You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #31 
Hi Derek, The Fukushima skyscrapers oscillated during the 8.9 earthquake and after-shocks but did not pulverise/implode. The Tehran high-rise no doubt oscillated after a military plane (with full fuel load) smashed into it in 2005. The Tehran building remained standing, [1] as did the Empire State Building after a B-25 bomber crashed into upper floors in the 1940s.  [2]

  The questions I'd like answered about 'oscillation' at WTC 1 & 2 are:

- Can oscillation account for the rapid crushing (at freefall acceleration) of 95 floors of intact steel and concrete?

- Can oscillation explain the observable *absence* of structural resistance?

- Why did the tower which underwent less oscillation (and fire damage) because it was hit second, fall first? [3]

- Can oscillation explain why there *was not* partial collpase of upper floors, eventually halted by structural resistance of lower, unaffected floors? Why, instead of partial structural collapse, was there global pulverisation?

[1] Tehran Plane-Building Crash
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-06-tehrancrash_x.htm
[2] WTC Designed for Jet Impacts http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/The_World_Trade_Center_Twin_Towers_Were_Designed_For_Jet_Impacts
[3] Timeline http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/timeline/index.html

UPDATE:  Documentary: "A New Standard of Deception" http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-new-standard-of-deception/
Are Millions of Office Workers At Risk, Working in Dangerous High-Rise Buildings? / Washington's Blog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/millions-business-people-risk-dying-collapsing-buildings.html

Derek

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #32 
Structural differences might have accounted for different behaviours, including better/poorer construction and materials. I'm not sure how helpful it is comparing other examples is all - premature collapse of buildings does happen (this site discusses it mostly in relation to corruption and corner cutting - http://toostep.com/idea/why-do-buildings-collapse-prematurely), but if you compare the premise of construction (on paper) between 2 identical buildings, one may be much safer in reality than the other even if they are identical on paper.

But your questions are good ones, and in my mind, if the worst that happened was initial developers and contractors cutting corners in the building of those towers, then all those people at the forefront of the development should likely be sued and or charged with manslaughter, and yet, so far as I know, they haven't even been implicated seriously. Bridge builders that build bridges that fail seem to get the full force of law on them - why not the wtc developers?

I once had explained to me (by an architect) how the buildings could possibly have fallen in the 'right' conditions given the structural design. I don't think its implausible, and I still see many examples of people insisting things happened that day in this way or that that seem to contradict my memory of it, which gives me cause for concern (like the building sway continuing to point of collapse). I'm not saying my memory is infallible (it is not!), but at the time it seemed obvious to me there would be a collapse..

Anyway, to your questions I would add ...'with the design of the twin towers in mind' (I am most suspicious of the 3rd building's collapse in this sequence, because the structural differences between the 1st 2 and the 3rd were large). Fire could have accounted for collapse in the 3rd but not necessarily as a complete demolition. 

I don't think enough is known  (thankfully) about high rise premature collapses yet to know how they happen with different designs and/or building flaws. I would also like your questions seriously answered!

cheers
Disabled dave

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #33 
For me the problem with 9/11 is that any internet discussion gets overloaded with the "it were aliens wot did it" brigade, and what is needed is a heavily moderated discussion to remove any non-scientific posts. I've worked both as a builder and also did civilian work for the RAF (a strange mix, but I've had more careers than some people have had jobs) so have a knowledge of both aircraft and buildings.

Looking at 9/11 I see certain basic questions that need to be asked after stating certain undeniable facts, and those questions cannot be answered if events were as claimed by the US authorities.

Fact: aircraft fuselages are relatively weak, light, and empty, like an oil-drum.
Fact : aircraft engines are relatively strong, heavy, and solid, like a wrecking-ball.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/etihad.asp
shows how weak a fuselage is.
So an aircraft is like a girder (the wings) with an empty oil-drum in the middle and a wrecking-ball on either side.
Question 1: How can it be that the wrecking-ball engines bounced off the outside of the pentagon but the oil-drum fuselage went through three complete rings of the highly reinforced building?
Answer: it can't be.

Fact: the aircraft that hit the twin towers cannot have gone more than half way through or the tops would have fallen sideways before the collapse - like in Jenga if you take out a side brick and then take out the middle brick at the same level.
Fact: the twin towers were relatively weak having been designed for ordinary office use and weather conditions.
Fact: the external walls of the twin towers were approx 50% solid, 50% glazing.
Fact: the offices in the twin towers were open-plan.
Fact:the Pentagon was a strong building having been designed to be blast proof, and just before 9/11 had been fitted with extra internal reinforcement.
Fact: the external walls of every block were approx 75% solid 25% glazing.
Fact: the offices in the pentagon were closed with numerous internal columns.
Question 2. how can it be that an aircraft can go through three complete rings of the very strong Pentagon, but not half way through one of the relatively weak towers?
Answer: it can't be.
Any aircraft so weak that it could get less than half way through a tower should have bounced off the Pentagon with very little damage to the building.
Alternatively any aircraft strong enough to go through three rings of the pentagon should have gone straight through one of the towers and out the other side with the fuselage still in one piece, finally crashing to earth some hundreds of metres away.

Those two questions on their own should be enough to convince anyone that something is wrong with the official version of events.

I've also studied the photos from the 9/11 event and there are many anomalies there, a couple of examples being:
neat exit holes on the external skins of the walls of the pentagon with rough and much smaller holes through the inside skins,
aircraft engine pods of a different size and in a different position from those on the aircraft that were supposed to have been involved.

All in all, I have to come to the conclusion that events were not as claimed by the US authorities, but as to what really happened? I think that will not be revealed until at least 50 years, and more probably 100 years from now.
Peter Cleall

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #34 

The Sound of Silence in Academia Connected to 9/11

Independent German financial journalist Lars Schall talked with Adnan Zuberi, the director / producer of the documentary movie “9/11 in the Academic Community.“ Zuberi says: “Critical perspectives on 9/11 are systematically excluded from universities.”

Lars Schall: Why did you become interested in the topic of 9/11 in general?

Adnan Zuberi: Of the many ways I became interested, I was most interested in academia’s treatment of critical perspectives on 9/11. During my time as a university student, I noticed that there was a much larger picture that required intellectual attention. For example, Maj. Gen. Mark O. Schissler, who served as the Pentagon’s Deputy Director for the War on Terrorism, said to the Washington Times that this War on Terror is a generational war that will last 50 to 100 years. Schissler emphasized that politics should not interfere with this and the public needs to be committed to this long-duration war. (1) I became interested in documenting how many professors are harsh critics of various aspects of the War on Terror but most unusually, they accept without any critical examination, the narrative serving as the foundation for this war. No thinking person would ever commit to a vague 100 year war, or even a 5 year war, without examining its foundation. More importantly, how can one conclude that the War on Terror will last this long? As to how they arrived at these large numbers is itself suspicious as they indicate more of a geostrategic plan for expanding an empire for this century in view of scare resources and competing regional powers. How can professors not question the foundation of such a suspicious long-duration war? So I began studying the mechanisms that structure intellectual thinking in this manner, exploring the nature and dimensions of the taboo surrounding critical perspectives on 9/11 within universities.

LS: Why did you develop an interest in the specific topic regarding 9/11 that your movie is dedicated to?

AZ: To expand on my answer above, I became interested and astonished at the specific ways in which the taboo against a critical examination of 9/11 works within academic institutions. I began documenting the phenomena in my film. If a professor verbally expressed his or her view that the events of 9/11 require a critical examination as to whether they serve as a justification for this generational War on Terror, the professor would incur social punishments from the university community. Additionally, local politicians would denounce the professor and in one stance, the political community threatened the funding of a university if it didn’t fire the professor. Universities have to make difficult alliances with the government.

Since verbal expression didn’t work, the film documents how professors then pursued the scholarly practice of engaging in a rigorous gathering and presentation of facts in a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Despite the attitudes of journal editors serving as a barrier, there are over twenty peer-reviewed papers published in the humanities, social sciences, physical sciences and engineering. All of these papers have major implications as they show the official narrative of 9/11, as told to use by the Bush Administration, does not meet scholarly expectations. (2) And most interestingly, there is no response to or discussion of these papers within the larger academic community. These documentations show how critical perspectives on 9/11 are systematically excluded from universities.

Universities should be concerned about how the 9/11 narrative’s construction exemplifies anti-scholarship. For example, the crux of the official 9/11 Commission Report, which concerns how these alleged hijackers organized, was entirely derived from torture testimony. The CIA tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), over 180 times in one month. KSM later said that he made up a story in trying to escape the torture and the CIA also destroyed many of the tape recording crucial to the 9/11 narrative. So they based a story of that fateful day around on such testimony that is used to change domestic and foreign policy around the world in the worst of ways

Read more -

http://www.larsschall.com/2014/02/21/the-sound-of-silence-in-academia-connected-to-911-2/

mack

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #35 
Hi all,

This mainly in reply to Derek - Hi Derek - on the subject of oscillation of the towers after the aircraft strikes and a couple of other bits and bobs.

Derek, forgive me if I've read this wrong, but you seem to be saying that you recall the towers oscillating right up to the initiation of collapse (and so felt that collapse was likely). If so, then I'm afraid that's a failure of memory. The subject of oscillation has been quite robustly assessed, not least by Nist themselves. Here is a forty page analysis of just that, from NistNCStar1-5A: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~ce573/Documents/Appendix%20K%20from%20NISTNCSTAR1-5Achap9-appdxsDraft.pdf. Quite technical, deadly dull but reasonable. As far as I'm aware there's no objections to this analysis. Also here (Nist again), in summary of the effect of the aircraft strikes on the towers: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/3Fahim2.pdf

Quoted from the above

Motion Analysis of WTC 2 after Impact
The estimated period of oscillation was nearly equal to the calculated first mode period of the undamaged structure, indicating that the overall lateral stiffness of the tower was not affected appreciably by the impact damage. The maximum deflection at the top of the tower was estimated to be more than 1/3 of the drift resulting from the original design wind loads
(about 65 in. in the N–S direction). Since the lateral stiffness of the building before and after impact was essentially the same, it can be concluded that the additional stresses in the columns due to this oscillation were roughly 1/3 of the column stresses resulting from the original design wind loads. The building demonstrated an ability to carry this additional load and therefore, still had reserve capacity.

End quote

So what's being said is that the lateral and torsion loads of the buildings as a result of the strikes were well within the design limits - a full two thirds redundancy. It's not surprising that these buildings were built with lateral and torsion loading as a primary consideration. A +200ft facade a quarter mile high in a hurricane zone needs to be able to resist such forces. And they did. Also, just to note that after approx 9 mins of oscillation after the strikes, the towers movement was approx one eighth of an inch. I doubt anyone would be able to discern that with the naked eye. 
In short, there are no quibbles with Nist's analysis of this part of the problem; the quibbles come elsewhere - where it is provably false. 

Re: your architect friend saying that if conditions were 'right' (ie degradation of the structure or 'corner cutting' in the initial construction) then the collapses were quite possible. I think this is introducing something that is neither likely nor provable. As a building industry professional of thirty years, I can say with some certainty that there was no 'corner cutting' in the construction of these buildings. The prestige vanity project of its time, a huge project set to display and project the image of American industrial and financial power to the rest of the world was done on the cheap using questionable methods? I say that's a ludicrous proposition. When you've seen and been part of the methods used during such projects - not least the non-stop inspections of every aspect of the construction - you woudn't entertain it as a possibilty. As far as degradation goes, well, despite two substantially different sets of damages to two very similar (not identical, but close) structures resulting in the same end result - total destruction? Then this presumed degradation must have been 'just right' to achieve the outcome observed. It's just not a realistic proposition; more, it's illogical. Then ofcourse there's building 7, for which Nist's claim that 'the mystery has been solved' is provably false. 

I think the key to this not knowing what really happened is inherent in the 'answers' we've been given in the form of the official accounts. One needs to address those and avoid introducing alternative scenarios involving 'what ifs' and 'maybes'. One could ask 'prove reindeer can't fly' - but it's not very likely they can given all previous observation and experience, it's just asking to prove something that may or may not exist in an environment to which no access is available. Ie - asking someone to prove a negative.

In summary, I think Margo has pointed more than once to the fact that no engineering qualifications are required here - just look at what happened and ask yourself - on the balance of probabilities, based on all previous observation and experience (ie empiricism) that three high rise buildings fell completely through the path of most resistance on one day only. Never before, never since - and I guarantee you, never again.

Finally, it's worth saying that one of the pointers to telling you that the official account is false is the energy budget of the buildings. We can estimate the PE (gravitational potential energy) of a tower and then we can estimate how much of that energy went to crushing concrete, office contents, slinging large sections of steel over 600ft, energy required to make the dust cloud etc etc - and when we do that we can see that the energy budget in terms of what is proposed as a purely gravity driven collapse falls way short of the amount of energy exhausted by all the factors described above. I'd recommend a look at that aspect, it's very telling.

Cheers all







margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #36 
"The Best Physical Evidence": Lecture by scientist David Chandler at Uni of Arizona

Chandler talks about "the struggle to simply be heard". He talks about 911 science forensics repeatedly "dismissed without a hearing". He notes the taboo in academia and media to even consider this topic and how one is tainted by being associated with 'lunatics' like himself. He quotes Ambrose Peters from 'The Devil's Dictionary": "Friendless: 'addicted to utterance of truth and commonsense' ".

Chandler: "We are not operating in a pristine environment. Truth is uncomfortable and dangerous to power.  We are operating in a heavily propagandised environment."

YouTube lecture: http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/911-best-physical-evidence-explosives-davidchandler911-published-mar-7-2014#comments


"Why I am convinced 9/11 event was an inside job" - David Chandler, physicist
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/874-why-i-am-convinced-911-was-an-inside-job.html

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #37 

The Path to a World Beyond War

http://digwithin.net/2014/03/08/world-beyond-war/



spike

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #38 

Excellent article, particularly this bit :-

'This leads directly to the war-ending idea that has been ignored by many peace activists for the last 13 years. It’s an idea that has been shared by many others, including over one third of the American public according to a 2006 Scripps Howard poll. We don’t know what happened on September 11, 2001 and many people understand that fact. But it is overwhelmingly clear to anyone who examines the evidence that the accused 19 young men could not have accomplished most of what happened. And it’s clear that the 9/11 events and government responses followed the pattern of a war-initiating deception.

Those facts lead people to a catastrophic and catalyzing realization. The crimes of 9/11 represent the greatest war-generating scam of our lifetime. What a great opportunity to begin solving the problem of war!  If we have the courage to re-evaluate our understanding of that seminal event, we might still have the chance to leverage the resulting emotional power to drive the changes needed.'


It also split the western historical narrative from reality. The official story is, as far as most opinion formers believe, true; therefore all the actions that have flowed from the 9-11 events can be, individuals interpretations notwithstanding, justified; after all, if Al-Qaeda is so powerful as to be able to plan and carry this thing off, then surely all means should be available to destroy them. But, if it's not true, that means virtually the entirety of the intellectual class in Western Civilisation effectively believe in a a phantom; a ghost. 9-11 lays like some vast tombstone on the historical timeline - 'here lies the past' it says in mile high letters - The event seems to have triggered a kind of intellectual regimentation born of the trauma of that day. Sceptical minds seems to have been pushed out leaving room only for dogmatic believers. You can see the effect in the coverage of Ukraine where there's plenty of evidence of western manipulation, leaked phonecalls, you tube videos of sniper guns, continual NATO expansion, the historical context, money flows etc etc, hardly hidden, yet none of it matters; the sheer discipline of the intellectual class in ignoring these counter narratives is impressive. They are like dreamers who stubbornly ignore the absurdities inherent in dreams, in order to continue the fantasy. I can't imagine it would be possible for most of the media, politicians, police and the rest to comprehend that 9-11 wasn't what they have been told, even if the most compelling evidence could be produced; so many of their assumptions about reality would be challenged. The effects of 9-11 have lost some of their efficacy now, 13 years later, but that level of visceral panic could easily be produced again and without resort to such spectacular means. The fear has faded somewhat as events and time role on, but it still lingers, like the fear of hell, in most western minds, always ready to spring forth under the right stimulus

spike

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #39 
I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet but I thought i'd post it up for people who might be interested: -  (links after the text)

..........................................................

Historically, Sep 11th has been perhaps our most popular topic on this show, with over 10% of episodes from 2001-2006 being on the topic. As such, regular listeners should be pretty familiar with the events of that day. It is no accident that I've only made 6 episodes on 9/11 in 3 and a half years; I felt that the show already had enough material on it. Nevertheless, new information continues to surface, and it points more strongly than ever to an audacious False Flagattack by a handful in key positions. The continued silence of commercially-controlled media on the topic speaks volumes about the craven and misguided nature of those involved in the whole enterprise.

I'm revisiting 9/11 with a radio adaptation of the best film I've yet seen on the topic, that deserves a wider audience, The New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco. In part 1, we hear three angles:

  1. The US Air Defense - Was the remarkable failure to intercept the hijacked planes incompetence or intention?... As the head of NE Air Command for that day laments, an exception number of training exercises that day mean that only 4 fighters were available to defend the whole, large, area in which the attacks happened. The NORAD tapes reveal unidentified voices giving disinformation about planes and ordering the available fighters out to sea.
  2. The 19 Hijackers - Were they actually about the airplanes? Is there no CCTV footage of the 19 hijackers in the airport? Why then has not a such single photograph from that day been released? Given their lack of flying experience, could they possibly have piloted the paths they flew?
  3. The Planes - Were the planes in fact what they appeared to be? If so, how did they manage to exceed the VMO (Maximum operating speed) near ground level by almost 200 mph? And why did the supposed hijackers, who were decidedly amateurish pilots try such risky maneuvers, which were judged extremely difficult even for experienced jet pilots?


This is part one of an audio adaptation; parts 2 and 3 can be found at the links below.

If you've never heard of  Unwelcome guests podcast before, have a look through the amazing 10+ years archive of shows.

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/677

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/678

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/679


fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #40 
Look at the seismic records folks - the buildings did not hit the ground as they should have! You can see fabric turning to dust - and you can see the phenomena explained!

Please see this through, even though it may raise more questions than answers...



Truth, Fred
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #41 
Fred,

Dr Niels Harrit of University of Copenhagen responds to Dr Judy Wood:

http://911-questions.com/exclusive-jesse-ventura-and-judy-wood-debunked-by-neils-harrit/

------------------

in other news ...


"911 and the Role of the BBC in Distorting the Evidence and Misleading the Public"


http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036



fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #42 
Space Beams and this...

To all those out there who buy into Judy Wood's theory: Yes, Judy Wood may have fairly impressive credentials, but as we already know, that does not make someone immune to spreading disinformation.

This is a hit piece and doesn't take into account many of the observations Judy Wood makes.

Fred

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #43 
Hi Fredjc,   Re: "the observations Judy Wood makes."

Her observation that "there is no stronger evidence than the near free fall speeds' of three steel buildings is shared by many, including scientists at http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org and engineers and physicists at http://www.ae911truth.org

It's where Wood parts company with these groups that things get interesting.

She proposes an evidence-free space-based energy source and conjures up a new term: 'dustification'. She attempts to deny all evidence for demolition and replace it with a theory about directed energy weapons (DEW).

Misdirection?

Engineers and physicists respond to Wood here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html (Scroll down to Letters/
"Discussion of Issues Raised by Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds") See also:  "Wood Debunked": http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html

 
fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #44 
Hi Margo

Whilst I think we agree that there is much more to be learned by a truly independent enquiry into 9/11 - Judy wood's observations are still subject to ridicule and propaganda.

I looked at a couple of your links and they really didn't pass muster on the 'blackening reputation' front. A number of leading 9/11 flunkies have been 'outed' in recent times, Dr Steven Jones being a chief 'snake in the grass'!

I really can't be bothered to go into the why's and wherefore's right now - either you take on board the message - or you don't! In my science fabric of concrete, steel, and aluminium doesn't turn to dust - explosions would put all that mass onto the floor and it patently didn't - I see this with my own eyes.

Keep questioning!

And if your asking - if this weapon exists, wouldn't they try it again? Take another look at the Hariri assassination - extensive(Israeli-based) security measures - cars flipped / thrown in the air no glass - gone - cars 'toasted' with neat dividing lines where non-toasted, etc etc

Qui Bono?

Cheers Fred
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #45 
As Obama appointee Cass Sunstein brings out his newest book on "Conspiracies', Jonathan Kay, fellow of the neocon, anti-Iran, pro-war think-tank "Foundation for the Defence of Democracies", continues his antagonism towards the Architects & Engineers group with yet another attack on founder architect Richard Gage. If Kay and Sunstein hold this (miniscule) field of investigation in such contempt, why have they both wasted so much time (years) reporting on it?

"Richard Gage is preacher to a dying breed" - Jonathan Kay
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/21/jonathan-kay-911-truther-richard-gage-is-a-preacher-to-a-dying-breed/

Cass Sunstein interviewed by Kirkus Reviews on 'conspiracies' and 'dangerous ideas':
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/cass-sunstein/
Quote:
The lead piece in the book is about how a conspiracy theory can find an audience even when there’s no evidence to support it. Can you give me a good illustration of that?
Sunstein: The idea that the U.S. or Israel was behind the 9/11 attack is an example of a conspiracy theory. So far as the evidence can be found, it’s a very false conspiracy theory.

From Kurtis Hagen (State University New York):
A Review of Cass Sunstein's proposed "Cognitive Infiltration"
published in the Florida Philosophical Review, Vol XI, Issue 1, 2011.

http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/fpr/files/11_1/hagen.pdf


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

leftAll photos courtesy of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools..

Like, Tweet and Share...