Saturday, April 11, 2009

Fall of the towers (updated 3)

Traces of big amounts of special explosive have been found in the ruins of the WTC. In other words, clear evidence that they were demolished and didn't fall because of the planes.

From email:
One question: what kind of tv-show it this where the scientist is interviewed?
Is that private, state, illegal? It looks like a normal tv-show on the normal tv.
This would be impossible in France.
No national TV would broadcast such a program.
Even mentioning the issue is kind of forbidden. A quite famous star making one-man-show humor, Jean-Marie Bigarre, has endorsed this view casually on a radio-show on a very widely listened to radio, Europe 1. He spoke less than a minute, maybe 30 secs. Since then he is excluded from that radio station, on decision of one of the leaders. And actually there is a real silence around him.
This is when I started to seriously consider that this version may be true...

(Yes, it was a normal Danish national TV show, I think.) This is amazing, France is not exactly known to care deeply about the reputation of the US establishment. I guess it illustrates how frightening the idea of an "insider job" is. (By the way, just stating the idea that the towers were demolished is not the same as saying that the US government were behind it. It is just saying that we don't know the full truth.)

Update: many interesting data in this film.
And another film.
"Journalists said 'why are you not wanting Bin Laden for 9/11?' and FBI said: 'we just don't have the evidence'."
This is very well-produced film.
Did you know that the fire was no worse than some people managed to get down from above the impact site? They have an interview with one of them.
Why did all three buildings fall at virtually free fall speed? That should be impossible.
Why was there molten metal under the rubble of all three buildings? No fire does that.
Why were none of the airplanes intercepted by military planes, like is standard procedure?
On 9.12.2001, the Attorney General announced to the world that a passport from one of the highjackers had been found in the street. A small paper object had survived a crash and fire which was claimed to have brought down the largest buildings in the world? What more evidence do you need that they will not hesitate to lie?


51 comments:

Kabel Yaache said...

First of all - the interviewer and the scientist are very aware of the message. It is indeed a physical fact that the fuel from a fully loaded aircraft can not melt the huge steel beams holding up a building.
-
Second - the Danish language is very interesting. I hear English, German and French in it. I'm sure the grammatical rules are one of a kind, but it's a musical sounding language compared to so-called 'British'.
-
Third - that scientist should be careful. A lot of people have 'been removed' from society for not only stating their professional opinion, but for also speaking the truth.

Aniko said...

Thank you Eolake. It is really worth visiting your blog.

The scientist wrote his paper carefully, published it... It cannot be removed. I hope this will protect him.

Bert said...

Ridiculous.

John Clifford said...

This is just STUPID, on so many levels. Where do I even start?

First, it is OBVIOUS that the towers weren't knocked down by the impact of the jets. They collapsed because the raging fires that resulted from thousands of pounds of kerosene ignited inside a skyscraper filled with wood desks, paper, carpet, and other flammables ended up heating the steel support girders enough to weaken them so they would not support the weight of the floors above the impact. This is why the first tower hit was the second to fall... it was hit higher up towards the top and thus there was less weight which means the beams had to become weaker over more time. The second building was hit further down, and the heavier weight of more floors above the impact meant that the critical loss of strength occurred sooner after the impact and fire. If you don't believe there was a raging fire, go back and look at the tapes on YouTube, showing people so desperate to escape the flames that they leaped from the buildings. Look at the photos of molten aluminum from the airplanes that are effectively sitting inside a blast furnace that is pouring out of a WTC window. Thermite doesn't do that, especially if it's wrapped around a steel girder in the center of the building.

Second, there have been objective scientific examinations of the tower collapses, and they have all concluded that the collapses were caused by the weakening of the central support girders due to intense heat caused by the fires.

Third, look at the films of the collapses. Why is it that the collapses started at the impact sites/floors? How could anyone have so precisely placed the explosives so as to fool us all? This strains credulity.

Fourth, this claim is based on the fact that a mixture of aluminum dust and rust was found at the WTC site. According to the 'scientist' "nano-thermite" is composed of aluminum dust and rust. Let's see... a friggin' aluminum jet slams into a steel building at 300 mph and explodes. Do you think that there might be some aluminum dust and rust to be found in the rubble? Especially after exposure to millions of tons of force and lots of water?

Fifth, how on EARTH can a reputable scientist claim that because aluminum dust and iron oxide (rust) were both found in the WTC rubble, that PROVES a bomb brought down the towers? This 'scientist' hasn't proven anything... except that he isn't a very good scientist.

Sixth, the 'scientist' Niels Harrit claims that between 10 and 100 TONS of 'nano-thermite' was used. He further stated that it would have to have been stacked in the towers by the pallet. Do you not think that SOMEONE would have noticed dozens and dozens of pallets all over the Twin Towers before they collapsed? The journalist posed this EXACT question, and Harrit's response is 'You should ask the security company.' Is he not aware that the head of WTC Security, John O'Neil, who DIED on 9/11, was a former FBI agent who spent his career pursuing terrorists, including investigating the '93 WTC bombing? Why would this man be involved in sabotaging buildings he spent a career protecting? Again, this strains credulity.

Here's the real problem I have with idiots like this so-called 'scientist.' What he's doing is worse than STUPID, it is an INSULT to the people who were murdered on 9/11 by ARAB TERRORISTS. And, it is an INSULT to the American people, because such 'theories' are an attempt to excuse the ARAB TERRORISTS who carried out the attack and blame 9/11 instead on the American government, or the Israeli government, or on ANYONE except the people who actually did it. I mean, it's not like we actually have footage from many different cameras actually SHOWING airplanes crashing into these buildings, or reports from passengers aboard several of the planes reporting Arab hijackers, or even cockpit tapes where we can identify Arabic speakers... oh, wait, we DO have all of those things!

Here's my question: why are so many people unwilling to think that the folks who gladly cut off heads on camera could do something like this... but are perfectly willing to believe the people who run America could? Why do they think Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are not so bad, but George Bush is evil incarnate?

I think it's because they are afraid to admit that there are evil people in the world, and that George Bush was right... because that puts their entire world-view in the garbage can. And then, seeing as Bush WAS right, then they'd have to agree with him that something must be done about the threat of terrorism. You know, like a WAR ON TERROR to prevent further TERRORIST ATTACKS instead of a 'global contingency operation' to deal with 'man-caused disasters.'

Eolake, you strike me as an intelligent, rational person. I can't believe you are gullible enough to think that Harrit's argument has any merit whatsoever. If you really believe this guy, then maybe looking at all of those fine women on DOMAI has done something to you. There's no other explanation.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Dude, what was found was not just "aluminum dust and rust dust", it was a very specific and precisely made nano-particle explosive which does not occur anywhere by accident.

And how do you explain the precise fall of the third building, over six hours later, when it had not been touched by airplanes or anything?

Kabel Yaache said...

Clifford makes some good points, but they have all been explained away by the laws of physics and gravity, and combustion. Also the fact that Clifford blabbers on and on about this shows that he 'needs' to make his point more credible than the rest of us make ours.
-
The name 'John Clifford' sounds so FBIish - typical of our stupid public to accept. Use John Smith next time - it's more credible.
-
So, Clifford - are you really the icing engineer in a bakery, or do you actually know anything about architecture, jetfuel, and metallurgy?
-
Many people do.

Timo Lehtinen said...

And how do you explain the precise fall of the third building, over six hours later, when it had not been touched by airplanes or anything?

Well, since Larry Silverstein, in a video testimony, personally admits to having given the order to bring down WTC 7, I don't think there's anything to even question regarding that.

Larry Silverstein signed the lease on the World Trade Center complex on July 24, 2001, only weeks before the towers were destroyed.

BlankPhotog said...

I think there's ample evidence for a conspiracy in the higher echelons of the U.S. government to give themselves the excuse to go into the Middle East on a big mission. They can do conspiracy well... they can't however execute anything long-term well, obviously. That said, I'm as dubious about this so-called nano-thermite evidence as John Clifford is. I think it's much more likely that the conspirators, if there were any, acted through the Al Qaeda operatives than through planting a bunch of chemicals in the WTC.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

On the Silverstein video page it says:
"The debate rages about the term and whether it has anything to do with the controlled demolition industry."

Why doesn't somebody just ask Silverstein what it means?

John Clifford said...

Anyone with scientific or engineering training knows that correlation does not imply causation. Aluminum dust and rust found at the WTC site, no matter how finely ground, does not mean that 'nano-thermite' was present. It only means that aluminum dust and rust were found! I know, Neils Harrit is having contortions patting himself on the back for his 'discovery' but he is either incredibly stupid or dishonest... there is no other explanation for his 'conclusion.' Of course, there are all sorts of valid explanations for aluminum dust and rust to be found at the WTC site that don't require intellectual contortionism. And, note that Harrit claims that the presence of aluminum dust and rust supports the presence of 'nano-thermite' yet he has found no other signs of a prepared explosive compound (even Harrit can't define how there is a difference between the components and the assembled compound, he just tells us to "ask the security folks" how 'nano-thermite' got into the WTC).

The 'precise fall' of the third building (WTC 7) has been explained. This building was severely damaged by falling debris from Tower 1, resulting in severe structural damage and intense fires. The infamous 'pull' remark was made by the Fire Department battalion chief in the context of pulling his people OUT of WTC 7 because it was already leaning, there were creaking and groaning noises, etc. In short, WTC 7 was judged to be in imminent danger of collapse, so the FD was pulled back, the building continued to burn thus weakening it further, until it finally collapsed. No mystery or conspiracy here.

I'm going to ignore the trolls who refuse to respond to the points I made and instead questioned whether I even exist. You people are either too dumb to use Google (and therefore to engage with), or you are dishonest. Either way, you're a waste of time.

All of the 9/11 "truther" conspiracy crap has been debunked repeatedly. All of it. None of it is true. I believe that many "truthers" know this, and their goal is to slander the USA, not to find the "truth." I further believe that Harrits is one of these "truthers" who wilfully and unscientifically ignores all evidence that contradicts his conclusion. He's a propagandist, not a scientist.

I'd like to re-ask my question: why is it easier for some of you to believe that the USA was involved in a massive conspiracy to kill thousands of people and bring down the towers than to believe Al Quaeda was responsible? Why do you believe that America is evil but Islamoterrorism doesn't exist, despite all evidence to the contrary (on both parts)? There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but point that skepticism both ways. Don't question the official account while blindly accepting the "truther" version.

Here's my conspiracy theory: there were clear signs of 9/11 but the Clinton Administration deliberately adopted a policy of conflict avoidance to the point of crippling our intelligence and law enforcement efforts so as to not be forced to do something about the threat. Why do you think Jamie Gorelick put up the 'Chinese Wall' between CIA and FBI in the mid-'90s? Why didn't the FBI know what the CIA knew about Moussaoui, and why did the DoJ refuse to let the FBI look at Moussaoui's laptop? Why do you think Sandy Berger was stuffing classified documents into his pants and smuggling them out of the National Archives? It was to cover up the Clinton Administration misfeasance and malfeasance! 9/11 was a combination of incompetence, denial, and dumb luck on the part of the terrorists. These guys were idiots, with a stupid plan... but because the US government put blinders on they were able to succeed. The real conspiracy is how the Democrats managed to pack the 9/11 Commission and largely cover up their incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Eolake! This is the first time I have commented on your blog. Up until seeing this story I used to be someone who naively believed the "official" story about what brought the towers down. The link you offered sent me on a several hour journey through videos, websites, watching and reading materials from scientists, fire fighters, scholars, pilots, and others. There is little doubt in my mind now that the whole WTC 9/11 thing was an inside job. Especially when you see videos of the third building, WTC 7, coming down ... it is so obvious it is being detonated, you can even see the explosive charges coming out the side of the building.

Why someone would do this is an interesting question, but my guess is that an excuse was needed to create a state of fear in the minds of Americans so as to justify the "War of Terror" and various legislative acts which have removed people's rights and freedoms.

THANK YOU AGAIN!

Anonymous said...

JC: 1, others: 0

Anonymous said...

nope -JC DNF'd when after ticking of a litany of plausible premises, he couldn't help blaming it all on Clinton. Reminded me of scene somewhere -his wheelchair is spinning backwards, his unbidden leather-gloved hand shoots vertical like an ICBM . . .
-Eric

John Clifford said...

Eric, if you don't believe that the Clinton Administration blundered when it came to dealing with terrorist threats on the US... well, then, you're simply in denial.

When Osama bin Laden stated that the US under Clinton didn't have the guts to use force, do you think he was lying? Or, was he pointing out the perception that much of the world had... that the US was the 'weak horse' and Al Qaeda was the 'strong horse'? And, this is why they continually escalated attacks against us until 9/11?

After all, they bombed the WTC in '93. They blew up the Khobar Towers in '95 (or was it '96?). They watched as Clinton refused to accept bin Laden on a platter from Sudan in '96. They blew up two of our embassies in Africa in '98. They bombed the USS Cole in 2000. And what did we do in response? Nothing. Why should the US be feared? We could be attacked without consequence. And we were... until 9/11.

Why were we not attacked afterwards? Could it have been because Bush took the gloves off, and kicked the Taliban's asses in six weeks? Say what you will about Bush, but who would have thought America would have gone for six months after 9/11 without being attacked again... much less almost 8 years and counting?

The 9/11 Commission found that the restrictions placed on domestic law enforcement by Gorelick were instrumental in keeping CIA-obtained actionable intelligence from the FBI. They also found that not searching Moussaoui's hard drive was almost criminally negligent... a search that was prevented by Clinton Administration rules. They found that the Clinton Administration's State Department effectively blew the '98 cruise missile attacks on bin Laden by warning the Paks about our Tomahawks, who then warned bin Laden, who left the camps before the missiles struck. And, what we know about the memos that Berger destroyed is that these memos were warnings of terrorists hijacking planes and using them in suicide missions were being planned... and hand-written notes on the original memos blew off the warnings.

I don't think Clinton and his advisors intended for 9/11 to happen. I just think they were too busy playing politics for politics' sake to effectively run the government. The terrorist threat didn't fit the narrative, and the Clinton Administration decided to ignore reality and alter the facts to fit the narrative... because otherwise they would have had to DO SOMETHING about it. Was Clinton evil? No, just immature, unwise, and lacking in courage and character. And 9/11 was the price we paid for these failings in our leadership.

Like most tragedies, 9/11 is as much a result of bureaucratic CYA blundering on our part as it was malice on the part of the terrorists. They attacked us, and we could have prevented it if we hadn't refused to acknowledge the threat of Islamic terrorism. However, it was not a conspiracy on the part of the American or Israeli governments, at any level, and to say other than it was the responsibility of Al Qaeda terrorists reflects willful ignorance or mendacity.

So, I'll ask my as-yet-unanswered question a third time: Here's my question: why are so many people unwilling to think that the folks who gladly cut off heads on camera could do something like this... but are perfectly willing to believe the people who run America could? Why do they think Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are not so bad, but George Bush is evil incarnate?

I'd really like an answer... but I don't expect one.

Paul Kierstead said...

Even if I did allow that "nano-thermite" was found in the rubble (and I don't), how on earth does that "prove" that it was what brought down the towers? If plutonium residue was found, does that mean the buildings were nuked? Has anyone checked?

They were big buildings, and housed a *very* wide variety of businesses and agencies. What was found in the rubble is interesting, but very very far from conclusive.

That report cannot stand even casual critical analysis.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the grammatical rules are one of a kind, but it's a musical sounding language compared to so-called 'British'.

I'm sure if there were only five million English speakers in the world and hundreds of millions of people speaking Danish you would be complaining about the blah Danish language. Ass.

Hey, J.C. What are you doing here? Conservative nutjobs have their own blogs.

Kabel Yaache said...

As said - John Clifford makes some good points. The so-called battle between O Bin Laden and the USA doesn't exist. The Bin Laden Family was flown out of NYC the day after 9/11... and the Bin Laden Construction company is a huge conglomerate.
-
John Clifford - as ASKED before in the blog thread - what is your expertise in this? Engineering, architecture, military strategy, -- or are you writing from a small office located at Army Navy Dr & Fern St 22202 and charged with denying everything? Denial of the act is the first item on the Military's Accountability List.
-
You write too much. You have a need to be heard, and that's why you're not. Too much input overloads the system. So shut up. Or tell us all YOUR credentials so your magical diploma can impress us.

John Clifford said...

Hey, J.C. What are you doing here? Conservative nutjobs have their own blogs.And anonymous name-calling cowards can feel free to post anywhere, right?

Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just coming out from under your bridge? Troll.

John Clifford said...

Kabel, does my argument rest on my credentials? I'm not a big believer in referring to authority. And I'm not saying that you must believe me. Look at the FACTS for yourself. They do not support the "truthers".

Better yet, how about answering my question (asked for the FOURTH time): why are so many people unwilling to think that the folks who gladly cut off heads on camera could do something like this... but are perfectly willing to believe the people who run America could? Why do they think Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are not so bad, but George Bush is evil incarnate?

Oh... I guess I do have a need to be heard on this point because I believe that evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Being silent in the face of this slander perpetrated by Harrits is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Honestly I think the only conspiracy is negligence on the part of the US government. I don't care who overlooked what and why but this could have been avoided with better intelligence and sound foreign policy.

Bush is an idiot but I'll bet his presidency would have come and gone without anyone taking notice had 9/11 not happened. He makes an easy scapegoat for all the problems we've had since he got into office but politics are messy and you can never blame one person when shit goes wrong. I get the sense that Bush had no malicious intentions, his biggest offense was that he was egotistical enough to don a father-knows-best attitude.

Or, to quote a t-shirt I saw for sale on the internet, "9/11 was fishy but COME ON!"

Kent McManigal said...

I don't listen to megalomaniacs whether they are presidents or terrorists. Two sides of the same evil coin if you ask me. Even if the official US government account is true, the ones responsible for the towers collapsing DIED in the attack. To then go and attack countries that had nothing to do with the attack is evil... in exactly the same way the WTC attack was evil. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Want to make certain that things like this can't happen? Then stop demanding that airline passengers be disarmed sitting ducks. Stop meddling in 70% of the countries across the globe (that is how many have US military personnel stationed in them). "Trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Stop going into other lands, killing, maiming, destroying, and otherwise recruiting for the terrorists. Anyone should be able to see the consequences of these actions. If it is on their agenda. If not, name calling and denigration is the standard operating procedure.

Anonymous said...

Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just coming out from under your bridge? Troll.That's too funny. You're in no position to ask anyone that question considering your comments have brought absolutely nothing to the discussion. You're a conservative nut incapable of forming your own opinions. You crib them from speeches by douchebags like Rush Limbaugh. Moron.

lance uppercut said...

Have any of you looked at this moron J.C.'s idiotic blog "Thirty Second Thoughts"? The most recent topic is "The Second Rule of Gun Fighting". LMFAO. Did I peg this guy right or what? A nutjob and a short-dick gun nut weekend warrior, armchair military strongman. I bet this geriatric, know-nothing fatass is a member of his local militia too. Wouldn't surprise me.

Kabel Yaache said...

Clifford: So you are indeed writing from that small office at Army Navy Dr & Fern St 22202, right? If your credentials support your supposition - and visa versa, then you might have a case. Otherwise, you're one of 2 things:
-
----an idiot
----paid to deny
- Choose one, press ENTER and choose your next mission out of the revolving drum.

karrde said...

I guess the guys at Popular Mechanics are also either idiots or were paid to deny.

For the record, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, another in Computer Engineering, and another in Math. I have little professional knowledge of building materials, but some knowledge of how engineers of various stripes study successes and failures of projects.

However, I deeply mistrust the claim that any single ser of material residue MUST have come from a hidden bomb.

I also find myself laughing at any claim that the high echelons of the United States government could keep a secret of this magnitude for more than 30 days.

Timo Lehtinen said...

How come John Clifford's blog and Wilde Karrde's blog have the exact same, gloomy, visual theme?

Yable Kaache said...

ttl: It might be the same ape in the picture on both blogs. This Clifford guy is definitely no intellectual.

Schnitzel Woche said...

John Clifford has managed to get us all fired up - over nothing. And based on his blog - he is not a specialist (specialization is for insects) in anything. He shows no outstanding qualification for anything. He's just another social weakling who needs to be heard.
|||END OF THREAD|||

karrde said...

You should visit my newer one. The old theme is becuase I like my computer's command-prompt in light-on-dark, and I made the old blog that way.

Anyway, two things to remember about arguments on the internet:
(1) It's because duty calls.

(2) you don't have to convince yourself, you have to convince the other guy.

To convince me, you must
(A) show that the material in question could result from explosives of the type defined. (Don't just say it, have an independent researcher reproduce the results)
(B) show that the material in question could NOT be the result of a large aluminum aircraft running into a steel-and-glass tower at cruising speed, followed by a bath in burning jet fuel.

I'm not even sure that (A) has been shown, but I'm pretty sure that (B) hasn't been.

The rest is a Who do you trust? argument, with a healthy seasoning of He's a paid shill, The laws of physics don't say that!, and your test doesn't replicate the conditions of the real event.

I've spoken my piece, I'll go back to cruising the internet for interesting pictures.

Kent McManigal said...

I have read John Clifford's blog now, and while I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I don't think he is the idiot that some are making him out to be. I also don't think he is evil; only a bit misguided.

He obviously loves the government he thinks of as "his", which is a common enough sentiment due to "public schools" (mandatory government brainwashing). A lot of people can't see that the government is NOT the same as the country. This makes him unable or unwilling to acknowledge some painful facts.

The US government is partially responsible for "9/11" whether or not government employed people set charges in the building, due to a long history of meddling in the affairs of other countries, and by demanding that airline passengers be immorally disarmed (and constantly discouraging people from fighting back when attacked). That much is certain. I think the whole other issue obscures the more dangerous truth: Government, any government, is bad.

Anonymous said...

If you are curious to find out what the "Truthers" are saying then I can recommend these websites:

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Firefighters for 911 Truth
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice
http://www.stj911.com/

Journal of 911 Studies
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

You can dowload and read for yourself the peer-reviewed scientific paper published by Niels Harrit and his fellow scientists here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

These YouTube videos are interesting also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

Read and think for yourself rather than reacting emotionally.

Prior to Eolake making his blog posting I has assumed the governmental reports were correct. I knew no better. Now I have had time to read, view and consider carefully the alternative arguments I can see why so many people are demanding a new honest enquiry into the 9/11.

Thank you Eolake!

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Thanks for the links.
And thanks to all for the lively discussion.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

... BTW, Anon, use a name next time. Any name will do, it's just so we can all follow who says what. You don't need a blogger account.

And a tip: if you use a service like:
http://tr.im
... it will make long addresses more handy.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

"We're sorry, this video is no longer available", YouTubeheads tells me. Ah, no matter, this story is everywhere.

Like Bert said. And John Clifford makes some pretty darn solid debunking, as far as the actual events go.

As a Lebanese who's seen the whole war, I represent a nation of experts on demolition and destruction. Not to brag. (Oh heck, LET'S brag!)
Also, my father is a world-class engineer with a life-long experience on armed concrete structure. "He knows the stuff", to put it mildly.

The WTC towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of an airliner. Which they did, actually. What they couldn't be designed against, was the effect of the following inferno. There's no need for steel to melt like wax, suffice it that intense heat would soften it, and also crack the concrete. Then it lost its mechanical properties of proper resistance.
You've all seen how buildings prepared for demolition get one to three floors blasted, and the incredible kinetic energy of all that mass falling from just a few feet high then causes a chain reaction. Well, apparently, from the tape we saw of him, Osama didn't quite expect that phenomenon, and was jubilant at the "wonderful" result of his nefarious little plan, beyond all his expectations. Proving he might be highly malevolent and organized, but he's still an uneducated moron. To think his Saudi family is VERY big in the construction business. He didn't listen to Daddy as carefully as I have. :-P

NO BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED BY BLOWING UP ALL THE FLOORS IN SEQUENCE. Especially not from top to bottom!!! Ideally, blow up the lowest one to three, and the rest falls by itself.
What appears like chain explosions on those films, in fact needs be no more than bursting dust from the collapse. Concrete being literally pulverised, bursting into dust at the level of the snapping pillars. Bursting, not blasting. Transmitted shockwaves will do it easily.

Ockham's razor: why seek for complicated "explanations" when there's no reason to suspect more than is visible and known? Yes, yes and yes again, those towers needed no more than fuel-filled airliners smashing and igniting to crumble.
"This is why the first tower hit was the second to fall... it was hit higher up towards the top "Exactly. And elementary. I knew that the moment I saw it in 2001.
"Why is it that the collapses started at the impact sites/floors? How could anyone have so precisely placed the explosives so as to fool us all? This strains credulity."Again, this obvious observation is hard to dismiss.

As for the small one, WTC7... heck, do you have any idea of the raw energy sent through the ground by the fall of the big ones? Like a localized earthquake. The real natural disasters release an energy aptly described as "Hiroshima 100 (or 1,000) times". And Hiroshima was about 1,000 tons of TNT.
How much TNT does it take to shake a building into collapse? Here's a hint: a full truck of it was enough to lever the HQ of the Marines in Beirut in the Eighties, remember?

No "inside job" conspiracy needed to fully explain any of it. Unless you have an addiction to some hard stuff like, oh, FEAR? Oh, the regular adrenalin rush of paranoid conspiracy buffs!
Lebanon is a whole country full of such fine connoissors. Ganja's illegal? Who needs it? We got plots, we got riots, and we got bigots! Aah, religion: the opium of the people, indeed. The best possible excuse for anti-semitism / zionism / americanism.

People all around me refuse to believe that some "decadent Americans could rebel against their hijackers, that plane in Pennsylvania was SO shot down by the military".
Sure, "question everything", but Descartes long ago proved that doubt is the only certainty in the Universe. His COMPLETE maxim was: "I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am." Brings perspective.

Some people need this constant state of mind to feel like they exist. And yet, they forget to ALSO healthily doubt the uncriticized claims of conspiracists. Presenting hollow claims in an attractive package is a science in itself, and at THAT one, these fakes are experts.

Did you know that single-voiced "conspiracy revelations" were one of the most powerful propaganda tools of totalitarian regimes? "What's the matter, comrades, you want Farmer Jones to return?"

As for plots... No, I don't think either that Osama is STILL working for the Agency. But rabid fanatics are always objective allies. Hamas and Netanyahu both need each other to justify the constant state of conflict which alone keeps them in power, gives them a reason to exist. "My beloved enemy. If you weren't there, I'd have to invent you."

"the people who were murdered on 9/11 by ARAB TERRORISTS"Remember though, that aboard these airliners were innocent passengers from all nationalities and origins... including arabs!
In fact, one of the terrorists was presented as being Lebanon-born Ziad Jarrah from the Bekaa plain, but it seems it was a case of identity theft. Apparently, the man using that name only vaguely looked like the young man whose parents, I fear, have little hope of seeing him again. It's all too likely that he got "eliminated" for safety. According to an American investigation.
Anybody who doesn't support the terrorists becomes an enemy, including "their own". :-(

Which eerily reminds me of sumpin' Dubya sayd. Whut wuz it again? Ah, yeah: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Is this why he toppled Saddam, who had never accepted an alliance with BinLaden? They NEVER got along, islamists are notoriously uncontrollable. No more than there were actual anthrax labs in Iraq.
Religious extremists are all enemies of open-minded tolerant coexistence. Merchants of fear. Zealots of "the noble glory of war, please God that we prevail".

I suggest you check back a couple of my posts on a kamikaze woman in Iraq and the pirates of Somalia for some food for thought that doesn't claim to have any answers, only to suggest some added perspective and reflecting.
Here's a short personal vision of the arab terrorists, summed up from several serious analysts, many of which are of local origin and now understandably living in exile :

The arabs in general have had an identity crisis since the colonial period. Heavily encouraged, truth be said, by some major problems in contemporary arab culture (like that fondness for conspiracies, "if things are bad there's always somebody OUTSIDE we can blame for our problems, boo-hoo"), and also by the traditionally fundamentalist teaching of a religion that's very present in daily life. Came the founding of Israel, very openly based on the land spoliation of the Palestinians that had been living there since the Diaspora around 180 A.D. Already the Arabs disliked the Jews as much as many (most?) "straight-thinking" pre-Holocaust societies. So "my enemy Israel" became a fond leitmotiv, especially with all the dictators who need a diversion from their authoritarianism.
It didn't help that the USA and the CIA, very admittedly, gave massive support to muslim extremists in the "clever" goal to counter the fierce communist atheism with an equally fierce opposite force, basically pouring manure on the thorn bush that now pricks them. And that they played all sides, supporting any potentially "friendly" regime, no matter how tyrannical and repulsive. "The imperialism of the Great Satan." Not entirely an illusion. The whole world was (and is again today) mere pawns in the planetary political chess game between the Free West, the Socialist East, and the Enlightened China.
After the fall of the Communist Block, folks like BinLadder, deprived of their dear communist devil, turned to the next obvious target. They're moral-less barbaric criminals, but every betrayal of true freedom values by the hypocrite "crusader countries" only brings to these savages even more naive, totally uneducated, gullible cannon fodder. Abu Ghraib and the countless "collateral damages" merrily spread by the trigger-happy uneducated american soldiers are but textbook examples.
Like I say in the post on Somalia, there's no justifying terrorists, but they're not the only ones open to fair criticism.

So, as far as the POLITICAL side of John Clifford's comments goes, you're on your own, Johnnie-Boy. If you actually believe that Bush accomplished anything intelligent or made the world a safer place by the wisdom of his choices... [Hint: he should've focused on the true target, Afghanistan, and NOT abandoned Musharraf in Pakistan.]
AlQaeda haven't attacked the USA since? Why would they, when they get to play at home? They have the full advantage of the terrain, got to conveniently kill more American soldiers every day than any complicated operations in the West... like, say, Madrid 2004, or London.
The fall of Saddam's orderly regime was a blessing for the sunni islamists, a wild dream come true. To a terrorist, they made Iraq a playground to roam free.

The true solution to violence is not opposite violence. That's the "my precious enemy" sick game which precisely has destroyed Lebanon for the last 34 years (34 years and three days, precisely). And counting. At the moment it's happening, sure, you need to react to an agression, but on the long term... The only lasting solution is to fight the true enemy : violence, hate, ignorance, injustice, resentment... It's all related. Start treating everybody with fairness, making more friends instead of more bitter enemies.
This means that people who have done nothing wrong should be done no wrong, but helped to evolve. (Alphabetisation, schooling and decent jobs for all would be a good start. Oh, and cease WAGING WARS OVER THEIR HEADS, maybe?)
The undeveloped world was never given a fair chance, let's admit it frankly. First it was exploited, then it was left under heartily supported dictatorships. All the while leaving poverty and ignorance to mislead an ever increasing number of poor fools into becoming criminal bullies in turn. Abu karma drama, baby, it always catches up with you, everything you've done. The Universe knows what you did last summer...

As for people who HAVE done you wrong, they should be considered for what they are, nothing more. You don't give the chair for petty thefts, and you don't punish a criminal's family, or village, or race. That's what primitive Arabs do...
If you freak out at the image of BinLaden like he's some Dracula or movie zombie, next thing you know you're frantically spraying bullets which will mainly make innocent victims. Like that Coop dude in the cartoon series Megas XLR. It's incredible how much this guy feels like the typical average American stereotype as perceived by the rest of the world. The result? Now countless vendettas have been launched for generations to come. Every injustice, ESPECIALLY in the name of Justice, breeds very lasting resentment, more than you can ever appraise.
Dubya's America made the age-old classic mistake : it wanted to be strong, but became a bully. Only making the hostile world MORE dangerous.
As the Chinese proverb goes "do not point at the wrongs of others with a dirty finger". Hypocrisy in politics is like what the novel Pinocchio said about lies: "Some have short legs, others have a long nose."

"Why do they think Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are not so bad, but George Bush is evil incarnate?"Georgio Dubya carries the evil of moronic bigotry. That's quite bad enough. Sure, it's not as bilious as Osama, he's not oozing pure murderous gleeful hate... but it's far sufficient to cause incalculable damage. He's less evil, but as the US President, in a position to cause far greater harm overalll than some ragged goatherder gesticulating in his caves to his hallucinated Koran-tripping buddies.

I know, it's ironic, but it's a fact : everything that the USA did in Abu Ghraib was kid's play compared to what the "nicest" arab regime regularly does to its citizens, BUT it was done by dem loathed Americans, AND they were stupid enough to actually take pictures and let them get public. Plus, it WAS carefully aimed at causing maximum humiliation and cultural insult. Summary executions of suspects by firing squads would've been better perceived than those hooliganistic idiocies.
And, let's not forget that the entire West supported the very regime of Saddam for decades. However you turn it around, the mediatic war loses every battle. Because the only thing that WOULD work, GENUINE friendliness, wasn't attempted. Only fake "PR ops", which with their obvious hypocrisy are perhaps worse than attempting nothing. At least Saddam was straightforward about what he did and who he was.

Ah well, I won't change anybody's political opinions, everybody sees the other as sadly misled. Politics are just another subjective belief, quite similar to religion. And in the end, a personal choice...

"maybe looking at all of those fine women on DOMAI has done something to you."You have to admit, they do turn a guy's head around! ;-)

"And how do you explain the precise fall of the third building, over six hours later"Wouldn't it have seemed more unconspicuous, if someone wanted to blow it up, to do so just at the fall of the second tower, after getting ready from seeing the first one crumble?

"correlation does not imply causation."Well said, Watson.
Provided there even is a seriously established correlation, anyway. Conspiracy buffs are well known for seeing what they WANT to see.
Remember how Goofy's skepticism makes him immune to witch Hazel's spells: "Magic only has power if you believe in it, and this idiot is too stubborn to believe!"
As Ben Franklin would've gladly pointed out, fear only has over you the power that you grant it.
In the end, what does it bring us, to trust stuff we can't verify?

"Intellectual contortionism", I love the expression. I see it every day here in Lebanon. People have DECIDED, once and for all, to believe that Israel and America are bent on tormenting us poor arabs, and therefore anything bad that happens can be "explained" by one of their mean, mean plots.
Because, of course, we are so immensely important, and magnificently civilized for millenia, that jealous recently-founded Israel and America have no higher priority than to pester us hapless knights of virtue.
But nooooo, the Lebanese are absolutely not self-centered, narcissic, or complacently parano-whiners! It's true, it's all true I tell you! The evidence is right under our noses! ;-p

(Phew!) Time for a break. To be continued.
"I'll be back."

John Clifford said...

To the comments on my qualifications/intelligence, I'll state that I've studied mechanical engineering, mathemetics, physics, and computer science. I've been paid (and paid very well indeed) at a professional level for these skills, to where I could retire in my mid-30s. And my IQ has been measured at well above the genius level. Most important, unlike many of the clowns on this thread, I actually have the ability to understand what I read and to correctly interpret data. So Kabel, what are YOUR qualifications... and do you really feel that only "experts" have valid opinions? If so, then you must believe that the politicians who would argue with the generals about the conduct of the US war in Iraq should have kept their mouths shut, as surely the generals have considerably more experience and training in the art and science of warfare. If not, then why do you even presume to ask me about my qualifications? Like I said earlier, your continual inquiry into my qualifications or lack thereof indicates that you don't know enough to judge the facts for themselves.

Re the person who read my blog and accused me of being in a 'militia', I spent a portion of my adult life getting training, and training others to defend themselves. I was fortunate enough to meet many people who have seen the elephant, and to benefit by their advice. As many of them remarked, "If you can tell good advice from bad advice, you don't need advice... and if you can't all the advice in the world won't help." I think they had people like "Lance" in mind. Oh, by the way, according to US law (Title X) all adult males are de facto part of the militia, a term meaning 'armed populace' or 'civilians who are trained in military tactics.' So Lance, maybe you should STFU until you actually know what you're talking about so everyone won't know how stupid you really are.

Re "loving my government" I do share the common experience of having sworn an oath to defend my COUNTRY (not my government) from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Like most of the other folks who have taken that oath, I love my country and respect our FORM of government even as I disdain many of those who have somehow conned the public into voting for them. I also know that it's beyond the realm of possibility that the idiots who run our country (as opposed to the competent underlings who actually do the work) could plan, execute, and keep silent a conspiracy of the magnitude to pull off a 9/11. Come on... Bill Clinton couldn't even keep Monica Lewinsky quiet, much less get that blue dress secretly dry-cleaned. The standard rule of government conspiracies states "Never blame on malice what can be attributed to incompetence."

One person (Pascal) actually bothered to answer my original question. Thanks for your honesty, but I really would have to disagree that George Bush is either moronic or evil. The problem with labeling someone you disagree with as moronic is that it gives YOU an excuse to be intellectually lazy, to not address the merits of that person's position. I can understand, and respect, someone who disagrees with Bush's positions for logical reasons. But when I see name-calling I know it's just an intellectually lazy way to avoid addressing the issues.

Will Rogers used to say, "It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you do know that just ain't so." Like, just KNOWING there were explosives in the WTC... yet there is no concrete proof. Or, KNOWING that Bush is an evil moron... yet the man had a higher GPA than Al Gore, was highly regarded as a fighter pilot in the US Air Force (and flying high speed planes requires intelligence and courage, because the penalty for errors is death), obtained a Harvard MBA, and was a well-regarded baseball team general manager, governor, and president who managed to continually defeat his political enemies who repeatedly "misunderestimated" him.

You all have had the collapse of the buildings explained to you by two different posters, in a manner that is both scientifically sound and easily understandable. You have to accept facts as they are, not as you wish them to be. The facts don't support a conspiracy.

Vabel Kaache said...

So funny that the 'lead' actor in the play has a need to reveal his paper credentials after the curtain has gone down.
- genius, my foot.

Yable Kaache said...

And... the dress wasn't blue - it was green. Glad that you got a chance to see it, John.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Me, I'm not convinced of either story. Much depends on whether the towers fell from the bottom or from the top, but in low-res videos and with the towers having only vertical lines on them, I really can't tell.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Actually, looking at it afresh, it seems to me they collapsed from the top, why else would there be the blow-outs of smoke and debris?
If it fell from the bottom, the top would look unchanged, except for moving downwards.

http://tr.im/iXVo

Timo Lehtinen said...

It is more complex than that. Because of the structure of the WTC building (with its massive steel core), in order to demolish it, you need to set up a special charge for the core alone, and it needs to fire before any thermate cutting charges for the lighter beams in the outer structure. I.e. pancaking can only happen if the core is blown away first. (And, needless to say, there's absolutely no way anything like this could happen from the aircraft impact and the fires alone.)

So, to answer your question, the towers fell from inside out. You can see this in the video: before any pancaking happens, there's pulverized dust flying directly upwards from the roof of the building. This force must come from the core, i.e. basically from the elevator shafts. Firemen reported that they heard an enormously bang from the basement.

I wouldn't even have thought that any cutting charges are needed -- if you just blow the core into bits, and then let it pancake on itself -- but apparently they were used, as there are some photos showing clean almost 45° diagonally cut beams.

There is a detailed expert analysis here (look for links under the heading "Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11").

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

But wouldn't the steel core prevent "pancaking" unless you cut it at every floor?

Mmmm, I don't see any spurt of dust upwards from the roof just before collapse.

John Clifford said...

The photos showing the clean 45-degree cuts need to be put in context... with the photos showing welders cutting those posts as part of the demolition effort after the towers fell. Yet another example of how conspiracy theories are based on incomplete data.

If you look carefully at the collapse videos, you can see that the collapse starts at the location of the airliner impacts, supporting the engineering analysis (heat weakened the beams below the capacity to support higher floors, leading to collapse of those beams and the 'jack-hammering' of the upper floors down, collapsing the entire building). Eolake, you shouldn't expect to see a 'surge of dust' from the top of the building (via the elevator shafts) unless an explosion did occur. QED.

Kabel/Vabel/et al, funny how you continue to resort to ad hominem attack rather than addressing the ISSUES... a tacit acknowledgement that you cannot support your position factually. QED. But thanks for playing.

Aniko said...

Well, basically there is no conspiracy theory needed to understand that 9/11 was incredibly useful for the Bush government as a justification for launching the "War on Terror", attacking Afghanistan, and later Irak (remember the mysterious arms of mass destruction?), not to mention other measures.

So actually until now I did not bother to research if they had organized it themselves, or just let it happen. General evidence from the film Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore and other documentaries was enough strong that they knew about it. And I could see by myself that they used extensively the advantages of it.

Actually if they made it themselves, ordered it or just knowingly let it happen does not make a very big difference.

But....

Now that the subject came up, and John Clifford came here with so much dynamism to convince us, I started to look for information...

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

That's a 90-minute film! Did you watch this today?

Aniko said...

Talked to friends, and realized there is much documentation that has been released.

You HAVE TO watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

Loose Change. (2nd edition)

Aniko said...

Yes ! I have just finished it.
It's worth it.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Very interesting.

One of the solid pieces of evidence (around 44 minutes in) is a WTC janitor who was near ground level when the planes hit. He saw a guy come out with his skin melting, this guy said the elevators had exploded. Near ground level.

Timo Lehtinen said...

The film Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11 is also very good. Made by the Italians, it is nicer artistically, too.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Somebody just disrelatedly sent me this quote from a book he's reading:

"Although the reformers have truth on their side, truth is just another special interest, and not a particularly powerful one. The villains willing to lie in order to defeat change have an advantage over those constrained by honesty. Reformers do not have it easy."
- "The Bottom Billion" by Paul Collier. (page 180)

John Clifford said...

One of the solid pieces of evidence (around 44 minutes in) is a WTC janitor who was near ground level when the planes hit. He saw a guy come out with his skin melting, this guy said the elevators had exploded. Near ground level.Evidence of what? Evidence of elevator shafts filling with burning jet fuel? Evidence of breaking elevator cables causing the cars to come splashing down in this burning kerosene, squirting it out of the closed elevator doors at the lower levels? If the elevators had exploded, why didn't this guy have severe shrapnel injuries from the elevator cars, doors, etc?

Again, a hearsay statement by a janitor, saying what a person he supposedly saw was saying, without any other corroborating evidence, is a pretty thin piece of evidence to conclude that there were explosives present. Not as thin as the 'nano-thermite' evidence, though.

Andrew Lewis dog food secrets said...

I have seen that youtube video on Ministry lie lie lie. This is wonderful video. Definitely I will share this video to my friends