|
Post by tod2 on Nov 28, 2011 12:40:12 GMT
I am of course referring to the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. Until yesterday I had never thought about the actual collapse of the towers during that horrible inferno on the top floors,except that it was beyond belief at the time. Yesterday an architect friend popped in for a visit and had a book with him by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. called 'Where Did The Towers Go ?'
I soon realized the evidence of directed free-energy technology on 9/11 was way out of my league as reading matter, but paging through the photos I found some amazing fascinating facts.
Quote: " The WTC towers did not collapse. They did not collapse from fire nor did they collapse from "bombs in the buildings" (or conventional controlled demolition). They were turned to dust. They were turned to powder in mid-air, before a gravity-driven collapse was a possibility. The majority of the building mass did not slam to the ground, as evidence by the seismic data. Nearly all of each tower was turned to dust in mid-air and either floated to the ground or blew away. The majority of what remained of the towers was paper and dust. A gravity collapse (with or without bombs in the building) cannot turn a building into powder in mid-air.
When the air cleared, little to no significant debris remained. The rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building.
These facts were an eye-opener for me even though I am at the other end of the scale when it comes to science facts and figures.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2011 12:50:47 GMT
That would mean that at least some of the dust has travelled around the world and is probably sitting in front of us 10 years later...
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Nov 28, 2011 13:17:56 GMT
That's fascinating - but why did they turn to dust?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 13:38:01 GMT
I thought this was bollocks from the initial reading of the post. Then I looked up exactly what was meant by "directed free-energy technology" and I then realised I was wrong.
It is not bollocks but absolute and utter bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 13:43:14 GMT
Thanks for drawing this to my attention tod, I've not laughed so much since I farted in church and the blind bloke next to me blamed his dog.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2011 15:30:43 GMT
That sent me to some of the 9-11 conspiracy sites. They are always totally fascinating, especially when they start talking about WTC7.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 28, 2011 15:56:50 GMT
Now now Mark!
Mick - This is a thick technical book with hundreds of diagrams and photos. I never thought the whole sad saga was captured on film from so many angles! I will repeat some more from the book which explains things: Quote-" Pulverized to Dust? The common use of the word, 'pulverize', refers to pounding or crushing a material. Merriam-Webster defines pulverize. "To reduce (as by crushing, beating, or grinding) to very small particles. The towers were not pulverized.
They were not vaporised, either. Vaporization refers to the conversion of a liquid or solid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat. The buildings were not cooked; they turned to dust in mid-air. This was a new process and a new process needs a new word to represent it. We will call this 'dustification', saying that the buildings were 'dustified'.
Defenders of the official story maintain that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft and that the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories, initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse". There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious is the near free-fall speed at which the buildings were destroyed. A second problem is the paucity of remaining material or debris. Where are the so-called "pancaked" concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall-board? Where are the bookcases? None of these were anywhere. Most of such material appears to have turned to dust."
There is a photo of the final seconds of the destruction. A section of core columns remain rigid and standing upright after the rest of the building was gone. Then the photo clearly shows, frame by frame, the steel columns disintegrating into dust. The upright steel still exactly where it once stood but now exactly in it's upright stance, a thin upright spire of dust.
At lunchtime today friends came over and I showed John the book - he immediately agreed that that was exactly what must have happened as he has seen it with his own eyes......being a senior member of the Manchester Fire brigade for many years and a very experienced fireman.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 28, 2011 15:58:08 GMT
Kerouac - I am going to see what this book says about WTC7 and report back.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Nov 28, 2011 16:12:32 GMT
Apparently (if the internet is to be believed) Judy Wood thinks that "an orbiting ray gun zapped the towers to death".
That is pushing even my gullibility................
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 16:55:45 GMT
Now, if the ray gun was in a plane.........
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 28, 2011 17:09:06 GMT
Mick & Mark - I haven't read that theory in the book, yet. If that is what she thinks, there is no photo of one! Oh, unless it was invisible???
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 17:14:35 GMT
There is a photo of the final seconds of the destruction. A section of core columns remain rigid and standing upright after the rest of the building was gone. Then the photo clearly shows, frame by frame, the steel columns disintegrating into dust. The upright steel still exactly where it once stood but now exactly in it's upright stance, a thin upright spire of dust.
The towers were built in 1973. They were destroyed in 2001. That's twenty eight years - twenty eight years of build up of dust and detritus on the outside - and that's where the steel columns were, on the outside. What the video and tods photos would show is not the steel turning to dust. What is shows is the steel standing, but as soon as it begins to collapse the dust is disturbed forming a cloud of the stuff through which you can't now see the steel - falling at 9.81 m/s^2 towards the ground.
As dust is far lighter than steel it remains in the air, roughly in the shape it was when the steel was there for a split second, and then disperses and falls. Imagine Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff chasing Roadrunner. He will remain in situ when there is nothing supporting him for a split second, and then fall down into the canyon arriving in a cloud of dust as he hits bottom.
Conclusion 1. - the steel doesn't turn to dust. The dust is already there on the steel. When the steel falls the dust is dislodged keeping the same rough shape and the steel falls hidden by the cloud.
Conclusion 2 . - I was wrong again. It isn't "absolute and utter bollocks", it's absolute, utter, complete and indefensible bollocks. Do I make myself clear enough?
Next.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 17:16:24 GMT
Have fun reading it Tod. That's all it is, fun and not factual.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 28, 2011 17:32:23 GMT
You know I'm not getting at you Tod, don't you?
One more thing, the authoress - Judy Wood, BullShit, Mentally Subnormal, Phucking Demented.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2011 17:46:50 GMT
Here is the wonderful WTC7 conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 29, 2011 7:26:50 GMT
Mark, I don't know why such a highly qualified person would spend years on research and then write an in depth book on her scientific findings. Surely she would have better things to do than fabricate the facts and make unreasonable suggestions for a bit of fun Ego trip No, I can't see a brain-box wasting her time. This does not mean I have to believe her every word. Actually the entire book is so documented with scientific theories, it's really beyond my reading skills or ability to grasp 99.9% of it. I did however become curious and so put my curiosity out there for some comments. I appreciate ALL the replies and especially the Utube stuff which puts another spin on things. I guess we will remain oblivious of the truth ( if there is one out there) but with an event as big as this I doubt whether man will ever stop digging or trying to put their views across for years and years to come. Has Hollywood not shown an interest on making a blockbuster, 'we know what happened but will give you a better version' film? Kerouac - I said I would look into the WT7 theory etc etc. but you did an excellent job in finding that UTube interview. However, at the back of her book she lists some questions: Question 25; The destruction of WT7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The seismic signal during it's disappearance was not significantly greater than the background noise. WHY? Q 28; The majority of the towers (WTC1, 2 3 and 7) did not remain as rigid bodies as they "fell". WHY? Q 35; The upper 90%, approximately, of the inside of WT7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to earth. Q 38; The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building and much of it consisted of mud. Q 40; What this book calls 'lather', thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of the buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings' mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for several hours before destruction. WHY? Well, I am beginning to ask the question: Has Judy Wood ever interviewed the guys that were trapped inside before WTC7 collapsed. I am sure she must have if she left no stone unturned......
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 12:47:16 GMT
I’d just initially like to qualify my next comments by saying I don’t have any empirical evidence for any of it. I can only state what I think. Firstly, many people fall into the trap (and I just mean in general) of thinking that if someone is a brainbox then what they say is more likely to be true.
Mark, I don't know why such a highly qualified person would spend years on research and then write an in depth book on her scientific findings. Because she possibly has OCD and hyperactivity, as many ‘intelligent’ people do. That’s how they get involved in and stick to something to become ‘expert’ in it. Plus I suspect she has come up with an idea, a theory, and is making the facts fit it, no matter how outlandish it might be. She will also confound her critics by producing so many scientific theories, that I also suspect are only tenuously linked, that few would have the knowledge to counteract her. It is far easier to come up with a theory than it is to refute it. It takes a lot more effort and certainty to parse a theory and dispute every little part of it. If that’s not done the author of the theory can poo poo the critic in saying they’ve not proved it’s false.
Question 25; The destruction of WT7 in late afternoon on 9/11 was whisper quiet. The seismic signal during it's disappearance was not significantly greater than the background noise. WHY? I’ve not looked into WTC7 and don’t propose to do so. Too many other conspiracy theories abound for any of them to be credible. See below.
Q 28; The majority of the towers (WTC1, 2 3 and 7) did not remain as rigid bodies as they "fell". WHY? And why should they? They weren’t solid structures. Does she think they should have just toppled over like a solid lego tower?
Q 35; The upper 90%, approximately, of the inside of WT7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to earth. Q 38; The WTC7 rubble pile was too small to account for the total mass of the building and much of it consisted of mud. As per Q.25
Q 40; What this book calls 'lather', thick clouds of dust and fumes, emanated from some faces of the buildings before destruction, as if large volumes of the buildings' mass was dissolving into the air. Lather poured from WTC7 for several hours before destruction. WHY? Lather, my arse. The twin towers were burning – thus causing ‘thick clouds of dust and fumes’.
After looking at the video supplied by K2 I noticed one key aspect. The black guy being interviewed at length (and they seem to emphasise his testimony as an eye witness and a responsible person) stated that when WTC7 fell – the other two towers were still standing. What puts me of a mind that if he is mistaken at all about that, then it casts severe doubt on the rest of what he says – especially as the theory is that the building was ‘blown up’ by explosives. I’ll come to that in a second. It is pure unadulterated fact – that cannot be disputed and is all too easily checked and corroborated, that the chronological order of what happened that day as regards the collapses is as follows -
9:59:01am: The South Tower of the World Trade Center begins to collapse
10:28:31am: The North Tower of the World Trade Center begins to collapse
5:20:33pm: 7 World Trade Center, also known as the Salomon Bros. Building, a 47-story building collapses.
Next thing, the same theory talks about what happened on floor six when ‘explosions’ were heard and seen. Even a quick look into the building specs of WTC 7 reveal that floors 5 to 7 were key to the integrity of the building as originally the building was to be many floors lower. That area was adjusted to transfer the loads when a number of more floors were incorporated into the design. Even as a layman it is obvious that this area was under the greatest load. Interfere with that and the whole building will come down – as - (and for whatever reason as regards fire, debris damage, that’s where the fuel for the generators was stored etc) – it did.
One last thing – for what reason on earth would it be blown up? Coincidentally at the same time as the whole 9/11 thing was happening? She, and other theorists, need to approach this from a different angle – not why it was done – but HOW. How specifically and literally it was done. Who planted the explosives? Exactly when? How were they distributed? (Columns would have to be drilled into – did no one hear this?) To effect a collapse as this it needs expert demolition help. Who were/was the expert(s)? The explosives need to be timed to act together or in sequence – this needs long cables attaching to each and every explosive – how were these hidden? Or weren’t they? So who saw them strung across floor six lobby? People state they heard explosions – one even said “I know what an explosion sounds like” – no you don’t – when was the last time you heard one? – apart from on TV special effects? Can you tell the difference between a C4 explosion, a TNT explosion, Semtex, RDX, a gas bottle, a hot water tank, an oil tank, even a car crash or, most of all, a concrete supporting column collapsing with or without help from C4/TNT/Semtex/RDX? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
That’s enough from me. I’m running out of superlatives – all I can say is it’s bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 29, 2011 13:34:23 GMT
That 's what its all about Mark - just our personal thoughts and reactions! I looked at more of the photos and can see clearly that WTC7 is standing upright and proud while the other two are collapsing.
The books tells us: Firefighter Patrick Connolly had just walked under the Versey street pedestrian bridge when WTC1 went poof. He said he was hit with debris, 'But nothing hard. Nothing that you couldn't take. Nothing that was pulverizing me', he said. He then found his way around the corner to the door of WTC7 on West Broadway. (There is a photo taken shortly after he came back out that door, which was apparently left open). Both towers were gone before Patrick Connolly entered WTC7 and are consist ant with Michael Hess, chief lawyer for The City of New York who recounted his experience in the stairwell of WTC7 just as WTC1 collapsed.
Mark thank you for all you thoughts and comments - I do not take them personally as you know ;D
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 14:45:03 GMT
Hang on a minute, I'm a little wrong - as regards the timeline. I've looked again and (8.55min in the video) it seems it's not the WTC7 collapsing that was before the other two, it was an 'explosion' heard inside. In any case, what I said about the building specs still stands. But that also raises the question to refute the conspiracies as to how was there an explosion (or more than one) approx seven hours before the WTC7 collapse if the collapse was a deliberate bombing act? Surely they must think that an explosion or two went off either by mistake or they did go off at the right time but the rest of them to bring the building down didn't? So whilst all this was going on some explosives expert slipped in a re-wired it?
On the other hand, what if there was an 'explosion', a structural problem for whatever reason, but not yet severe enough to bring the building down? Then as the structure got weaker over time there were more 'explosions' eventually leading to its collapse. Surely if it was deliberate it'd happen all at once? If not, then things could happen seemingly randomly.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 29, 2011 14:52:37 GMT
Well I thought about the WTC7 & the other two. Who went first and why. Is it so out of question that if planes could be planned to fly into two of the WTC towers , could the same people not have done some long-term planning about WTC7 as it must have been too low to tackle like the others? Just a silly thought crossing my mind. Please blow it out the water Mark
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 15:57:21 GMT
The question is, why? WTC7 is a nonentity of a building. The twin towers and the Pentagon are/were the symbols. It's like Guy Fawkes blowing up Parliament - AND - the little shed used as a shithouse round the corner a bit. Doesn't make sense at all.
Plus, it overcomplicates matters. No mind that some may think that whoever was actually in WTC7, the offices, are a viable target - in isolation it may have been. But overall it's minor. Thus, not only is the target relatively minor, the method of attack is way different. Especially when you not only consider the twin towers but also the other prime target of the Pentagon.
Name me a terrorist attack that used two completely different methods to achieve their goal. None that I can think off - but I'll stand corrected. No matter how complex it may have been to set up 9/11, there is no doubt in my mind that they wouldn't bother taking the risk, the risk of discovery, of planting explosives in WTC7 - a building of no real standing.
Were they capable of it? Both twin towers, Pentagon and WTC7? Probably, but it's not can they do it or could they have done it, it's why? After a 'risk/benefit analysis' I'd stake my life on saying they wouldn't do it.
Can you imagine the scene in Afghanistan with Mr Laden - he's sitting in his cave, he's got his blue sky thinkers sitting with him eating some goat and rice, one says, "I've got an idea. Let's fly some planes into the twin towers to demolish them". Another says, "While we're at it we could hit the Pentagon as well!" Cheers all round.
Then the dork at the back says, "AND WTC7!! But with explosives planted in the walls to go off on the same day and without anyone seeing us even though it's a busy building......" Mr. Laden looks at him through the gloom of the smoky dung fire and says, "Twat. WTF is WTC7? Go get us men some coffee."
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Nov 29, 2011 16:03:03 GMT
Spot on Mark - good thinking I reckon we mere mortals don't know the half of it.....
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 16:11:51 GMT
Just also to mention, one job I had in the 'Noughties' was to provide tour operators with risk assessment profiles for the countries/areas they took people to and to provide a incident response to things that did happen. Unfortunately what I didn't realise when I took the job was that 90% of my time would be spent cold selling the company over the phone.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 29, 2011 16:51:49 GMT
Your discussion has been very informative and interesting.
I have not read this book so my opinions are just that, my opinions of that day and I am not a Scientist. My thoughts and experiences of 9/11 still disturb me. I think he reveled, not in the destruction and deaths of that day, but that he created a legacy of fear, I think that made him smile for every remaining day of his life.
My belief is that the burning intensity of the jet fuel caused the incineration of materials and gravity took care of the rest, including the destruction of WTC7.
The force of the gravity pushed burning fueled debris through tunnels, shafts, crevices that connected these buildings that ignited these building on fire from the bottom up, taking them longer to burn. Gas lines and hydro sources in the buildings also added more fuel to the intensity of the fires and probably caused many explosions which caused more heat intensity.
I believe all their planning was about the damage the jet fuel could do and triggering other sources was a bonus to them.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 18:34:39 GMT
The question is, why? WTC7 is a nonentity of a building. The twin towers and the Pentagon are/were the symbols. It's like Guy Fawkes blowing up Parliament - AND - the little shed used as a shithouse round the corner a bit. Doesn't make sense at all. I completely agree that it doesn't make sense, but the little shed is still a 47-storey building that collapsed for no reason. This interesting video certainly shows that WTC7 was awfully disciplined for a random collapse. And I love the voice of the guy at the end because he sounds crazy. These people sound a bit more reasonable, except that one is obliged to imagine that it is all a CIA plot.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 20:37:33 GMT
It didn't collapse for no reason, did it?. It collapsed for a reason. However, the reason is being debated by those at length. As to the way it went down, it went down exactly as the twin towers went down - straight down. But - they went down because the weight of the collapsed floors at or near the top compounded as each collapsed, all the way down to the ground. WTC7 went down because the floors at the bottom, probably floors 5-7, gave way. In both cases the building went straight down, but for different reasons.
There are numerous videos on utube of demolitions that went wrong, so just because a building collapses to the side, doesn't mean it wasn't deliberately collapsed, though a mistake. Conversely, just because a building collapses straight down doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.
And by the way, if anyone is reading this who is convinced it came down as the result of explosives, give me some solid evidence as to the theory. Explosive residue, someone who planted them, someone who ordered it, evidence of holes drilled, detonation wires, a paper trail, e mails, something other than a random policeman saying it's gonna blow up, or a video that shows it collapsing like it was, but no proof to say how it actually was brought down. I don't have to prove it wasn't, if you believe it, prove it was, and convince me. If you can't prove your theory, then that's all it is, one of many unproven attempts to pass bollocks off as the truth. Is that clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 20:40:09 GMT
WTC7 wasn't a 'shed', no. But in comparison to the main prize(s)?
Definitely not a target at all for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 20:42:46 GMT
Unless the CIA had a hidden agenda and Bin Laden was its pawn. ;D
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 29, 2011 20:53:44 GMT
That I can believe.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Nov 29, 2011 23:07:13 GMT
The biggest secret of all is there are no big secrets. None. A conspiracy involving the number of people necessary to meet the conditions of the 9/11 demolition nutters' could be held together for days, maybe weeks before it was outed by one of the hundreds of participants who would need to know. Now 10+ years on the chance that such a wide ranging conspiracy could be silenced is nil. Demolitions teams, building security personnel who would need to be in on it etc., no. You'd have deathbed confessions coming out everywhere as penitent conspirators no longer had any good reason to maintain their silence.
That the hijackers were somehow unknowingly allowed to perpetrate their acts by a tiny evil cabal high up in government who had preliminary drafts of the Patriot Act and war plans for invading Iraq waiting to put into action I'll grant as a faint possibility. The demolition stuff is ridiculous on its face.
|
|