Ladies and Gentlemen,
My word, it does seems that my article yesterday about Nanny teaching children about selecting targets to bomb has caused something of a debate on the cause of the Twin Towers collapse.
Quite a large amount of name calling too!
Anyhoo, I have dug up a summary on the Channel 4 website covering their documentary on the Twin Towers collapse. Sorry folks, fire and impact were the cause.
I could not find a video link to the documentary. However, if anyone has such a link please could they send it to me and I will put it up on the site.
Please feel free to debate the issues to your hearts' content. However, please resist the urge to call each other twats etc; that special honour is reserved for Nanny and her lackeys.
Ken
Well Ken, thanks for this, and, as I stated before, it never ceases to amaze me just how much intimidation there is levelled to those who question the official explanation about 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI note your comments regarding the Channel 4 item. Well, many of my own thoughts and questions are not formed by TV presenters, they are formed by physicists and scientists, and I have a certain amount of difficulties in dislodging their arguments. That is why I am absolutely certain that there is far more to 9/11 than has been disclosed.
See the site run by university scholars in America "Scholars for Truth" at
http://www.st911.org
Prove the physics and maths wrong at
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
Tell me why the towers fell at the same speed as a stone would have fallen if someone had thrown it off the top of the towers a split second before they started their collapse. I wait with baited breath. If one would just care to stop and think about this, it defies the laws of physics. Suppose each lower floor took 1/2 a second to slow the floors above due to its momentum and structural resistance. Suppose even 50 floors had some (note the word some) strength left in them, that would prolong the the fall by nearly 1/2 a minute, but this simply did not happen. They fell with the same acceleration as a stone would, falling from the top floor.
Many of the arguments in support of the 'official' explanation comes from the 'Popular Mechanics" site. However, the arguments which demonstrate just how hollow the official explanation is can be found at the following site
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/
reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
Above all, and this is my own question, just where is the wreckage of all these planes? Atta's passport mysteriously flew through all the flames and destruction of the crash in one of the towers, fluttering to earth very conveniently so that an FBI officer could find it!! Of course, I forgot, the fires were so hot that the planes vapourised (although very brave firemen could get to many of the floors in the twin towers without being vapourised by the heat), and the steel in the towers completely melted after 45 minutes or so!!
Am I a nutjob?? No, I just raise some questions which no-one ever seems to be capable of answering.
And why am I concerned? Someone suggested that I pray to Mecca - no, far from it. But yours and my rights and freedoms have been taken away as a result of this so called "war on terror" - which came from the 9/11 atrocity. We have illegally invaded other countries because of it. We have draconian money laundering regulations introduced, detention without charge, police raids using something like 250 police officers, shootings of innocent people by the police etc etc.
Good afternoon,
ReplyDeleteScientists don't always get it right so I am not saying this is 100% irrefutable proof. But I think it's worth a look and perhaps indicates something a little fishy
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Good afternoon,
ReplyDeleteScientists don't always get it right so I am not saying this is 100% irrefutable proof. But I think it's worth a look and perhaps indicates something a little fishy
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
They're baaaack.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to take up too much space on Ken's site, but try this little experiment;
Next time you have a garden fire, toss an empty pop can in.Guess what, it burned away. Thats because Aluminium and its alloys is pyrophoric (it burns) particularly in thinnly divided sections like, oh I dont know, a shredded airliner?
But try it for yourself, dont quote sites with big words and no science.
Robert
See Ken, not a 'twat' in sight, aren't I good.
ReplyDeleteRobert
Guess what anon, throw a steel object into a garden fire, tell me what is left. I'd love to know.
ReplyDeleteNot all parts of an aircraft are constructed of aluminium.
Wow! eggy! Prof Jones has a job in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in Brigham Young University whereas you just seem to have an obnoxious attitude (Robert).
ReplyDeleteOK, steel melts if you heat it in a garden fire. This doesn't really address all the points raised in the article does it? Assuming you read it.
Oh, you didn't...
Well Spiv, yet again you fail to address what I said or I presume even try it. A chunk of steel will not burn oreven melt in a garden fire, but try some wire wool, you'll be amazed.
ReplyDeleteOh, and a prof with a degree in physics and astronomy doesnt sound to me like someone who would know a great deal about material science (me), metallurgy (me) or mechanical engineering (me).
I'll see your (theoretical)professor and raise you a couple of real engineers
Robert
Ahh... Robert, thanks for making it all clear in my mind, I'm eternally grateful to you.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that the steel in the twin towers was actually "wire wool".
Many thanks for that piece of information - all makes sense now.
Spiv,
ReplyDeleteI dont know if they told you at your special needs school, but sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit.
I guess someone who brings a Mormon Astrophysicist to a discussion on Mechanics and Structural Engineering needs all the breaks he can get though.
Do me a favour, Google on 'Pyrophoric Metals', its a fascinating subject and quite enlightening. After that, try 'Crash Fluid Dynamics'
Robert
Spiv,
ReplyDeleteI dont know if they told you at your special needs school, but sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit.
I guess someone who brings a Mormon Astrophysicist to a discussion on Mechanics and Structural Engineering needs all the breaks he can get though.
Do me a favour, Google on 'Pyrophoric Metals', its a fascinating subject and quite enlightening. After that, try 'Crash Fluid Dynamics'
Robert
Sorry Robert, my apologies. Maybe I misunderstood what you are implying. Is it the aircraft whose steel parts are made out of "wire wool"?
ReplyDeleteThe sort of aircraft parts made from "wire wool" (I see on the news pictures) which remain after an aircraft has ploughed into a mountainside?
Spiv,
ReplyDeleteDid I say aircraft are made from wire wool? No, cant find that bit. What I said was that it is quite surprising how many common metals actually burn up and leave only ash as a residue.
Since everyone knew that two planes had actually hit the towers, there was no big issueof seperating aircraft wreckage from office wreckage, no 'this is a girder segment, this is a piece of undercarriage'it all went to one site and the steel was sorted for scrap. Since the fires burned for weeks, I doubt if anything combustible remains, and there is not much to pick between a bit of copper from a phone lead and a bit from a plane control system.
When you think that very few complete bodies were ever recovered, you can see how little would be left. A plane is basically a hollow tube with a couple of wings pinned on, a great deal of damn all surrounded by a thin skin of alloy. Jet engines are composed of hollow sections, including that solid looking main shaft and the turbine blades and are as light as they can be made.
Run that into a building, set it alight and then crush the remains and i bet theres nothing bigger than a suitcase left.
Did you Google those sites? No you didn't, I knew you wouldn't.
Robert
I knew I had seen a photo of Robert's "wire wool".
ReplyDeleteLooks rather strange though, at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/
june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm
Scroll down to about 2/3 of the way down the page, to the image with the two firemen in front of the steel support.
Clearly melted by the jet fuel fire - or could that be explosives which has cut it so cleanly?? Hmmm... anyone??
Robert, there's no need to be so rude. If you know the correct version of events you are far more likely to make people see your point if you don't abuse them.
ReplyDeleteI for one did Google 'Pyrophoric Metals' and you have a very good point. I think others poo-pooing this are being too dogmatic as this could very well have caused the collapse.
Could you comment on this article please as this is something that stumps me?
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/ad2/index.html
I think though to get a real picture all the events need to be taken into account. Admittedly none are a smoking gun but things like so few frames of the pentagon strike being released and Larry Silverstein saying that he decided to pull the building need explaining.
Anyway, lets stop calling each other spastics and we may all be able to agree at some point. Ok, let's just keep it civil.
Those few frames of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon are now a film, released last month by the Government under their Freedom of Information legislation.
ReplyDeleteSee it at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/
americas/4987716.stm
The BBC article states "The footage serves as a graphic reminder of why the US launched its global "war on terror" and is still fighting it, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says"
Trouble is, can you see the plane?? I know that I'm old and feeble, and some of you think I'm a 'nutjob', but I've looked and looked and I still can't see one.
Hi everyone, just finally... Do Pyrophoric Metals explain the collapse of WTC7?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Spiv,
ReplyDelete"Trouble is, can you see the plane?? I know that I'm old and feeble, and some of you think I'm a 'nutjob', but I've looked and looked and I still can't see one."
Don't look for the airplane. Look for the blur. And then do the math:
* Flight 77 was traveling at between 300 and 400 knots when it hit the Pentagon. That's roughly 150-200 meters per second.
* The security cameras that recorded those videos look like they were capturing only a couple of frames per second.
* Thus the aircraft was traveling at least 100 meters per frame.
* A 757 has an overall length of only 50 meters.
* At a very rough guess, the camera's field of view at the range the aircraft crossed it was maybe a hundred meters. Perhaps a hundred and fifty. Hence the aircraft could have crossed the camera's entire field of view within the space of a single frame. Which matches what the video shows: the first still shows the nose of the plane just entering the frame, and the second shows the impact.
With those numbers, seeing even a blur is impressive.
OK Wolfwalker, then why does not the Government release the security video the FBI seized ten minutes after the impact which belonged to the petrol station across the road which had the impact area in its field of view? That would surely show the plane and put paid to any controversy for good. Very strange.
ReplyDeleteHow come, with all the oddities and questions (and there are far more than those few covered in this blog), which exist regarding these attacks, people are even still trying to defend the flawed official version of events.
It is becoming very clear that this atrocity was a ‘false flag’ attack, a sort of "Pearl Harbour" event, to get American public opinion to swing behind the American Government in order to invade, as per the neo-conservative plan drawn up in the preceding years, firstly Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran and then North Korea. Rumsfeld and Cheney are part of the neo-conservative group. Huge contracts have been awarded to Haliburton to rebuild Afghanistan, oh, guess who owns Haliburton - none other than our pal Dick Cheney!!
The administration wants to control the dwindling oil reserves and middle eastern governments. What better way than to turn western opinion against the Arabs. Now I already have a personal distaste of Islam, and if anyone wants better proof, then just take a look at this gallery, some of which is not pleasant viewing, so anyone of a nervous disposition should be warned (sound like Nanny now, don't I?).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm
So I am not trying to defend Islam, indeed far from it, but what I abhor - and want to see the truth come out one day - is the fact that our western Governments would lie to us, and worse. Blair clearly lied in his reasons to go to an illegal war in Iraq. Indeed, the BBC’s Andrew Gillighan and Greg Dyke have been more that vindicated, and the Hutton report was yet another Government distortion and whitewash.
The American constitution has been torn up and replaced by the Patriot Act, we here in the UK have seen all our rights and freedoms diminished, and shortly I shall, for the first time in my 53 year old life, have to carry an ID card proving I am rightfully in this country. What an unpalatable state of affairs, and all this has come about because of the 9/11 atrocities and the so called “war on terror”.
It is, in my opinion, an indictment upon Bush and Blair.
Luckily, none of this has anything to do with me.
ReplyDelete[laughing]
ReplyDeletespiv, you originally raised half a dozen of these "9/11 conspiracy" questions in this and the previous post, and they were all answered by various other commenters. You went back to the source and tried a couple more, and those were answered. Didn't even take a panel of PhDs either, just a few folks roaming around the web who know a bit about structural engineering and aircraft operation. Any reasonable person would by now be getting the idea that maybe there was something a little less than reliable about his original sources.
But you? No, you go back to the same, proven-unreliable sites and keep pulling out more of the same old canards.
I think you just put yourself in the "not worth taking seriously" category. 'Bye.
Thanks for your observations Wolfwalker, trouble is, none of you have actually answered any of the questions raised.
ReplyDelete1) How did the twin towers fall at ‘free-fall speeds? You have told me how they fell, but not at ‘freefall’. For your hypothesis to work that day, then the laws of physics must have been suspended. Floors pancacking from above must have either had infinite momentum, or else the floors below must have had zero inertia. If the floors had simply broken away from their steel support columns, then why were these columns not left sticking 1,000 feet up into the sky? Robert’s theory could explain it, that the steel was actually “wire wool”, although I think that is not probable.
2) You state that the third building fell because some debris from the other two buildings hit it. So why did none of the buildings adjacent to the Twin Towers not also fall? It just seems that it is buildings leased by Larry Silverstein which are prone to freefall collapse, although, of course, we must not overlook that he received a handsome insurance compensation as he was insured against terror attacks. Mr Silverstein has also admitted, on film, that the third building was “pulled”, a common demolition term. How very odd. No steel and concrete skyscraper has fallen before or since through fire, yet three of Silverstein’s fell that day. I wouldn’t want to be working in a building leased by Mr Silverstein, you never know when it’ll come down!!
3) Why were fighter planes not sent up to intercept? You tell me that it was not policy in 2001. Well, that comes as a surprise, probably not only to me but also to the Russians, who, I feel sure, would have loved to swanny around over America during the Cold War without fear of being intercepted. McGuire Airforce Base is only 70 miles from New York, not too far for a fighter, surely?
3) You also claim that they could not fly fast enough to intercept aircraft, well, another little surprise to me here. Beggars belief that modern fighters struggle to meet even commercial airlines.
4) Your explanation as to why the plane cannot be seen crashing into the Pentagon is quite good, and, I would add, one I have thought of myself. Problem is here, that this is the only film from the security cameras released, and you yourself seem to admit that no plane is visible. The Pentagon must rank as one the most secure buildings in the world. I feel quite sure that there is no area of it not being under constant surveillance, not even the toilets. There were about three cameras mounted on the roof looking broadly along the line of approach of the so called plane. Well, why is the Government so reluctant to release the footage of these, and have done with all the ‘nutjobs’ like myself? One would assume that, knowing America was under attack at that time, that every security camera would have been ‘rolling’.
5) I have not even touched on questions such as why Bush, when the country knew they were under so called attack, sat for 20 minutes reading a book about goats with schoolchildren in a pre-arranged venue. One would have thought that the secret service would have whisked him away to safety, and the school would have been evacuated, knowing that the President would be a prime target for any attack.
So, yes, I agree with you, ignore me, I’m just a humble accountant who won’t be able to change the world. But, whatever you do, don’t ignore the questions. By the way, your score was zero, no questions answered correctly.
It seens to me that some commenters dont realise that 24 is not a documentry (allthough it contains more realism then Moors efforts) it beggars belief that any snae person would give credense to these conspiract theories, a secret like causing these outrages to wake the public up (by the way its intrests me that the poster must deep down believe the wrong of islam) just cannot staw secret, well only on the telly. Im sure there is a whole lot we will never learn about these attacks, that is because to publicise would help the terrorists, get real and take the foil off.
ReplyDeleteA far more eloquent and scientific equivalent of my question 1) above is also raised by Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering at:
ReplyDeletehttp://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
I don't know the answers, but I do know that another complete invesitgation into 9/11 is needed - and one conducted independently.
I understand that the original 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
The American Government spent many times more money investigating Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski than the 9/11 commission spent investigating the world's worst ever "terrorist attack".
Where did the energy come from that pulverised all the concrete and shattered the steel frame into pieces? Jet fuel cannot do this. The Dust clouds formed at the top of both towers and in all the so called debunking efforts not ONE person has ever been able to explain this. What about WTC7 even if there were raging fires there is no way that they could cause a 43 storey building to neatly collapse in on itself. I am not a Conspiracy Theorist nutjob I am simply listing facts that are in the realms of physics and do not blatantly ignore them.
ReplyDeleteWhatever hit the Pentagon on the west wing did so on purpose. The 911 commission tells us that the flight flew over the pentagon and came back around and then dropping into position it clipped five lamp poles and then a power generator before smacking into the only part of the whole pentagon that was reinforced. One small section not the entire side of the building here was reinforced. This was also the only part of the building that was supposed to be empty that morning. Some so called experts say the plane disintegrated on impact yet they then fail to mention how whatever was left of the plane was able to punch through 3 inner walls. If I was a terrorist and I was attacking the pentagon I would look to cause as much death and destruction as possible. Therefore why did so called fanatics hit the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced and supposed to be empty. They minimalised casualties. Coincidence? If you are totally stupid then yes this is a coincidence. Another thing of note. On its way too New york Flight 11 passed over a NUCLEAR POWER STATION. The 911 Commission tells us the terrorists thought it was too well protected to hit but then the terrorists go and attack the pentagon. Does anyone else see a problem with this? The terrorists have the means and opportunity to cause destruction on a massive scale yet they choose not to. Hardly the actions of coldblooded fanatics.
ReplyDelete