Saturday, September 13, 2014

Judy Wood: pathway to absurdity

        How can you tell if an idea is seriously, irreparably wrong? When its implications lead to completely absurd conclusions. We were treated to a beaut example of that last Thursday, the 13th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

        Bizarrely, Coast to Coast AM chose to mark the occasion by giving two hours' air time to Judy Wood, the former adjunct professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson who went totally off the rails and declared that the impacts of two fully-fueled jetliners were insufficient to bring the towers down. Instead, she says, an external directed-energy weapon turned the towers to such fine dust that they literally blew away on the wind. Her self-published book is titled Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.

        To be more accurate, she states that the upper 80%, approximately, of each tower was dustified. It seems to me that if that were the case, the load on the lower ~20% would have been instantly alleviated, and that portion of the towers should have been preserved undamaged. Since that demonstrably did not happen, I think it's a very serious problem for her idea.

        This blog reviewed Wood's previous C2C appearance, in May 2011, contributing a very rough estimate of the total tonnage of drywall that would have been in each tower. That would certainly have dustified all right -- but the steel and concrete is another matter. Over a million tons of it was trucked out of the site altogether. But in order to make her thesis credible, Judy Wood has to persuade us that images like this don't really exist.




A good question
        Toward the end of Judy's second hour last Thursday, a caller asked a pretty good question.
GN: Peter is truck driving in California. Go ahead, Peter. West of the Rockies. Go ahead Peter.

Caller: I don't know where to start. I was going to ask you, if everything was pulverized that badly, why did it take two years to haul it off one dump truck at a time?

JW: The bathtub was cleaned out by May. It's actually... it was cleaned out faster than they thought it would be [[she's right about that]]. But they would also truck in dirt. Dump it down, turn it around, take it out, bring in more dirt, dump it down... I was there in 2007, dirt was still coming in and out.
        So you see where Judy's crackpot idea leads? Since according to her there was no steel and concrete wreckage, obviously the teams clearing the site had to keep up the pretense for eight months by needlessly trucking soil backwards and forwards. I think that tells us all we need to know about the woman and her theory.

Her rational wikipage has further info.

82 comments:

Chris Lopes said...

Dr. Wood's main claim to fame among Hoagland watchers is that her work got borrowed/stolen by Hoagie (who was too lazy to come up with anything original on his own) for a presentation at a woo-fest in Amsterdam. His version of the work involved space-Nazis with death rays, which is only slightly less crazy than what Wood is claiming. The difference is that Hoagland is no longer talking about this stuff, while Wood is trapped by the fact that this her only contribution to woo-ism.

George Benkel said...

Where was this GIGANTIC pile? Show me where it was!

George Benkel said...

You are showing WTC 4 and 5. They still have bizarre round voids. There is hardly any debris left of WTC 1 and 2. You should know better.

Dee said...

Judy probably did not make it up though, although strangely ignores (as usual) any more obvious, simple explanations for such observation. The soil of Ground Zero (and much of that part of Manhattan actually) became such a health hazard that it needed to be replaced with a cleaner top layer. So indeed soil goes out, soil goes in, like a transfusion. This in addition to taking out rubble and bringing back (at some point) new building materials. She'd probably call that useless too.

Dee

expat said...

Dee: Good point.

George: Do your own photo-research. It's out there.

George Benkel said...

No link provided, of course.

expat said...

That's right, George. The general idea is that you do your own research.

jourget said...

George: Hence the "Do your own" in "Do your own photo-research". Here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Debris_pile_at_Ground_Zero-World_Trade_Center_site-NYC.jpg

First result on "ground zero debris pile" on Google Images. Took me about four and a half seconds.

expat said...

George Benkel wrote: "You are showing WTC 4 and 5. They still have bizarre round voids."

Bizarre? I'm no expert but aren't those "bizarre" voids the elevator shafts?

expat said...

More on that image:

Buildings 5 & 6 are in the center, yes indeed. The huge pile of the wreckage of Tower 1 is seen at lower right, partly obscured by smoke.

At left is Building 7, which simply fell over as a result of damage and subsequent fires. At the top is the Deutsche Bank building, so badly damaged it could not be saved.

Judy Wood should be asked "How could a tower that was dustified and blew away on the breeze have done so much collateral damage?"

George Benkel said...

Jet fuel from WTC 1 and 2 flowed out at 90 degree angle, burned through the roof of a neighboring building? The voids are too big for elevator shafts. Jet fuel has now been used for all demolitions since 911! It's true, I made that up just now ;)

George Benkel said...

WTC 7 simply fell over as a result of damage and subsequent fires.

This was NOT a Bengali Factory or a Cairo flophouse!

The Windsor Tower Fire in Madrid Spain: It was gutted by a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed; it has since been demolished. WHY DID THIS BUILDING NOT COLLAPSE IMMEDIATELY?

expat said...

No, George, the top half of a 110-story skyscraper fell on the building, destroying it.

Who says the voids are too big to be elevator shafts? Modern high-rise office buildings have dozens of elevators.

GFP2216 said...

Isn't most of the structural integrity and weight-bearing structural materials found near the outer edges of the building? Why wouldn't you expect void areas in the middle where there was likely less support?

Another question. Where does Wood's directed energy fit into the First Law of Thermodynamics if it doesn't ultimately manifest as kinetic energy? She said the towers weren't taken down by kinetic or thermal energy, with thermal energy really just being a form of kinetic energy.

carol said...

Page 202 Darlings....
Yes, my friends, thats where you will see a large color photo ....in Dr. Judy Wood's book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
Its the exact same photo you, in your above article, claim Dr. Wood wants to pretend doesnt exist. Now...if you purchase her book, you will find out WHY she includes it. Im telling you, you will find the reason FASCINATING.

George Benkel said...

Those would be heaps of debris, not clean cut holes. Why does all the steel look rusted as hell?

Anonymous said...

At least she schooled Snoory on logic. She may be wrong, but her lesson on epistemology should have been heeded by George. In spite of the total woo, she did explain to George at least twice, the method of epistemology...What I do not get is why she still is promoting something that is obviously incorrect. I guess she needs the money...

Binaryspellbook said...

I am not now nor ever have been convinced by the official building 7 explanation. And no I haven't been listening to too much Alex Jones :-)

Something just doesn't sit right with me. I've seen buildings burning far worse than that and not simply fall.

Anonymous said...

....Now I understand why building 7 blew itself up and neatly tumbled down upon its own footprint....out of utter depression...its last thoughts must have been something like...."what the hell....anything goes nowadays...I'm off"

Adrian

Anonymous said...


expat said: "........ Building 7, which simply fell over as a result of damage and subsequent fires. ...."

Really...you don't get out much do you? I mean go out and do some research as well contrary to writing of the shelve remarks for personal effect.

fell over...???? as a result of damage and subsequent fires?????

Hilarious!!!!

there is enough research material "out there" to see that no building fell over. They fell on their own footprint with a certain speed. And that speed is a "dead give away" if you do the simple math on that :-)

Adrian

carol said...

You are CORRECT George Benkel. The still present fumes in the photograph indicate the Towers had recently dustified away across the Manhattan skyline(check the satellite photos).
So, if the towers had caused the huge scooped holes in WT6 by collateral damage, we would NOT see holes...we would see 110 floors of debris stacked on top of the building.

Dee said...

Binaryspelbook: "I've seen buildings burning far worse than that and not simply fall."

There are a few factors, in my understanding:

1. those buildings probably were not constructed the same way in terms of load distribution mechanisms or had comparable fires or spreading patterns

2. most fires start at one or perhaps two places and spread from there with some well defined pace. The WTC7 fires started at many places, multiple floors at the same time with rapidly increasing intensity in many cases.

3. most building fires are controlled to a certain extent, even when the building is being given up while the main fire spreads (as "controlled" burn). The WTC7 fire crew was undermanned and the usual ways to fight the multiple fires were severely limited with all that was going on next doors, with the piping, water reservoirs etc. While there was no jet fuel and thus smaller fires, without being able to put them out, the fires became as uncontrolled as in WTC 1 & 2.

So the collapse of WTC7 can serve as actually a big clue about the fate of WTC1 and WTC2 as well: rapid spreading, multiple fires out of control, weakening the structure but not enough in itself to have any collapse. But extreme "non-uniform" distribution of temperatures added significant stress which caused the load distribution mechanisms of the design to fail much faster. This was not foreseen in the designs.

For this reason many of the lessons learned were centered around better fire-proofing the steel, slowing down multiple spreading, better detection and addressing the potential lack of resources in any tall building.

For me personally, this explanation combined with all the publicized research makes a lot of sense. It's still the simplest best documented explanation. No need for exotic weapons or major explosives. And while I could accept an alternative theory, some hard evidence is needed of any weapons, people involved and motive. All of which remain extremely meager although not beyond speculation IMHO. But then the most reasonable explanation always wins for me.

Dee

trainedobserver said...

The adage, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," applies doubly so to woo-woo. When all you have is pseudo-science and a persistent case of cognitive bias to work with, all you get are death rays and the violation of the laws of physics and common sense.

expat said...

From the official NIST report:

"Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors — 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 — burned out of control. These lower-floor fires — which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed — were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began. "

GFP2216 said...

Another reason I would suggest for more damage in the middle, apart from presumably having less support and construction materials than the edges, would be the heat of the fires. All the wood interior construction, furniture, papers, etc. had hours to carbonize while they burned in an oxygen starved environment, as evidenced by the black smoke. This produces charcoal. Charcoal was used before coal and coke to manufacture steel. As windows broke and areas of the building became exposed, I would expect oxygen to rush to the newly formed charred materials. With a sufficient amount of char, this would create intensely hot fires at the interior of the building.

The holes you see don't mean there's no debris. It just means the surrounding areas retain some of their structure. I can't tell from those photos how deep the voids are or how much material is stacked up underneath.

George Benkel said...

death rays?

Not necessarily. Are you aware that there is no Lower Limit on Nuke Explosions?

Dee said...

There's still a lot of interest in the exact mechanics of such fire spread. It's being said by some notable engineers that not even structural damages from the impacts were needed for the collapse but only the fires. And how much effort or prevention would be needed to contain the spread of such fires? A few years ago some professor set fire to a 24 stories building in Glasgow just to measure this process! Not sure anymore what his conclusions were but I think it appeared that it was not very predictable and certainly not calculable for each building design and its content. And as such many buildings are badly protected against unusual fires and/or lack of water supply.

And keep in mind that although we "common people" are amazed at the collapse itself, the biggest surprise of engineers was not that the WTC buildings came down, but how soon that already happened. That meant there was less time to put out some of the fires and prevent further thermal stress on its core structure.

bruce stevenson said...

I'd not really thought of it before I saw a video ( one eg. -http://youtu.be/73wK2eoCQVs) - actually four different videos from four different angles that made me think - what really happened? There was a couple of steel support beams left standing after the north tower went down and they first wavered then just turned to powder and fizzed downward. Steel doesn't do this to my knowledge. It changes color, it bends, and it melts. It has never been explained to me how this can happen. Do any of you knowledgable people have any logical explanation as to what could cause this to happen? There are many other strange things that come out in the many videos that are available but this one really puts a big question mark in front of the official story (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/911Report.pdf) for me.

Anonymous said...

Hey guys....

does the word gullible mean anything to you?

Really, I'm just saying....
How about the following:

If it feels like a controlled demolition....if it looks like a controlled demolition....if it sounds like a controlled demolition....and if it flows [molten steel] like a controlled demolition...

then the logical conclusion is naturally due to spontaneous spreading fires.

Suggestion: please provide the page numbers in the NIST report showing ALL the eyewitness accounts, trained and untrained, concerning explosions.

Then and only then we could have an interesting discussion in relation to the cause of these "collapses"

On a personal note as a mechanical engineer: I find it stunning, to put it mildly, that some people hide behind science and laws of physics to uphold the mainstream politically correct version of this horrible event.

Cherrypicking from the laws of physics and mechanical engineering is not very scientific now is it? It is simply political motivated "research"

It is almost like Mike Bara saying that the increased levels of radiation in some cluster bombed areas of Iraq is due to normal background radiation. Obviously it was not normal before.

Adrian

expat said...

Bruce: The "spire" left a trail of dust -- probably gypsum from drywall -- as it fell. That's all.

Anonymous said...

Armchair critics are a dime a dozen and their uninformed opinions are meaningless. If you are worthy and willing to learn the truth, read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? as I have instead of wasting your time debating nonsense.

http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

Dee said...

AC1: "If it feels like a controlled demolition....if it looks like a controlled demolition....if it sounds like a controlled demolition....and if it flows [molten steel] like a controlled demolition..."

But it really felt, looked and sounded like a lot of fires going on. Which happens to be what many (not all but many) experts argue and CALCULATED to have been enough for vertical collapses. One cannot just brush this all away as it remains the number one explanation without too many added complications. That is important for sanity!

Science and technology is not about deriving conclusions from how things "look like" or "quack" at face value. I mean, do you know what "gullible" means? Reasoning by emotion, fear, feelings, guesses, desire for mystery or shock, and so on.

AC2: "Armchair critics are a dime a dozen...if you are worthy and willing to learn the truth..."

But Judy IS the armchair critic with zero background or experience on the matter of skyscraper design, collapses or large scale building fires. Not the person I'd really go to if I want to be educated on 9/11. It's like asking a tree doctor for the final view on large scale forestation projects and logging industry.

GFP2216 said...

It didn't look like a controlled demolition to me. It looked like what would happen when the full weight of 20 and 30 story buildings with a one acre footprint fell straight down onto 80 and 90 story buildings, causing all the supporting structures to simultaneously overload and fail floor by floor as it fell. The force vector was down. There was no lateral force. The falling mass of the upper buildings was much greater than anything you've ever seen in a demolition. Between the the incredible mass of the falling material, the large footprint in comparison to the height of a floor, and the speed of the collapse, any tilt wouldn't have mattered because all the force was directed straight down.

George Benkel said...

The falling mass of the upper buildings was much greater than anything you've ever seen in a demolition??
Steel only gets weak at a very high temperature. That is why Stoves don't melt when you use them. They glow red and orange but they still support the weight of whatever is on it!

expat said...

I think we all knew that, George.

Bill Belcher said...

Steal can go 'soft' lowering its yield point at around 550+ Degrees C. Therefore any steal beam under excessive load subjected to that temp which is not particularly hot will give way, ie bend before fracturing at its UTS point. No stoves don't melt but you can't compare a load on a stove to a steal support i -beam under extreme load, we are talking thosands of tonnes here.

Dee said...

George: "They glow red and orange but they still support the weight of whatever is on it!"

That's true to some degree [pun intended] but added to the weakening of the steel there's also the thermal stress created when you heat some parts of a large structure while cooling others. This is why multiple fires especially over multiple floors, and the speed of spreading are genereally seen as crucial factors when it comes to understanding the combined stress problem.

Anonymous said...

show the page numbers in the NIST report please of ALL the eyewitness accounts, trained and untrained, concerning the explosions

@GFP2216 there is no such thing as simultaneous overload and simultaneous failure in mechanical and structural engineering. really, if your arguments where sound....all the engineers involved in design and development of the mentioned buildings much have been barking mad, drunk beyond sanity or simply certified incompetent for constructing contraptions with build in simultaneous failure guarantee.

@Dee.... So...if visual documentation show streams of molten steel...then I guess within the realm of your understanding and use of science this can best be explained as visual impaired observation :-) it looks like molten steel...but hey...that's not scientific according to your interpretation of science is it.

Again, laws of science and mechanical engineering are pretty straight forward. We know what molten steel looks like because..yes..because we know how to melt steel and we know the processes and mechanics behind it.
Furthermore...we also know how to cut steel beams under an angle of 45degrees for example by various means. So if the rubble of steel shows a variety of beams neatly "cut" at the same angle....does that generate a clue as to why the towers fell so quickly and fast?

@Bill Belcher...Tensile strength is a different ballgame then compressive strength and can yield "rather" different values :-) meaning much higher

question...do you think that some of the main construction principles in these buildings where based on tensile strength or compressive strength?

Adrian


Anonymous said...

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.

She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise.

In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain.

What are your qualification? What have you done?

expat said...

>>What are your qualification? What have you done? <<

Are you asking me? If so, no dice. I'm very guarded about making my résumé public, and I certainly would not list my accomplishments for the benefit of an anonymous inquirer.

trainedobserver said...

Even the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" don't buy Judy Wood's "Directed Energy Weapons" explanation. One of the best things I've seen that dispels Wood's claims can be found by googling "Dr Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood UNEDITED."

Dee said...

"What are your qualification? What have you done?"

...asked "Mr/Mrs Anonymous"! :-)

And thanks for agreeing with my point that any expertise on materials science, image analysis and interferometry has indeed little to do with skyscraper design, collapses, demolition or large scale building fires. Let alone ground preparation and clean-up of poison top soil (since she did notice dirt being rotated).

Also nearly the definition of armchair research is "forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips" (which could fill nearly one website these days).

Signed, Dr. J. Dee, mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, imperialist and adviser to the Queen.

GFP2216 said...

@anonymous "there is no such thing as simultaneous overload and simultaneous failure in mechanical and structural engineering."

Please explain why you believe this is so? Mechanical engineers study mechanics of materials so they can optimize the load bearing capacities of column and beam structures in order to minimize material requirements and maximize space. They then apply safety factors. However, if an impulsive force sufficiently large to overcome the loading capacity is applied to the structure, how could it resist collapse? If a sufficient portion of the supporting structure is overloaded and fails, how could the rest of the structure resist becoming overloaded as well? I don't think the steel superstructure was designed to have a 20 or 30 story building dropped on top of it. Please help me understand the flaw in my logic.

expat said...

While you're thinking about that, you might also explain how a huge cloud of dust could knock down three other high-rise buildings, create so many fires in another that it fell over later the same day, and damage another building so severely that it had to be demolished later.

Bill Belcher said...

Hi Expat,
This thread seems to have attracted a lot of comments, this could jog memories

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home


http://youtu.be/ZsDn6es7mtk NASA scientist Ryan Mackey explains the maths and physics of the buildings collapse of 9/11

Anonymous said...

@GFP2216 'Please explain why you believe this is so?'

No problem.

there is no such thing as simultaneous overload and simultaneous failure in mechanical and structural engineering BECAUSE structures are designed and build just to prevent such a thing from happening. the degree of "over-engineering" depends on safety and duration spec's such as storm resistance, water/snow resistance, electromagnetic resistance, earthquake resistance the power to withstand an impact from a Boeing or two, resistance to weathering and so on

OOOOhhhh there you go....the aforementioned spec's concerning the buildings in NY had the Boeing resistance spec's build in to it. Now...that is funny is it not. So the engineers involved where not barking mad and drunk beyond sanity or certified incompetent.

Anyway and so.... in general terms, if there is a force greater then accounted for by the spec's....then there might be failure, yes. BUT this failure will never result in simultaneous overload and structural failure of the entire structure. There might be a cascading effect of failure yes, but again it will never be simultaneous.

If the aforementioned force is great in terms of the extreme, let's say a nuclear explosion, the cascading effect would also be great, fast and extreme but nonetheless a cascading effect.

so...an of the shelve reaction is of course "that is exactly what "we saw" happening to three of the buildings".....okay...yes...but again it does not support in anyway the argument of simultaneous overload and failure of the mechanical structure.

So as you can see belief has nothing to do with it and therefore we are back to square one namely;

what caused the very and highly unusual, quick and speedy cascading effect of failure in the mechanical structure of these buildings???

maybe the page numbers of the NIST report of ALL the eyewitness accounts, trained and untrained, concerning the explosions might offer a first clue or two :-)

Adrian

and by the way...if you had read my comments here on the subject....I mentioned that I am a mechanical engineer so I know what "they" study :-) no pun intended

Dee said...

Adrian: "BECAUSE structures are designed and build just to prevent such a thing from happening."

Designed only with that intention Adrian. Did you do actual engineering work in your life? New insights are generated all the time in nearly every field. Large errors and faults are the standard, over time, not the exception.

The overload in the case of WTC was mostly, if not all, connected to various thermal effects changing the load capacity and stability. It's not that difficult to calculate the stress caused by thermal differences at both ends of a connect and then add that to the overall weakening already caused by heat. The buildings could easily withstand impact damage and a fire. They just weren't designed for the fires developing with that speed and that spread. In hindsight.

This is now corrected for in new designs and old constructs are being modified, fireproofed and procedures changed to handle similar fire spreads as we speak. Read some engineering journals for details: the world moved on!

Another thing you don't seem to realize: these buildings were NOT designed to withstand large fires for ever. Just for a few hours longer than experienced here. But flame spread is not a topic well understood at all and a lot of assumptions must be made every time. The reason people like prof. Jose Torero still try to get to the exact science of it and burns down buildings just to find out.

Frightening perhaps, that cascading failures occur all the time? And then we learn.

Dee

trainedobserver said...

If we were to compare Judy Wood with the emBARAssment and gauge which is more disconcerting vs entertaining, I think the scales tip in Judy's favor, or disfavor depending on how you look at it. Judy appears to actually believe that huge buildings, or portions of them, were disintegrated into "nano-dust" by a secret super-weapon while the other seems to be primarily playing to his audience and giving them what they want to hear in an absurdity laden mockumentary type of fashion, while laughing all the way to the bank. I could be wrong, he could actually believe his own b.s., but somehow I doubt it.

GFP2216 said...

Thanks for elaborating, Adrian. I'm not sure we entirely disagree. I specified that I was speaking of failure floor by floor (using the term floor rather loosely), with the structures on a floor effectively being overloaded simultaneously leading to the appearance of a controlled demolition. This I think is the same as your cascading collapse. Perhaps the way I expressed it was ambiguous.

I also completed a degree program in mechanical engineering but I don't work in the field and have little experience with building structures and regulations, so I will defer to your knowledge in that area. I do have some knowledge of forces, materials, combustion, and thermodynamics, however, and do not believe the destruction of the towers was anything other than it appeared.

That's not to say I don't question the evidence the government presents for Al Qaeda being the perpetrators.

Anonymous said...

@Dee...the queens trusted astrologer

"Frightening perhaps, that cascading failures occur all the time? And then we learn"

Interesting :-) how you used my arguments to camouflage the flaws in your proposed arguments on which I reflected. In some parts of our world it is in general considered childish and/or silly and/or rude if people continuously dodge and/or deviate from the actual argument(s) and/or question(s) at hand. By the same token it is also considered childish and/or silly and/or rude to ask questions irrelevant to the actual argument(s).

So if that is the game plan then why bother :-)

@GFP2216

well if I follow the reasoning stated in your reply then yes...one could argue that the total collapse of three seperate buildings was due the so called proposed"pancaking" of the floors caused initially by damage the two plains created etc etc.

the underlying question still remains wether plains, pigs, locomotives, truckloads or whatever are thrown at it ;-)

what caused the cascading of failure the way it did?? Especially when one takes into consideration that the two towers where engineered to withstand such a thing. And even if, and that is a big if, the calculations proofed to be "wrong" because we "saw" plains did destroy the towers....that also would be a very partial conclusion. Even then the question remains the same...what caused the fast and speedily cascading.

Adrian



Dee said...

Adrian "In some parts of our world it is in general considered childish and/or silly and/or rude if people continuously dodge and/or deviate from the actual argument(s) and/or question(s) at hand."

Apparently that's only the case on your amazing planet where buildings never collapse from fires! You're confusing that being "engineered to withstand it" actually means "cannot fail under any circumstance".

The "withstanding" always assumes here a certain context of fire fighting like flame spread delay and heat transference. You are leaving out that whole context and then have to arrive at absurd conclusions, some "magic", exotic explosives or perhaps even "directed energy beams". But you have to start at the wrong idea at the start leading you on such path. Check out dr Jose Torero's work. Or is that outside the scope you're willing to research? Or even address? And then I'm the one deflecting...? :-) Nice way of reversing the tables on every form of fundamental critique..

Dee

Anonymous said...

The thermite or micro-nuke bandwagon is an excellent demonstration of just how easy it is to herd public opinion. Magicians don't need to lie; they just need to charm the audience into making wrong assumptions and the audience will generate the lies themselves. The lies don't need to last forever. They only need to last until it is too late to undo things and see more clearly. The simple fact, validated by the almost complete lack of commensurate debris on the ground, indicates that the buildings went up, they did not come down. Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover the truth on your own.

Dr. Wood's book is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page book about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood's book has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of "9/11 Truthers" verses "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.

It wasn't poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.

The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or "belief". Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood's research and collection of evidence as compiled in her book the truth is known, so there is no need to "Re-investigate 9/11" or "call for a new investigation" unless the objective is to divert everyone away from the truth. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her book. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people? This isn't about beliefs, it is about evidence.

Now those that have read her book know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up expat?

expat said...

Anon: I allowed your post but -- for the second time -- it promotes a commercial product and I don't want this blog used for that purpose. Contentious comments arguing against my own point of view are perfectly welcome here but not book-hype. Be warned.

Nothing need be done about a cover-up because nobody has shown to my satisfaction that there is a cover-up. Dr Wood's contention is seriously flawed and it must never be forgotten that, in filing the qui tam petition, she stood to rake in millions of dollars.

I personally find this document more persuasive than Wood's protests.

expat said...

[Post from Anonymous disallowed because it once again promoted a commercial product. In part it read "I regret exposing myself to your steadfast ignorance and will refrain from confronting you with the truth. I hope the rest of your life is not as miserable as it appears now."]

Dee said...

I think he means you should put up an happier looking avatar, Expat! :-)

Anonymous said...

Expat: The whole time that Judy was on C2C, I kept expecting someone to ask her about the amount of energy required for her scenario....It dawned on me that it would be a huge number, maybe more than the entire planetary output...Your link confirms this...I would sooner believe that ancient Egyptians did this with chants, rather than her Deus ex Machina solution.

expat said...

Dee: For a while I used a pic of me on vacation, glass of albariño in hand, wearing an England cricket team cap. Then somebody said I looked like a child-molester so I switched.

Anonymous said...

have you seen the latest news:

Tremendous layoff's and reorganizations in the demolition industry world wide.

According to spokesmen of these companies they will not bother employment of demolition experts and assistance crew any longer who normally work for weeks on just one building in order to prepare it for that explosive moment complete demolition.

for future demolition jobs on buildings of any size and structure they will use volunteers to set random fires at their leisure. It has been proven to be a very very effective way in bringing buildings down in the way we did it in the past.

Although the end result may take some hours, the effect is exactly the same in comparison to previous methods we've used according to these spokesmen. Workloads are immensely reduced to just half a day maximum, so the revenues will be accordingly.
Not to mention the fact that we do not have to bother with strict safety regulations anymore.

Shares went almost through the roof minutes after publication of this news.

Adrian




expat said...

Adrian: Very good news. Presumably this new efficient demo technique also involves clouting the buildings with 80-tonne sections of steel I-bar, dropped from nearby buildings from a height of 400 meters or so.

Dee said...

Nice try at some cynicism, Adrian, but there's a big difference between controlled demolitions and uncontrolled ones. The uncontrolled ones, for example collapses caused by fires (fires being uncontrollable by the nature it) would be generally dangerous, often highly polluting and most importantly quite unpredictable and as such fundamentally uncontrollable.

For example a fast spreading fire from multiple sources might weaken in some situations a steel structure to the state of "near collapse" but that would still be useless as the point of controlled demolition by explosives is doing the job guaranteed and timely. Each and every time.

Actually nearly everything in structural engineering is about prediction, control and known margins. You being an engineer should know all this, Adrian. And therefore it would be obvious even to you why fires would never be used to demolish buildings, even if they would affect every building in the same way - which they don't - while explosives on the right places always will. And not to mention even the obvious environmental risk of larger fires.

Truth is, yes, after this learning experience one could argue steel framed building might indeed be demolished fairly quickly by starting fires in them by smacking 10,000 gallons of fuel over them and/or letting it burn on multiple floors for hours longer than certified or protected for (considering the state of fire proofing present affecting spread rate). But it's a very costly, ineffective and dangerous way to do it.

Dee

expat said...

Oh by the way Adrian, it would presumably assist the demo operations if 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel could be moved into the building, to simulate the conditions of WTC-7. The NYC emergency management authority kept it stockpile there at the time of the attacks.

Dee said...

Expat, I don't think that fuel was seen as relevant eventually. From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update):

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.


Also according to that page, most fuel was in the end "recovered" (don't ask me how). However there would have been enough material serving as excellent fuel when the fire reached a certain threshold temperature and size. It seems that starting a fire at ten floors at once through debris impacts might have been the crucial element here (and left six floors burning uncontrolled). Makes you wonder what the difference is between an airliner hitting such type of building or just a lot of debris (which might have been highly kinetic though during collapse of the first two).

Bruce said...

I can't buy into agreeing with the "experts" that claim to have calculated that there was enough downward force to generate a complete vertical collapse. Each floor underneath the 20 or 30 stories above the initial fires in buildings 1 and 2 had minimal damage as the fires hadn't reached them. Regardless of how big of a pile driver was applied to these 80 or 90 intact floors the "fall time" should have been significantly higher when compared to the fall time if these floors were not intact.
I wonder what the total shear strength of each of these undamaged lower floors was at their attachment points to the upright support beams. I'd think there would be a calculation that would estimate how much time it would take to shear off each intact floor based on the falling material weight and speed (not including the massive amount of material that went sideways and up). I'm sure if this could be calculated and the answer totaled up to be a total of zero time, explaining how the buildings came down would be easier. I seriously doubt if the total time shearing off these 80 to 90 floors would be near zero which would indicate that these lower floors were not intact (due to some untold external force) as the buildings came down.

Science and technology are constantly evolving with new discoveries being made every day. Why shouldn't we question something that just doesn't look right only because it doesn't agree with one of our known established "laws of nature". If we thought along those lines we would still think our world was flat or we would be using DC power distributed to our homes and businesses instead of AC. Open minds are the key to finding the real story. Preconceived notions lead us down a path that all of the lemmings and sheeple follow. I choose not to follow that path.

I have never heard or read anything about Judy Wood claiming to be an expert on how skyscrapers are designed. I think she is, however, very experienced in mechanical engineering and with materials and how they react when stressed. These areas of knowledge play a big part in determining what actually happened (or didn't happen) to the towers. The designers of the towers designed them to withstand airliner crashes into them. If the plane crashes and destruction of the buildings were related directly then the skyscraper designers didn't do the job that they said they did and I would question their capacity as being called "experts".

I don't know why there is so much animosity within these groups. I think we are all seeking the same thing -"what really happened that day and who was responsible". As Rodney King once said "Can we all get along?".

Anonymous said...

@expat and dee

:-) I believe you are missing the point :-)

Adrian

expat said...

Thanks for your contribution, Bruce. I have a feeling that the calculation you suggest has in fact been done, but I haven't the time to research it today.

As to that famous "open mind," I approached Judy Wood's proposition with an open mind and found it to be nonsensical. What would be the point of continuing to have an "open mind"?

As to the animosity between sub-groups of truthers, it's the same thing with the UFO community. Human nature.

trainedobserver said...

Bara made a appearance on the Fade to Black podcast that can be found by searching for "Ep.124 FADE to BLACK Jimmy Church FADERNIGHT 9-11 Open-Lines Mike Bara LIVE on air" on youTube. He (in his role as an "Aircraft Structural Engineer") argues with callers against the controlled demolition theory and may provide a rare opportunity for the regular readers of this forum to agree with him about something.

James Concannon said...

I listened to some of that, loved the Youtube comments (e.g. "Well, it is easy to understand why Bara isn't married any more. What an arrogant, yelling, ranting buffoon.")

Amazing how he can behave like an asshole even when he's right.

Dee said...

Bruce: "...then the skyscraper designers didn't do the job that they said they did and I would question their capacity as being called experts".

In real life where engineers, experts and architects do actual work, big mistakes are being made and corrected afterwards all the time. Sadly enough sometimes against a steep price and the question is then "could it have been foreseen?". And in those cases damages will be payed (e.g. recent BP oil spill). The real world discussions you might have missed in the aftermath of 9/11 (or any real world project or operation were something went terribly wrong; make your own list). In the case of WTC-7 it was accepted that it couldn't have been foreseen although the dispute lasted some years: Court Rules Negligence Didn’t Cause World Trade Center 7 To Fall On 9/11: "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001".

Of course feel free to dismiss the neutrality of federal courts as means to dispute evidence and call experts witnesses with all the money at stake here. But here's where you normally fight over your real world disputes, not just in easier books and blogs. If this process would be corrupted at the core (and that question can be asked) what would you be able to trust any more in your country to ever to be found out or settled? This might be an example where you could see where faulty assumptions would lead you to increasingly insane follow-ups.

----

Adrian, sometimes it's better to miss a point than having never had one to start with.

Anonymous said...

"I am an aircraft structural engineer."
-Mike Bara on Fade to Black.

"How many times can people say things that are simply not true?" -Mike Bara on Fade to Black.

"The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) states that aerospace structural engineers working for the public must be licensed. Requirements generally include completing an accredited bachelor's degree program, accruing four years of work experience and passing two state examinations. Fundamentals of Engineering (FE), the first exam, may be taken after graduating from college. Engineers are eligible to take the second exam, Principles and Practice of Engineering, after gaining the sufficient work experience.
Licensed engineers may need to participate in continuing education. Depending on the state, this may include completing college-level coursework, attending educational seminars and publishing research papers. Additionally, employers may require applicants to go through a security clearance process that generally consists of a background investigation and drug test." -http://education-portal.com/



expat said...

"I am an aircraft structural engineer."
-Mike Bara on Fade to Black.

Mike didn't even complete the first step: getting a bachelor's degree.

"How many times can people say things that are simply not true?" -Mike Bara on Fade to Black.

How many times has he said that the Brookings Report told NASA to keep quiet about extraterrestrial intelligence? IT'S NOT TRUE.

How many times has he said that an unusual number of mid-course corrections was needed to get Apollo 13 home? IT'S NOT TRUE.

How many times has he said that James Webb was the first NASA Administrator? IT'S NOT TRUE.

etc. etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

@ dee

concerning - "Adrian, sometimes it's better to miss a point than having never had one to start with."

I suggest you just keep on riding your high horse and troll along dismissing and ignoring every valid question in order to keep your view on things in order based on the "do not bother me with contradictions and valid questions for I hold the truth from start to finish"

It seems that you hold all the bachelor degrees there are on the subject of common sense.
Well, here comes a newsflash for you....nobody needs any degree in common sense and or the legitimacy asking sound and logical questions and or having valid points :-)

Speaking of which: please provide the page numbers in the NIST report where we can read about all the witness accounts concerning all the explosions on that fateful day? If you can't answer this question please provide a reason why not?

Thusfar you have ignored this question several times so it is considered arrogant to some extend to argue that someone didn't had a point from the start while ignoring provided questions with a point from that same start :-)

So...are you willing and able to have a real argument by answering this simple common sense question which can be followed by many more or will you continue to troll and keep a high voice in singing from the official party line songsheet?

Adrian

Anonymous said...

@dee part 1 (due to maximum amount of characters allowed :-)

concerning "If this process would be corrupted at the core (and that question can be asked) what would you be able to trust any more in your country to ever to be found out or settled"

very sound and good questions!!! So lets ask some of those questions then in the form of "a few examples" for you to ponder on whilst riding your high horse. Mind you this is just a very short list refuting your

"Of course feel free to dismiss the neutrality of federal courts as means to dispute evidence and call experts witnesses with all the money at stake here. But here's where you normally fight over your real world disputes"

If one leaves some cards of the table in order to prove a point or two....it really is not..it's simply talking down on people....so here are a few examples to illuminate this

realities that never existed until

- Tuskegee Syphilis Study ongoing from 1932 to 1972 knowingly killed hundreds of low-income African American men. U.S. Public Health Service wanted to experiment with the effects of untreated syphilis. Low-income African American men were lured into study with promise of free health care. Instead they were intentionally lied to and given placebo treatments. Even when they could have easily been saved by penicillin they were left to die for the benefit of the syphilis study program. Tuskegee Syphilis Study Source

- Human Radiation Experiments.1944 to 1974. In 1995 the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments reported that over a 30-year period, the government sponsored, through several different agencies, thousands of human radiation experiments and several hundred intentional releases of radiation. To the question of whether similar abuses could occur again, particularly in the case of intentional releases, the committee gives “a qualified yes.” It notes that some agencies can still invoke national security considerations to waive consent requirements, that agencies are often responsible for their own oversight, and that environmental impact statements relating to classified projects are not available for public scrutiny.

- The 1945 Operation Paperclip, the extraction of top Nazi scientists to the US. … the Nazi Intelligence leader Reinhard Gehlen met with the CIA director Allen Dulles. Dulles and Gehlen hit it off immediatly. Gehlen was a master spy for the Nazis and had infiltrated Russia with his vast Nazi Intelligence network. Dulles promised Gehlen that his Intelligence unit was safe in the CIA. As promised, Allen Dulles delivered the Nazi Intelligence unit to the CIA, which later opened many umbrella projects stemming from Nazi mad research. (MK-ULTRA / ARTICHOKE, OPERATION MIDNIGHT CLIMAX) Military Intelligence “cleansed” the files of Nazi references. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the U.S. and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. Many had been longtime members of the Nazi party and the Gestapo, had conducted experiments on humans at concentration camps, had used slave labor, and had committed other war crimes

continues in part 2

Adrian

Anonymous said...

@dee part 2 (due to maximum amount of characters allowed :-)

- MKULTRA is a CIA experiment where drugs were given to Americans without their knowledge or consent. This involved giving LSD, marijuana, barbiturates, heroine, mescaline, alcohol and more to unsuspecting people. … started in 1950 to study mind control and behavior modification. In 1973 Richard Helms head of the CIA deliberately destroyed all the records. MKULTRA Source

- Operation Mockingbird was a CIA project created to control the domestic and foreign media [beginning in the 1950s.] They bribed well-known writers and journalists to write … slanted propaganda. The goal was primarily to bribe writers to write about the dangers of communism and suppress any left wing political writing. In 1976 George H.W. Bush the new director of the CIA announced that this activity will stop but they would welcome the voluntary unpaid cooperation of writers. Operation Mockingbird Source

- Project SHAD was created by the United States Department of Defense in 1962. They intentionally exposed military personnel with biological and chemical agents on 46 different occasions. This was done without the military personnel knowledge or consent. They wanted to experiment on how soldiers can be exposed to dangerous chemicals and continue to fight. This testing was conducted from 1962-1973. The Department of Defense refused to admit SHAD existed until 1998. Project SHAD Source

- Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to “develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington”. This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

- The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 4, 1964, the US government lied about war ships engaging North Vietnamese vessels in combat. In 2005, an official NSA declassified report stated. “[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night.” The Gulf of Tonkin Incident prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Southeast Asia.

- The Watergate scandals 1972 to 1974 during the presidency of Richard Nixon resulted in the indictment of several of Nixon’s closest advisors and ultimately his resignation on August 9, 1974. The scandal revealed the existence of a White House dirty tricks squad, which was behind an orchestrated campaign of political sabotage, an enemies list, a “plumbers” unit to plug political leaks and a secret campaign slush fund associated with CRP, all with high-level administration involvement. It brought into the open the involvement of Attorney General John N. Mitchell in the dirty tricks, funds and cover-up, as well as key White House advisers, all of whom went to prison for these crimes, for sentences of one to four years.

and so we could go on for hours on end...

Adrian

GFP2216 said...

I thought we were debating the plausibility of 130 to 140 tonne aircraft loaded with 30 tonnes of fuel and traveling at 500 miles per hour taking out buildings filled with combustible materials after punching a seven story tall ventilating hole in the side, damaging supports, and starting fires throughout VERSUS said aircraft not having any affect on the building but instead directed energy weapons, demolition teams wiring up a complex while unnoticed by 50 000 employees, or an impractically small radiation-free nuke doing the job.

I believe Dee is the only one here who has actually referenced empirical evidence regarding the affects of widely distributed fires on steel structures. It seems to me Dee is more on point than anyone else.

I don't think we're debating the corruption of elements in the government or any knowledge or participation they may or may not have had in the 911 attacks. Honestly, all these debunked arguments do is make anyone who has legitimate questions about the government's foreknowledge or their evidence for al-Qaeda's sole involvement look crazy. But maybe that's the point.

GFP2216 said...

Sorry, I was reading something about the usage of 'affect' and 'effect' yesterday, and somehow it reversed their meaning in my mind. I know that combined with my style it makes understanding my previous post a little difficult.

Dee said...

Adrian, none of your well known examples illustrate the likelihood of a government or technological advanced organization destroying their own landmark buildings and killing some their best and brightest just to influence politics or perform an experiment. Or at least that's how I interpreted your list, as how to make ones own government seem more likely to be involved. However, there's a long list of known events where foreign or local marginalized groups have attempted to destroy landmark buildings or killing normal citizens from an enemy to influence global politics.

Here's a starter: 1993 Bombay bombings, 2004 Madrid train bombings, 1995 Paris Métro, Russian apartment bombings, Boston Run, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, Moscow theater hostage crisis, Oklahoma City bombing...Or lets look at the failed WTC bombing in 1993 or various intercepted plots in various stages of execution for the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Brooklyn Bridge, stock exchanges nuclear plants. You see a pattern?

Al-Qaeda remains also a believable and capable suspect as their signature work involved already hijacking, simultaneous attacking and ambitious suicide missions. That was before 9/11.

The point is not that alternative explanations or motives could be ruled out completely but the point is that we don't need right now any more complex, darker and sinister explanation on how it was done and who are executing the plot, when a solid theory, background and evidence is already available and supported by many reasonably neutral researchers and courts. Questions can be still asked of course about the circumstance, possible foreknowledge or spy infiltration into the plot somewhere but that's not what's being discussed here right now.

Please don't think I wouldn't believe in government plots to get wars started. For example I do suspect the whole Middle East destabilization was planned or at least actively encouraged just as the one in Ukraine. Possibly by several parties for different reasons. But none of them would destroy their own city centers and citizens although sadly enough they would justify at some point bombing someone else's citizens. And it's still possible flight MH-17 might have been targeted by a rogue group on purpose. But also here a cover-up of mistakes is way more likely to execute than cover-up of mass murder. In that sense 9/11 might still have some cover-up of blunders or foreign involvement at some lower level.

This is also my largest beef perhaps with most 9/11 conspiracy theories. The size of operations, with all the unpredictable elements which needed to be controlled, would need a scale of cover-up that it becomes mind boggling. It becomes, to quote Expat, "a pathway to absurdity" fairly quickly. Only common sense and experience can stop one from engaging too far into this absurd line of thought. So my request is to please rethink your arguments again, Adrian. Don't think I haven't been there myself at some stage!

Dee

Dee said...

Afterthought to my previous post.

Operation Northwoods. This stunning example of devious plotting I didn't want to seen as brushing under the table. But while faking civilian airplane destruction and terrorist attack was clearly not off the table at the time, nothing in the document suggests some planning to harm any US citizen or damage any important US building. Even killing Cuban innocents seems to be avoided.

No matter how despicable those plans were and proving how far certain elements in the military wanted to go, it still pales in comparison with the long list of global terror attacks by non-governmental foreign organizations which actually have taken place. All very ruthless, often well organized and causing many causalities, panic and fear among the population, as they often were designed to be. And the motivation is there, the means and the opportunities.

So I don't necessarily dismiss the ability of even the US government to come up with deception and influencing public opinion with some staged event (Tonkin?). This was of course an important element of that now sufficiently discredited theory that the planes used on 9/11 were actually remotely operated drones without passengers.

What I did try to convey is that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that terrorists do organize complex plots to kill innocent people abroad. In that light just one dismissed US plan from 1962 just doesn't cut it as proposed counter-weight. And yet it should serve as a lesson that we cannot believe everything the government presents at face value either (e.g. Iraqi WMD). But luckily for the physics of the collapse of the WTC buildings we can rely on many sources unrelated to the government.

Anonymous said...

@Dee

interesting reply but you still did not answer the question :-] again :-]

Adrian

Anonymous said...


@GFP2216

" I believe Dee is the only one here who has actually referenced empirical evidence regarding the affects of widely distributed fires on steel structures. It seems to me Dee is more on point than anyone else."

it would be just as easy to refer to empirical evidence regarding the effects of a nuclear explosion on steel structures etc. etc.

How does that make somebody " on point" ?

Normally discussions such as these generally tend to go nowhere and you know why?

It is very easily and rapidly forgotten that if one beliefs or promotes an official explanation, the burden of proof is primarily on the believer / promoter and certainly not vice versa.

making or stating references is not the same as proving.

from the horrible events came forth so called official reports explaining the how and why it happened as it happened.

if in these reports one can find omissions, contradictions, flat out lies, and more omissions and faulty assumptions then in fact the whole thing can and should be written of as a classic bamboozle.

the aforementioned reports are like a piece of Swiss cheese with lots of holes in it. Ignoring these holes and ignoring questions as to why there are so many holes in the story is key and essential if one wants to really get to the bottom of the story.

Discussions and arguments whether referenced or not are completely irrelevant and commonly used as a distraction to deviate from the real questions. It's always quite easy to lure people into "off-core" discussions in order to prevent core discussions. It's a lame trick mostly used in politics and journalism, lame but very effective and we have our history to proof how effective and deadly this can be.

Adrian



Dee said...

Adrian: "interesting reply but you still did not answer the question - again -"

What was that question again? So much came up in the mean time :-)

Or is this still about that "molten steel" which doesn't appear to have existed on site at all?

Anyway, your list of government wrong doings could be countered with another list a thousands times longer for every time justice and inquiries prevailed and wrong-doings were exposed within years. Through courts, journalism, many notable experts and asking the right questions.

The problem is, a list of past government transgressions has zero value as evidence of anything at all in this context. Scientific measurements and debate does have at least some value but you're not having any of it!

It's time to let this topic rest since the differences are deeply ideological and more about how and when to apply logic instead of innuendo or very circumstantial evidence. That's a gap not possible to bridge right now.

Take care -- Dee

GFP2216 said...

Agreed Dee.

I feel this is becoming a war of rhetoric rather than a debate regarding the scientific merit of various modes of building collapse. I will leave it alone as well and apologize that I didn't fully address all your comments, Adrian. Suffice it to say I haven't found sufficient evidence to convince me that Leslie Robertson of the WTC structural engineers used parameters that replicated 9/11 in his 707 aircraft impact study, that the NY Port Authority did any additional analysis, or that anybody considered the primary kerosene, secondary construction and office material, and tertiary carbonized wood fires resulting from a plane loaded with 30 tonnes of jet fuel. I would also like to note that these calculations would be difficult to perform today with a team of engineers and weeks of run time on a supercomputer, let alone in 1964 with one man and a slide rule.

Regards.

BBunsen said...

A significant amount of the comments here seem to be based on "I don't see how XYZ could happen, so obviously the 'official explanation' is a lie."

I believe that's called the argument from ignorance.