell's speech about the need to invade Iraq. How convenient. As if the perpetrators of the Anthrax attack sent out those letters just so that Bush and co would have a convenient reason to invade Iraq, while keeping any actual damage from the Anhrax letters to a minimum, but getting maximum media coverage to make sure everyone in America knew how dangerous Anthrax can be, in time for ]Powell's UN speech. Would his speech have had the same effect on Americans if there had not been those Anthrax letters? Would anyone in America have cared about the little white vial Powell held up, if there hadn't been those Anthrax letters?

It was all part of the road that led us to invading Iraq. Today, thanks to the Downing Street memos, we know Bush and co had decided to invade Iraq long before he publicly admitted it, and thanks to Wolfowitz' interview in Vanity Fair we know that WMD were just an excuse they used to rally support for the war. But would that excuse have worked as well as it did, if there had not been those Anthrax letters? Anthrax letters that could not possibly have come from any Arabs, because it was a US strain of weaponized Anthrax to which only high US government officials with top clearance had access? And yet the Anthrax letters were made to look like Arabs sent them, and the letters referenced 9/11 as if the same people who sent the Anthrax letters were also the people responsible for 9/11.

Think about that for a while. Don't just dismiss it because you don't think the neocons could be ruthless enough or smart enough to instigate deception on such a grand scale.

To just assume that the Anthrax attacks and 9/11 are unrelated and it was just a coincidence that they happened at almost the same time or ignore that the latter attack (Anthrax) referenced the earlier attack (9/11) is pretty naive in my opinion.

Thank you Mr. Perfect... 19.Jun.2005 12:52

Tony Blair's dog

for a very sober analysis.

Predates neocons 19.Jun.2005 14:40

Jack Straw

Mr Perfect is right on in much of what he says,but the neocons are merely replaceable parts, one team of operatives working for the real powers-that-be, and can (and will) be ousted once their task is done. The first call for something like Pearl Harbor came not from the neocon PNAC, but from Zbig Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard in '97. This plan to solidify US military domination of Eurasia and the rest of the world as vital resources are depleted involves the corporate masters of both parties, and (via foundation funding) much of the "left".
And the actual existence of any "hijackers" has never been proven.

So... how come this? 14.Jul.2005 10:55

Terry Woods

As I recall and have reviewed over and over,

the first tower was hit... then several (maybe somewhere between a few and several) MINUTES later, the second plane hits...

One of the major deals in Physics is "RATE". That is, "Effect over Time".

So... The planes hit several <u>minutes</u> apart... and yet, the second tower collapses within <u>seconds</u> of the first.

If this is a heat-melting-steel issue, and melting is a matter of heat-vs.-time... and it is reasonable to assume that the fuels of each plane would produce a the same amount of heat-damage in a particular amount of time...

...and since both fuels were essentially the same...

...then, why is it that, in the second building, more heat-damage was developed more quickly?

Why did the second building collapse so soon afetr the first?

SEE THIS 9-11 FILM 29.Jul.2005 20:23

JD

SEE THIS FREE 9-11 FILM
SEE THIS FREE 9-11 FILM
SEE THIS FREE 9-11 FILM
SEE THIS FREE 9-11 FILM
SEE THIS FREE 9-11 FILM


On The Record: The Controlled Demolition Of The WTC
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm

SPREAD THIS LINK
SPREAD THIS LINK
SPREAD THIS LINK
SPREAD THIS LINK
SPREAD THIS LINK

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
 http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/


Dumbass 03.Mar.2007 09:34

Chris mankey-whovian222@msn.com

Shermer fails to note that no structure before or after 9/11/01 has ever exhibited the phenomenon of top-down total collapse, no matter what fraction of it was air. The non-repeatability of this phenomenon will trouble students of the scientific method, but not Shermer.

That would be because no building before of since 9/11 was hit by a hijacked 767. The nrepeatability of "This phenomenon" would require that you crash another 767 into an identical building. GROW A BRAIN!

651-774-1935