|
|
|
This is Sprouts, the G&G discussion forum. Read the comments below and then weigh in with your own comments. Or select another issue...
ISSUE 6: CELSIUS 9-11
|
 |
roy underwood of kingslangley, england writes:
Your article makes a hell of a lot of sense, I must say. It was what i had concluded myself. The exact planes,drones,used I'm not sure, but pilot-less drones I think, remotely flown. The towers were mainly an excuse for U.S to try and stabilize their economy by walking into Iraq to take control of the oil fields. Afganistan was never the 'goal'. The Pentagon was hit by a missile,and the other plane was shot down, that's about it really. A truly greedy, nasty, warmongering regime!!
|
|
|
Anna of NJ writes:
There's no doubt in my mind that Bush, Cheney & Co. were behind 9-11. But I found an interview done w/ Beverly Eckert, who is a 9-11 activist, in which she says the floors of the towers were supported by open trusses (long, thin, N-shaped pieces of steel in 60-foot spans), which are more vulnerable to fire than wood. Is that true?
Also, who exactly flew the planes into the towers?
|
|
|
Richard writes:
You ought to consider the element of sheer in the collapse.
Even a piece of dry mud, incredibly weak, when subjected to a vertical force will simply sheer out sideways. Its very hard, almost impossible, for something even as weak as dry clay soil to collapse to dust. Here you have a tall building that is supposed to pancake on itself to dust, but this is not reasonable since the path of least resistance in the collapse is clearly sideways.
at some point in the 100 stories the path of least resistance was out to the side
even if just one joist on one side of one of the floors had collapsed a little slower, then you would have had an immediate sheer out to the side
nothing collapses on its self except black holes
a normal failure under the laws of planet earth involes a sheer component and the guys that work in controlled demolition are experts at avoiding this by timing the collapse perfectly
if their charges are not timed right, then there will of course be sheer
|
|
|
Chuck Boldwyn of Homestead, Florida writes:
A Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor, I have very extensively researched the Twin Tower Collapses and discovered:
The following is the Equation that proves that the 911 Twin Towers could not possibly have collapsed due to exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.
CL(95) = 20*LL(95)
= 20*[5*DL(95)]
= 100*DL(95)
= 100*(95/15)DL(15)
= 100*6.33*DL(15)
= 633*DL(15)
= 633 Force Units of upward support
where,
CL = Collapse Load for 100% & Total Collapse
LL = Live Load = Occupied & Furnished Weight
DL = Dead Load = Unoccupied, Unfurnished
110 = 110 Floor Steel WTC
95 = 95 Floor Steel Block (Lower Block)
15 = 15 Floor Steel Block (Top Block)
20 = Collapse Load Factor of John Skilling
5 = Live Load Factor of Ronald Hamburger
of NIST
Therefore, it required the Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur.
I am using the NIST and Mass Medias own published and or announced at 911 tour presentations data to make this scientific proof that one 15-Floor-Block could not, even in ones wildest dreams totally collapse the 95-Floor-Steel-Block below.
The same application of this data will show that the other Twin Tower could not possibly collapse.
I have prepared a MS Word document with photos, data tables, graphs and other evidence aplenty to conclusively prove my assertions. If you are interested in receiving it for your own evaluation and can help me distribute it to the world, please email me at
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
and I will send you a copy at your email address.
I am also building a scale model of the WTC Twin Tower, using Ramagon connector beams and connector balls (26 holes).
The 95-Floor model has a Core with trussed outer walls and trussed floors connected. The model weighs only 3 pounds.
I am predicting it will Collapse-Load to failure between 200 and 1000 times its own weight of force. I will top load it
using 25 to 50 pound barbell plated to total failure. I will take photos and video of this project and publish it on youtube,
eventually and have a lot more to say about the impossibility of total collapse from a mere 15 floor block.
I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some
Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.
Chuck Boldwyn,
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
|
|
|
Colin Hannah of Ardrossan, UK writes:
Having quickly run through a good portion of the previous threads in this subject, I recall reading several times that the buildings were 'designed to withstand hits or even multiple hits from airliners,' but so far have not managed to read anything from the building designers to verify these 'facts'. Somebody somewhere please get a hold of the contractor, designer, architect, materials supplier. Anyone who can confirm or deny these statements. Now we all know that American is the Great satan according to some of our fundamentalist friends. We all know that Kennedy was assassinated by a 'magic' bullet. We all know that there are Martians living at Roswell. But did you know George Bush is actually from the planet Neptune? Get a grip on yourselves you bunch of conspiracy theorists. OK not everything is explainable about everything that happened on the day in question. None of this empty talk will bring back any of the dead and as America now faces a new government can this carry on please be put to bed?
|
|
|
Jerome Silverstone of Oklahoma writes:
The 9/11 debacle is no less than the tragedy behind the creation of the AIDS virus, which still many people dispute. The new rulers of the world, the so-called coporatocrats have compromised democracy. They own the industries that must make a profit. If Osama was not for real, they would have invented him. The mighty U.S military machine is serviced by all major industries in the world. Therefore, for them to make a profit, America has to be at war. During Clinton's presidency, the defense budget was drastically reduced, thus hurting all those coporatocrats who supply the U.S defense machine. It was therefore necessary to create a war that would justify military spending and bring profits to the suppliers. To confirm that there was conspiracy in the 9/11 attack, look who stood to benefit if America were attacked. The tragedy is, as long as private companies benefit from war, America is doomed to always create one to spur its industries, since they have through mergers, amalgamations, and takeovers, enmeshed themselves in this web of the war machine. Good writing.
|
|
|
James of Minneapolis, MN writes:
I have no illusions about the cynicism and venality of the Bush administration, conspiracy or no conspiracy. There are many impeachable offenses in the record. But this "demolition" argument is simply absurd. The visual drama and lost lives from two airliners ramming into the twin towers is more than enough shock to fuel everything the Bush gang undertook. Why would they take the risk of a parallel demolition effort, which would do nothing but increase the likelihood of being found out? It's like shooting someone in the head, then poisoning the corpse. Why bother?
Think, people.
|
|
|
Shane of Netherlands writes:
Mr. Heller, thanks for the article. I know there are too many articles (conspiracy theories and ones which debunk them) on the internet, but still the point remains, Will we ever get to know the truth behind this gory incident? How many people will still fall prey to this "War on Terror" which to me seems an endless war without having achieved anything that it was expected to? Bin Laden, Zawahiri and their supporter Mullah Omar -- How come the might of the United States has yet to capture them even after so many years? Isn't it puzzling especially keeping in mind that a dictator was smoked out of his rat hole in his own country and here is this person supposedly hiding in mountainous regions and yet unseen for years now.
I'd say there is definitely more to it than meets the eye. Is it possible that the hijackers, who rammed the planes into WTC, think they were working under Bin Laden and yet the actual boss was someone else.
|
|
|
Barbara Van Aswegen of Trompsburg, South Africa writes:
It's good! It's also frightening. The truth must come out. Could some organisation please establish a protection program by which whistle-blowers could leave their information -- even if just parts of the puzzle?
|
|
|
Edward of Toronto, Canada writes:
Thanks, Mr. Heller.
The day bush was elected I told my friend there would be a war. Then 911 came and I said it was an inside job. I checked out conspiracy 911 and was not surprised to read my thoughts there. Then tonight I was watching the Simpsons of all things and saw 911truth.org and decided again to read more. It amazes me that the world knows what happened but the U.S. government thinks they are pulling the wool over our eyes.
Please don't vote for McCain, he will attack Iran and find any way to do it.
|
|
|
al of New York, NY writes:
One of the biggest problems with 9/11 Truth is the pairing up of pseudo scientific claims and ideas, such as Judy Wood's plasmoid cloud energy weapon -- THIS NONSENSE ONLY HURTS US -- with what is clearly solid scientific evidence. Such as: the numerous recordings and witnesses to these events, the straight down telescoping of the buildings into themselves at roughly free-fall speed, the fact that the two towers were blown with such force that created massive lateral forces which ejected most of the contents so powerfully that windows were smashed hundreds of feet away (see fema photos)! The basement space remained intact! And yet we are told this was a 'gravity-driven' collapse, 1000 bodies gone, 'evaporated' was the terms the NY medical examiner used. 90,000 tons of concrete, pulverized... puhleeze!
It goes on and on. WTC 7, a perfect textbook implosion, leaving a neat rubble pile. The government's own report states that 'firefighters were pulled at 11:30am' (NIST) so how could Mr Larry Silverstein have been speaking of pulling them out at 5pm that day? (re his use of the word 'pull' on the PBS special)
Mr Heller, thank you for your efforts! We all need to be counted on this issue! Remind everyone, think of all the victims, whose numbers continue to climb.
|
|
|
Just asking of London, UK writes:
The article and arguments sound plausible enough to me. My only question would be why the insurance company did not do all they could to prove this was not a terrorist attack in order to not pay out the billions they were due to pay.
As I understand insurance companies, they'll do anything to avoid paying, so i assume they would do a hell of a lot to avoid paying out 7 billion. Unless the assurance assessor was also a Bush?
Also, doesn't the insurance company have shareholders? Why don't the shareholders demand a comprehensive investigation in order to get to the bottom of this - it's them that's paying out isn't it?
|
|
|
Hubert Mayer writes:
...meanwhile, another 76 civilians, mainly women and children, were killed by "peace troops" in Afghanistan...
|
|
|
Dietrich Von Kampher writes:
Mr. Heller has shared some valuable points. up until this day, i believed the official story, turns out judging by the evidence here, that the government has been leading me like a sheep.
Great article. Cheers.
|
|
|
Fred Kinzer of Arizona, USA writes:
Interesting article. I do not hold dear to any particular theory about this but I work in the construction field and have a couple comments.
One item you mentioned was the temperature that steel melts at. That is true but structural steel loses its integrity at around 800-900 degrees. Also, the discussion about the dust. Take a small sample of concrete and smash it with a hammer. You will have different size particles from chunks to dust. You will also note that some items will fly outward.
|
|
|
Jon Robinson writes:
if you build a tall building, you realise that it might be a target for plane/terrorist attacks so you put in place a back up system so that if there is a risk that the building will collapse, you set off the demolition early, and make the collapse a stable controlled one, to avoid any other collateral damage - I think that's what happened.
|
|
|
Daniel E of So Cal writes:
Great!
I'm glad to see there's people who actually think rather then let the government do that for them!
I'm 16 years old, and I'm very aware of how ridiculous the original story/excuses the government gave are.
The two towers were more than obviously brought down by controlled demolitions, and I loved the explanation with basic physics in it, it was a cake walk to understand. You should really consider publishing this. If the government wants to rid itself of people who will not tolerate lies that most will accept to be fed, then the government has to know that these people will not go without exposing them as the corrupt, sold out, self centered, politicians they are.
I once believed in a government that was by the people, for the people, for the vanguarding of that people and the best interests of those beings.
Now, all I see is a group of corrupt politicians looking out for their own interest and anywhere where they might make a quick buck.
Governments should fear their people, not the other way around!
|
|
|
William of Michigan writes:
Thanks for the article, Mr. Heller. It seems much of what I've read about the Twin Towers is based on emotionally charged innuendos and politically motivated attacks. Your more reasoned tones will hopefully bring many to think and investigate for themselves these horrible truths, and just maybe people will stand up and have their voices heard in town squares, rather than all this secretive cyber-chatter.
|
|
|
Rich H of UK writes:
Some great responses to the article. Using facts of history, and details of past governments to implement war with other countries. And a great article itself. Asking questions, putting facts forward. To deny some of the clear facts is to deny the laws of physics. If the facts are wrong, please tell us where they are wrong using proven scientific information. I have wondered if someone has tried to work out the probability of all these events happening, not just on the same day, but purely how they happened.
|
|
|
Sry can't tell you of Perrsburg, ohio writes:
Damn that's a heck of a great article! Thank you so much for spending your time on this. For almost 7 years i've been trying to find explanations for and against pancaking; I'm trying to gather as much information as possible pro + con in order to to "find the right conclusion" -- a solution that seems right to me.
This article and many comments are a great help!
And yes i wrote down my town and state, if NSA or whoever wanna find me than they should be able to do it now, so if something happens to me then there will be one more problem for the gov't's "explanation."
|
|
|
Alal H. Ahmed of Khartoum, Sudan writes:
This is a very simple yet strong article, but all this talk about facts, figures and physics makes the catastrophe of what happened that day less humane.
I was never able to believe all the bs that was said in explanation of what happened and I just know that it was an inside job but what truly amazes me is how dispensable the US citizens are to their government. Thousands of people lost their lives that day just so that Bush could have an excuse to start his war against terror (which I think if he had done correctly then he should have killed himself first) and for the businessmen to make a "reasonable" profit out of it.
Bush had always wanted to raise wars against certain countries for his own personal agenda and he needed to American public to be on his side. He realized that the only way for him to do this was to get the public so enraged against Islam. This was his only way out.
|
|
|
Andy Clamp writes:
I'm no engineer or building expert but if i were to build skyscrapers in close proximity to other buildings then i would consider the possibility of any outcome that might arise if the buildings were in danger of collapsing. What if these buildings were fitted with explosive devices on each floor to control there demolition when they were constructed and with this in mind the only people who would no of this would be a select few which would include a government agency.This seems more plausible, i just hope the person or persons who had the unthinkable task of detonating these buildings knowing that their fellow Americans and others were inside never gets into public knowledge.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA responds:
Mr. Clamp, your idea that these buildings may have been designed with explosives in them is an intriguing idea for sure. It would seem like a plausible explanation.
However, the buildings were not going to fall. They were simply not even close to collapsing when they were exploded.
Two firemen had reached the crash zone, and moments before the detonation, they radioed that they saw two small fires and they had a plan to put them out. Then the buildings exploded and collapsed.
And what about WTC7? That building had no reason at all to be exploded.
|
|
|
Bruce of Annapolis, Md writes:
I cannot for the life of me understand why the city of New York has not initiated criminal proceedings against Bush and Cheney. There is one picture, not on this site, but in other film footage where a woman is standing in the whole left by the plane in one of the towers. If the steel was melting because of the jet fuel, how could she have survived, much less be standing right where Bush and Cheney say the steel frame was melting? That is impossible. Therefore, their story about melting steel is complete bull! Treason has a remedy and New York City should be all over this.
|
|
|
John Daly writes:
i find it hard to believe... but there is truth to what people are saying... but why would the government bother to destroy WTC7 which housed its own FBI and the like... Why the world trade center... its a mystery but i do in part believe that the american government could be responsible for the events that occurred on september 11th 2001. This definitely needs looking into.
|
|
|
Michael Scott of the USA writes:
Thanks for the insightful and thought provoking information.
I watched the whole debacle on "live" television -- CBS, ABC and FOX -- and it immediately struck me as WTC1 and WTC2 fell that they fell too 'prettily', too neatly.
Additional to Newton's theory is a concept called "chaos". And chaos would have had those buildings twisting and falling every way other than straight down. Even IF and especially IF the floors WERE pancaking.
|
|
|
Paul Kelly of Mount Vernon, WA writes:
I'd like to be the one who pulls the lever which removes the platform out from under George Bush's feet when they hang him.
|
|
|
Daantje757 of The Hague, The Netherlands writes:
Good article! Dave Heller, I didn't see your name on www.ae911truth.org yet. At this moment, 212 architects and engineers have joined up to find the truth about 9-11 from a scientific point of view. Please join them!
|
|
|
Bobby of Round Hill, VA writes:
I've worked with enough metal, fabrication stuff, to know that metal doesn't weaken a whole lot until it starts to get red. It will expand though. Is that what happened, the floor trusses pushed the outer columns out, then at the same time pushed the interior core columns in? But each floor truss could not give way at exactly the same moment. If the upper floors had tipped over like a tree being cut, I could believe that. But the way it happened? No way. OK, the floors pancaked, but what caused the interior columns to fail? Those 47 or so columns were like a building inside of a building. And Building 7? No way. It was helped along. I don't know how it was done, but it was!
|
|
|
Anton A. of Sweden writes:
Thanks Mr. Heller for a good and understandable article. This is something that has to be spread throughout the world. The Truth is something to fight for! I sense that people around the world are crying for the Truth right now! We need questions that can truthfully be answered. Bless you and all the Truth seekers!
|
|
|
Mark Posey of Flatrock, Alabama, USA writes:
WOW. I have never seen anything like this report before. It really makes some good points, but how can i believe Americans would kill Americans for money. Like so many have said, the Congressmen have billons of dollars. Why kill their own people for money? Many of my family and friends have served in the Army and why kill your own people and start a war over money, and as some say oil, that you don't need? I been raised a Christan and a Patriot and I Pray all this was not over Greed.
|
|
|
Stevie Martinez writes:
I have to speak out. If this was a controlled demolition the ISEE (International Society of Explosive Engineers) would have said so. This fine organization and it's members write the books when it comes to controlled demolitions, building implosions etc. Being a member, an engineer, and having watched all the footage I can of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, these were not controlled explosions but severe failures of the structure brought on by the fact that the steel where the planes hit had softened enough that they could no longer hold up the 20 or so floors above them. All that weight coming down on the building caused it to fall in on itself, yes there have been building fires but not ones being fed by several thousand gallons of jet fuel. If it was just a fire, with no fuel to feed it and a working sprinkler system, it would not have come to this. Also, the planes are light hollow tubes flying through the air at fast speeds, the only really solid parts are the engines, my friend worked with the government investigating plane crashes, he always told me that when the plane is moving fast enough when it hits the ground, water or a building, it shreds into almost nothing, all that thin aluminum just rips apart like paper when it hits a solid object or hard enough surface. So those planes going full speed into WTC 1 & 2, the Pentagon and that field in PA, they were all going too fast to leave much solid evidence. Hence the lack of major wreckage.
|
|
|
B.Watson of Austin, TX writes:
A lot of people are asking why was this done. A lot of people answer so we can go to war and invade Iraq. But no one asks why we would want to do that. Ok, oil is a good reason, but there's another very good reason... money. Who has to pay for everything used to conduct a war? The payroll, equipment, fuel, etc? The United States has to pay for it. Where do they get the money for it? From the Federal Reserve Bank. In case you didn't know, the "Fed" is not part of the US Government. So who runs the "Fed"? Who makes a profit from all the interest the US has to borrow?
|
|
|
zqahtt writes:
An additional thought about the "collapses": WTC1 & WTC2 were both damaged asymmetrically near their tops. Assuming the rest of the structures were still intact but now under asymmetric strain, how possible is it that the progressive collapse (pancaking) would then occur so symmetrically? Wouldn't successive structural failures be more likely to occur randomly, eventually leading to a lateral toppling of the buildings before all of the floors had reached the ground? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Charles writes:
I saw the buildings fall. Mr Heller is right, stuff flew horizontally out.
Also I bet if anyone does the research (lots probably), they would find that "maintenance" was being done on buildings prior to that day.
Quite sickening.
|
|
|
Clif of OZ writes:
I too always wondered how those towers fell down and so quick. I have seen a doc on controlled demolition and the lengths they go to to actually get a really old building to crumble, and the way the two towers came down just didn't seem normal without being helped along to destroy themselves.
IOnatan of Aarhus, Denmark responds:
www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
please, instead of all of this, go and search for the truth.
don't take someone's view as an authority, if it is not.
have you never heard of criticism?
healthy criticism?
take it with some salt folks, it's your country and you have a choice and a vote: you should focus on the real problems and issues your country is dealing with!
just because the conspiracy isn't all true, it doesn't mean there's nothing wrong!
|
|
|
James Broadhurst writes:
great article! i believe that the government were not directly behind the attacks, but did however give permission for them to persist. i believe that america needed this as a motive to go to war. this was the way they could claim they were being attacked and must retaliate.
|
|
|
Kevin writes:
Can you please tell me if the frames in this movie (Frames 51:09 thru 51:19) that show a center support column at the WTC that has been cut, is a picture that was taken before any clean-up crew had a chance to do the cut pictured?
My point is that if this picture was taken immediately after the collapse, and no construction personnel operating in a salvage, or clean-up capacity, are responsible for making this cut, then this is your "smoking gun," and all
your arguments should center as much as possible around this photo.
Much of the argument can get lost if you focus your attention too broadly.
I'm a Union Pipefitter with 30 years experience in the trade. I'm a welder and have extensive experience in cutting and welding steel. I know what it takes to cut 2' thick steel plate. That's only important insofar as it gives me a working knowledge of what I'm looking
at in this picture. Again, if this is a picture of this column before anyone had a chance to make this cut after the collapse, then this is your "smoking gun."
It proves to any reasonable person
that this building was purposely demolished.
I'm extremely disturbed by what I'm seeing here. This is a life changing event for me, if this is a picture of a support column immediately after the collapse.
|
|
|
James Ostby of Boyne City, MI writes:
If you are looking for motive then look at what our government has done since 911, it has made deals with Mexico and Canada to form the North American Union which will dissolve our constitution and throw away our rights. It was all done to create fear so that our civil liberties could be violated without us questioning our government. I am sure their pat answer would be, we need to do this to stop the terrorists, when in fact they are the terrorists. Read Revelations 13:16 and when they ask you to get chipped you will know what time it is!
|
|
|
c. harvey writes:
When I was buying the 911 report at my local Costco, the volumes where stacked five-high on a table. I got one immediately thinking there would be a run on the book. Not so! At that time i was the only one with a thick blue and white book so easy to spot. I will never forget that day because the store was very, very crowded. Well, i said to myself, who am i to...
At home i started to read it and was shocked by its contents -- it's like Fox News wrote the report! No search for truth, no investigation; it read like a novel or propaganda. The upshot, to me, the report
is a disgrace and how could any man or woman of honor sign their name to it?
For a long while i felt like just maybe the other Costco shoppers got it right and that i was dufus for even thinking any 911 report from our government would tell the truth about those horrific events.
I don't think the 911 Commission had the power to do an honest investigation. The only cure for our apathy and cynicism is the daily movement towards the truth by professionals who are able sift through a layercake of facts which seems to make a way for corruption. I don't want to be corrupt, so i'm holding out for a better story about 911. God bless the fact finders.
|
|
|
Logical Thinker writes:
If you look into the way the two tower were structurally supported, it stands to reason they fell the way they did. The vast majority of there weight was supported on the outside skin of the building. This was a revoultionary idea at the time they were built. It also means in a failure that the debris would fall inward as they collapse, this was infact a engineered attribute to the buildings because of there location and closeness to other buildings. I don't think all the facts given on 911 are true but i don't think that it was planned by our government. The simple fact is everyone should do there own research and not accept anyone elses on face value, see if what they say is true or not look into it yourself otherwise you dont have your own thoughts but what someone else whats you to believe.
|
|
|
James writes:
Rather than 9/11 Truth having to prove all the accusations, it would be far better for the US Government explain away all the issues.
Clearly they can't.
For instance, why did the collapse of all three buildings happen at near gravity fall speed? WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds. Why was the steel removed for immediate shipping to China without proper forensics being done?
One could go on and on.
|
|
|
The Lone Gunmen of Miami, FL writes:
I am not an expert in any of this discussed information. I will say, however, that if you follow the money trail you will probably find the truth...
|
|
|
tc writes:
If this is "hard science" for the so-called Truth Movement, I am far from impressed.
|
|
|
Bob Allen of Wheeling, IL writes:
Being a person with a keen analytical mind, it perplexes me how the two trade towers which were struck at different heights and angles, collapsed exactly the same given the fact that the first tower was struck much lower than the second. Plus the second tower was struck more in the corner than a direct hit in the middle like tower one, but many floors higher. The second tower had much less weight above the damaged area. Why didn't the top floors of tower 2 fall over towards the weakened corner. Yet they both fell exactly the same way. Very perplexing. Also think about this... you see mostly black smoke coming from tower #2 which I'm pretty sure is a cold fire at best plus it appears that most of the fuel went out the the other side of the building which is seen as a huge fireball. Basic physics: force=mass X acceleration. Do you think that the mass of the fuel ... Continued
|
|
|
dougbfresh writes:
This guy is a moron. He's writing this in a 10th grade physics level? And he has a physics degree? The guy even cant account wind resistance, friction, differation of pressures in his calculations. I laugh at his "no vacuum" bullshit. And his "either it collapses or resists collapse" physics 101 is everything will collapse once the structure of any object has enough force applying on it. Don't buildings collapse in California from earthquakes all the time? No dynamite involved there? Bridges collapse from fatigue, forget about the one up north that killed numerous people few months back. This conspiracy of the WTC is believable since a majority of the people in this country can't even balance their check book.
|
|
|
Matthew writes:
You're absolutely right. Anyone who looks closely into this will realize it's a massive fabrication.
|
|
|
Jamie Kelso of West Palm Beach, Florida, USA writes:
What Presidential candidate would finally blow the lid off the 9/11 coverup? It would be Ron Paul. And what candidate is being pushed on us by the Neocons? Why, it's Rudy "9/11 Coverup" Giuliani! Here we are, more than two years after this excellent article by David Heller, still in this war for truth.
|
|
|
ikaika of Lahaina, HI writes:
howz it going bra? i dont know if u read all of this crap, but yea i learned a lot in the last couple of days. your theories helped to change the way i think about all of this. i was just wondering if all of this is true why does no one do anything about all of this? if you have anymore can you write me back. mahalo.
|
|
|
Starla of Sackets Harbor, NY writes:
Amazing! That we are all still saying this but can't get the world to do a thing about it. You know that song "where were you when the world stopped turning?" I remember sitting on my couch, crying and saying "Oh my god! That looks like those buildings were controlled demolitions." Being only a bookkeeper, I was sickened then as I still am now. Why must we all be so blind. The government killed our own people to line their pockets with GREEN, only the real color is RED.
|
|
|
Aaron writes:
WTC 7 was actually demolished... but to set up a demolition of that scale would take a few months to set up.
|
|
|
ALEX@nyu of New York, NY writes:
Wow, am I glad to finally have found an article on this that's based on hard scientific facts. I've been extremely angry in the last month because of the knowledge I've gained and all the evidence that's out there about the 9/11 cover-up. I'm glad that there's substantial support from the scientific community on this, it makes me cling to hope.
Mr. Heller, would you mind sharing where you went to school for your physics and architecture degrees? I talk to my friends about this stuff all the time, and now I can say that besides the obvious, I've got a physicist from _______ in my boat!
One more thing...as we all know, the mainstream media have swept this all under their rug, and it doesn't seem as if they're going to budge any time soon. So how will the vast American public that, through no real fault of its own, steers away from these questions in fear, get to find out? The internet is clearly not enough.
If the revolution isn't televised, is it really a revolution?
|
|
|
Kurt King writes:
Many thanks to Dave Heller for writing such a clear, straightforward, logical (and scientifically commonsense) argument against the standard 9/11 mythology, and for demolition.
For those who remain unconvinced without hard numbers, I invite you to read my peer-reviewed paper, "WTC Dust Cloud Energetics and Implications."
|
|
|
Mike of NYC writes:
As an electrician I worked at all 7 buildings of the WTC and I knew the buildings fairly well. I also have friends who ran the chillers there up until that day (still alive thank God). I don't know much about physics but I can tell you that there was maintenance / security personnel there 24/7 and it is impossible to have rigged the place with explosives without anyone noticing. As far as the whole security system being completely down for a whole weekend that is completely untrue. Even if the power went down Backup UPS systems would take over without one door opening or one camera going down. I am amazed that you people are so ready to blame you own govt before the people who have burned our flags in their streets and screamed death to America way before Bush & Co came into power.
|
|
|
Billy of Hayward, California writes:
I believe that NIST says that the fire was so hot that it caused the building's trusses to expand, causing the beams to bow out and effecting a perfect pancaking effect. The momentum vector would then have to be perpendicular to the ground and right down the center of the buildings. This would not be possible even if the expansion of the trusses was linear (and only in college at the BS level do we get to play with "linear"). If it could happen, if each truss could expand at exactly the same rate to bend the beams at exactly the same rate, you might be able to prove this case for the North Tower. Each collision of one floor onto another would have a cumulative effect on the total final vector (in the real world it still would not fall straight onto the next level because materials have different impurities at different places, breaks would happen, different people weld differently, etc). Just like the theory of how the planets were formed in the early solar system - each successive collision (with different vectors) of matter helped to create the final angular momentum vector, known as the axis of rotation.
But the South Tower started with an initial angle of the top floors, so how was this angle kept throughout the fall when all it wants to do is tip over? Each collapse would need to cause a counteracting angular momentum vector. Or, all supports would need to be canceled at once, causing a near free fall (Hmmm, I can't choose between these, I'm really fond of the truth but I'm lazy and tired of independent thinking.) Oh well, I guess I will go ponder the immaculate conception over some tea.
Former Aerospace Controls Engineer
NASA - Lockheed Martin
|
|
|
Ghosty Boy of Canada writes:
Today is the 6th anniversary of the attacks and still the truth has not been admitted, investigated, or acknowledged by the media or the government in any meaningful way.
The buildings were CLEARLY brought down in a controlled demolition. The fact that no one in any position of power has addressed this fact makes me almost sure that the media is ignoring it completely so as not to open this huge can of worms.
I will not say that any of us know absolutely who planted those explosives, or that anyone can prove what organization was responsible for this massacre (at least not until a real investigation is conducted), but I do fear that many of our most horrifying suspicions will prove correct.
If that is case, then the most vile and twisted powers of this generation have massacred their own people, raped the public with lies and imprisoned them with fear.
These are not the conspiracy theories of rambling lunatics, but the investigations of educated intelligent individuals that have revealed many scary truths about this tragedy.
The entire world needs to step in, discredit this mass-media propaganda, hunt down the tyrants responsible, and show the world that the people will not tolerate this corruption any longer or ever again.
I applaud all of you who continue to spread the truth and demand answers to this day.
|
|
|
Che Anjas of tokyo, Japan writes:
I made a team from friends that graduated with civil engineering majors from several universities in Asia. We went about learning how the WTC1 & WTC2 collapsed.
We've done our research and made a conclusion that those airplanes couldn't make WTC1 & WTC2 collapse like that.
And yeah, we dont give a shit about politics, conspiracy theorists, etc.
|
|
|
Nome of England writes:
Having re-watched Michael Moore's stunning film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' last night and reading this article and the numerous replies, I am stunned and shocked at something to which I hadn't paid attention before. It has got me intrigued and angered that the wool has been pulled over so many people's eyes. It is time that we were told the truth, and the only was of doing this is by uniting and keeping a constant pressure on the government and an awareness in the general public that not all is as it seems.
|
|
|
Bob & Jacob Palaikis & Gray of Hollywood, California writes:
My partner and I have never believed the government's version of how and why the towers collapsed, let alone the third building "all by itself." There is far more behind this than one will ever know! That is the real story here. Much like what really happened on November 22, 1963. So long as King George is in the White House, we have a mistrust of the government much like the folks under Soviet and Nazi regimes.
|
|
|
Paul Cooper writes:
As a person who has spent all his working life working with metal, after watching some pretty damming film footage all i can say is you've all been conned. I tried to work out how metal just melts without any reasonable heat source. I've worked with bellows and immense heat forging steel and have yet to produce enough heat to actually melt steel. Sure you can get pretty close but if your relying on jet fuel to do it for you I'm afraid your all mistaken. What do we use as a BBQ plate? Have you ever seen a BBQ plate melt? Get a thousand gallons of jet fuel and suspend a piece of steel into it and light it. I guarantee you the steel will be there with maybe a dark scale on it. On looking at the trade center, where did all the molten metal in the basement come from? Where did all the molten metal spewing out the trade tower windows come from? Why when you look at the columns in the basement are they cut at 45 degrees? You can still see the slag melted down the front of the girders.
FACT: Steel can only be melted down in a blast furnace. You need to generate heat. Jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature of 980 degrees Celsius/1796 degrees Farenheit. Steel melts at 1510 degrees Celsius/2750 degrees Farenheit.
|
|
|
Dave of Brighton, UK writes:
I don't pretend to understand the physics involved here, but I'm afraid that there appears to be sufficient doubt regarding what the US administration has told the world about this terrible tragedy. Surely, if enough people demand a better explanation, it has it be given. Or am I just being naive here?
|
|
|
Pascal Reine of Montbeliard, France writes:
Thank you for your participation in the truth, you are resistants in your own country, example of courage for the world, god bless you.
From a french muslim.
|
|
|
L Velaz writes:
I agree that 9/11 was suspicious, particularly the WTC7, and no plane at the pentagon. But while everyone complains that it is wrong, that the election was fixed, the war is wrong, George Bush is wrong, no one actually does anything about it. If they do, something bad might happen to them. What can we do to change it? Nothing. The bottom line here - Money, control, and power. It is clear that the world is at a changing point and power is shifting. When power shifts, men scramble for control. Those who orchestrated this obviously know far more than we would ever be allowed to know. Disinformation, deceitful information. Can you blame the government? Some things are best not broadcast to a world who hates us for allowing our government to take over the world. A world when traveling out of the US, your fellow passengers tell you not to tell anyone on the continent you're going to that you are American. What choice do we have but to support our government and our troops? I turn my head when reading these things because ignorance was bliss and I now have knowledge of reality that I wish I did not have. Knowledge that I am powerless to change. I'll go see Chuck and Larry and escape from reality because that reality is better than this reality. Our country is at war and they can take my son at any time, send him to war, put a loaded gun in his hand, drop him off in Baghdad, send him out on a mission... Continued
|
|
|
Cami of Ununited states of America writes:
Why isn't THIS front page news? I find it absolutely ridiculous that 9-11 itself hasn't risen from the ashes in a mound of fury...are we that numb? This article is true and the conspiracy was played on us as if we are so insignificant in the eyes of our OWN government. Anyone else see a problem with this? Greed=lives and Greed=9/11.
I am tired of living in a nation of numbness. A nation of laziness. A nation that is too numb to search for the truth, or too scared to know. Knowledge is power and we need to get it back as a nation and quit letting our opinions be shaped and honed by a government that picks and chooses battles based on a dollar sign instead of a heart beat. We are not lemmings, damn it.
|
|
|
Devin H. writes:
Thank you for opening my eyes. I think it's safe to say that nobody wants to think of their government as untrustworthy, especially to this degree. I myself didn't believe it at first, thinking "That's just crazy, our government wouldn't hide something like that from us. Our government wouldn't DO something like that to us." I believe that's why there has been such a backlash to people who support the 9/11 conspiracy theory. However, when all fingers point in one direction, and the government points in the opposite direction, what do we do? Ignore it and hope it goes away, or ask questions?
|
|
|
thijs writes:
The only part I find hard to explain, is why explosives didn't go off at the moment the planes hit the tower. I'm no specialist, but has this been worked out? Explosives on every floor would mean that there were also explosives on the floor where the plane came in. Can explosives withstand such an impact? Would be happy with an explanation.
|
|
|
Anonymous of Switzerland writes:
I am neither an architect nor a physicist, it is my plain common sense that tells me that the official story given out to the public is nothing but a fairy tale to hide the real truth. I wondered where the intelligentsia of the US were. My question is how long will it take before CNN, BBC and all other TV channels and media will bring these debates out in public for the slumbering masses to hear. And for just how much longer will 'THEY' get away with this?
|
|
|
Tom Murphy writes:
If you think steel can't be affected by fire, why do you think they spray fireproofing onto steel trusses in the first place?
At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed and contrary to the claims of 9/11 conspiracy people, it did not collapse into its footprint like a controlled explosion. (See the diagram) Instead, as the building collapsed, the debris from WTC 1 spilled into the surrounding streets and onto WTC 7 among others, damaging the building. (See the diagram to the left showing the debris in black which extended north beyond WTC 6).
Eyewitness accounts from firemen such as Captain Chris Boyle and Deputy Chief Peter Hayden and photographic evidence back this up. It is the south side of WTC 7 that was damaged and it is likely that the fires (see figures 5-16 and 5-17) started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, the fires in WTC 7 started at approximately the same time as the collapse of WTC 1 and it is the fires that are primarily the reason the WTC 7 building collapsed. Most 9/11 conspiracy people only show you the east side and north side of the WTC 7.
brmerrick of New Jersey, USA responds:
WTC 7 was indeed damaged heavily on the south side, so why is the collapse symmetrical and total? You would expect collapse to be initiated at the point of damage, and where the fires are greatest. Why did all of the columns on the north side, as well as all the other columns and beams that were not damaged nor heated by fire, all give way at the same moment at free-fall speed?
|
|
|
JohnnyThePrick of melbourne, australia writes:
Up until about a month ago i had no idea, and when i mean no idea, i really mean NO idea.
when i first saw the supposed "attacks on america's freedoms", my first thoughts were, "omfg, this is the start to WW3". however, now that the dust (no pun intended or disrespect to those who were directly affected by the tragic and calculated events on 11-9-2001) has settled, it's all becoming sadly, yet rightly, clear that we were/are lied to.
if you know about magic/illusions, then "misdirection" should be familiar to you.
|
|
|
Ruthy writes:
Thank you for putting this into clear words so this country can see what I thought from day one: Bush needed a reason to finish daddy's war and to obtain war funds that obviously didn't go where they should have gone! It was all planned and set in motion and our country doesnt want to believe this, well it happened and I am sure there will be more scares to make us THINK that bush is protecting us! BS! Thank you! Now if more could get their head out of the sand and SEE its all illusions for the pretense of war.
God Bless the families that lost loved ones!
|
|
|
Bruce A. Scherzer of Bay City, Michigan writes:
I have come to the conclusion that people are alseep. People have different reasons for denial, pain caused by thinking such a thing is real, just the myths of reality and common sense are too hard to swallow, or just that they fail to be objective. Either way, I don't claim to know what happened, I dont agree with the alleged story or "Official story" was correct. I have come to the conclusion that I am passionate about the fact that throughout history we have been lead to believe things that weren't true for motives we aren't always given, because some in our government believe us to be children who should be sheltered from the world. I personally believe that, as JFK said, in our past with coverage of the truth and real media work, our citizens have and will act responsively, given the facts. Its sad to me that people attack others for a opinion, on a personal level instead of debating. This is the true nature of our country. We have the past 20 years or so become a nation ... Continued
|
|
|
TB of Canada writes:
I'm Canadian so my opinion isn't that important in this scenario. I think it's Americans that need to be doing the thinking here. They need to decide what they believe the truth is here and who should ultimately be held responsible. However, if all this was a ploy to get US into Iraq (doesn't make sense, why Iraq?) then it's affected Canadians too, we are dying by the hundreds now in Afghanistan. A women that works beside me lost her 30 year old son in October, this is now hitting close to home, and is this all for nothing? I'm afraid it might be. My husband is an engineer and my father is a pilot. Neither of them believe that the twin towers came down the way we were all led to believe they did. What's shocking to me now, is not the deceit, but just that the general public doesn't want to believe it.
|
|
|
Brent of Palmdale, CA writes:
I will admit to being a dimwit, for going off-topic, as stated above.
The article was presented with common sense ideas, and logical arguments. Essentially, we are left with consternation as to just how did those tall buildings fall (into dust) so quickly?
The easiest conclusion is to agree that they were blown to smithereens!
They say that sometimes the easiest answer is generally the right answer.
|
|
|
Bob writes:
Isn't it Orwellian that the so-called 'mainstream media' chooses to ignore the actual incredible evidence? We listen to stories about Paris Hilton, et al, while those who were involved in this are still free. As long as the American populace continues to sleep in the TV dream state, then nothing of consequence will change the murderous thugs who are in charge at the top. So far the death toll is 3,000 killed on 9/11, 3,400 US troops killed in Iraq and over 1,000,000 civilians killed in Iraq. When will we stop this madness? After the invasion of Iran? Wake up "America"!
|
|
|
Bob writes:
In 1997 when Project for the New American Century was planned by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and so on, there also was a founder by the name of Erik Prince, a friend of the Bush family. BLACKWATER, a mercenary army operating now in Iraq consists of ex-Navy Seals and Special Ops Forces trained in explosives and demolition. Makes one really think about the WTC towers.
|
|
|
PA writes:
To all those scholars out there: We really need you to publish these findings is reputable scientific journals and have them endorsed by reputable universities.
|
|
|
jeff writes:
Beautiful explanation. The first thing I thought when this happened was, who benefits from this? Clearly the recipient of insurance and the people involved in the circle of money. Bush is a liar! He denied an investigation and hauled away all of the evidence to cover it up! Shame on this Administration for deceiving the world. I hope Karma finds them.
|
|
|
paddy of cork, ireland writes:
Dave if this is true, the people who made this possible would in reality do anything to stop the truth being made public. I would be careful. My opinion would be that these actions were taken to ensure that almighty oil was priced in dollars, instead of euros, which would destroy the millitary machine in america, and add all the wealth to the euro! take care man, be safe!
|
|
|
John de Graaf writes:
A bit of light relief on a Friday afternoon is always welcome.
|
|
|
Gus of Phoenix, AZ writes:
Muslim extremists long to kill as many "infidels" in the US as possible. They teach it to their children every day. Finally they succeed and we can't even have enough clarity to blame the people who wanted to do it and then took credit for it. Our enemies are laughing themselves silly every time you nut cases come up with these crackpot theories.
Yes, it was a controlled demolition. Extensive planning and scheming by the terrorists who wanted the buildings to fall worked. The terrorists controlled the demolition. They figured the buildings would fall, and they were correct.... Continued
|
|
|
Bill Stone of Wales writes:
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
I have in the last two days come upon the 911 websites having not really given much thought to the subject other than to it's tragic consequences to those who lost loved ones.
As an engineer I cannot but see the logic of what these academics are saying, the physics are there for all to see.
Building 7 set the seal on the argument as far as I am concerned.
These are not dark weaved nonsenses, they are scientific facts that need to be explained to all the world lest we enter a truly dark age.
|
|
|
CrazyMerlin of In the desert, USA writes:
I have seen footage of some of the firefighters after they came out of the wreckage, stating clearly that they heard multiple explosions.
One of them even states... "It sounded just like when they demolish a building with explosives. Boom, boom, boom, boom."
I have read many articles like this one, and they all, to me, provide the essence to start an open investigation into what happened.
But this will never happen. The people are afraid of the truth. It would undermine their daily life. And those who could prove the truth are quickly shot down as "Wackos" and "Loonies".
Shame on the American government for being so defenseless against the rich who really run the country.
|
|
|
Poetry Hound writes:
Five and a half years after the attack and not a single civil (structural, construction or otherwise), mechanical, or materials engineer with a background in construction methods or materials, forensic engineer, fire engineer, demolition expert, construction expert or metallurgist has questioned the collapse theory or NIST's findings. All the conspiracy theorists can point to are a tiny handful of scientists who make claims about things that aren't in their area of expertise or experience. No demo charges were seen or heard at the time of the towers' collapse, no detritus of explosives, detonators, cabling, etc. was found in the rubble, no one saw any bombs or any demo teams installing explosives during the months it would have taken to do so. The conspiracy claims are all based on unsubstantiated assertions, willful misinterpretations, and falsehoods.
Patrick of San Jose responds:
I am an engineer with formal training in structural resistance and I endorse the conclusions of this article.
Is that enough for you?
David Lowe of Wichita, KS responds:
You are wrong on every single one of your points.
1. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth lists hundreds of engineering professionals:
www.ae911truth.org
2. Demo charges were seen and heard. Watch this superior video shot from Hoboken pier. Absolutely breathtaking.
3. No evidence of bombs? How about the 1000+ degrees that the ground remained for months after the attack? That is evidence of thermite.
|
|
|
tom kordis of Evergreen, CO writes:
The "science" behind this article is non-existent. You have shown no calculations. You simply talk about energy & momentum. And then throw in your own political agenda.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for prostituting physics in this shameful manner. For leveraging your alleged (and clearly lacking) expertise to convince the technically naive that something is "provably" amiss.
There are some, Dr. Greening & Bazant & Zhou for example, who have actually bothered to do the calculations. Rather than simply utter unfounded platitudes. Why don't you put your education to work, rather than simply offer appeals to your authority in order to advance a clearly political agenda.
I don't care what your politics are. I don't care how you feel about current events. To offer this frankly dispicable conclusion WITHOUT having performed, check and peer reviewed your calculations & methodology disgraces you & the teachers who attempted to instill in you an allegiance to truth & rigor.
|
|
|
Dennis Fischer writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Thank you Mr. Heller for providing this forum. I have a Masters Degree in structural engineering from the University of Illinois and have been a professional engineer for over 35 years. All three of the WTC Buildings, sad to say, were destroyed in a controlled demolition. The theories of free fall, the resistance inherent in the structures of the buildings to free fall and other statements made in that vein are all true. The scientific evidence is irrefutable. People will do anything for power and the neoconservatives and creators of the Project for the New American Century should be investigated for complicity. It is a huge conspiracy, but the truth will ultimately come out. It always does.
|
|
|
Angelo Serignese of CANONSBURG, PA writes:
The first time I heard someone mention the 911 attacks being an "inside job," I was outraged. I couldn't find my youngest son for 5 days after 9-11. I was heartsick. And now in January 2007, I saw for the first time videos and scientific reports about the controlled demolition of WTC7.
It has taken me over 5 years to see this evidence because like most Americans, I wasn't looking for it. But I can tell you this....I am not going to quit until these monsters are "hunted down and brought to justice." I'm not interested in talk. I want to connect with competent people and join forces to bring massive pressure on our justice system to break open this evil case. I can be reached at America_Freedom@comcast.net
|
|
|
Hermes writes:
Steel has a high melting point that fuel by over 1000 degrees. There's no way jet fuel could melt steel. Just look at the Madrid skyscraper made of steel that burned for several days straight leaving only a shell of a building.
This was Bush's Reichstag fire, the same tactic Hitler used to remove civil rights from the German people. Then all they need is a defeat in war then an economic collapse and they take over using martial law. Check out Jordan Maxwell's videos on google.
|
|
|
Someone who agrees writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
This is complete bull. I can't believe the government would do this to us. They could at least come up with a more plausible lie. I just hope that all those that benefited from this get what they deserve. I completely agree with Mr. Heller this looks too much like a controlled demo. I was 13 when this happened so I didn't understand at the time but I knew there was something I couldn't put my finger on.
|
|
|
Brent of Palmdale, CA writes:
For the doubters out there: Please do a comparison of the Pentagon pictures, or videos, and the WTC fires and conflagrations. And you really have to ask yourself, where is all of the melting going on (at the Pentagon)? Besides the minimal hole there, that 'supposed' airplane had enough jet fuel in it to travel from east coast to west coast. It has been described as a cake-like cut, along the left side of that hole, at the Pentagon. So, if the same kind of huge airliner, that hit either of the twin towers, hit the Pentagon, then why is there not such a huge conflagration erupting, or melting, the surrounding elements? Such as that book on the stand, to the left?
I personally doubt the official version of events regarding 9/11/01.
Tom Radek of NY, NY responds:
You are a nitwit, when a B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in July of 1945, the whole that was left in the building was 18' x 20'... The B-25 had a wingspan of 60 FT. This must have been a missile too huh?
Stop using half truths, lies, innuendos, and 2 sec video snippets to try and make you feel better about 9/11...
|
|
|
Rocco Pinzone of New Jersey, USA writes:
This article is exactly what I've been searching for. I was assigned a research paper in my english course and chose to write about the collapse of the towers. Every article I came across from Google was from a so called "reputable" government agency or wild conspiracies that left open ended questions to the more popular questions. I'm glad I could read this un-biased and dead-on analysis. Dave, if you have any copyright issues that stray from the common, please e-mail me. And if you could suggest more articles similar to yours I would really appreciate it.
|
|
|
Mark of San Diego, CA writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Excellent. I have seen many sites, and the three articles here on G&G are great. Good articulation of the facts. Dave Heller is straight up easy to read. Dave, email me.
|
|
|
John Machado of PA writes:
I've been studying this mess since it happened, at first rejecting any criminal involvement by Americans as just unthinkable. But science says that is precisely what happened, and science -- not emotion -- should prevail. The saddest lesson of all is that many citizens prefer to close their eyes and surrender the Constitution and the real American values...while accusing others of being unpatriotic. The power of propaganda and misinformaion is amazing. Thanks. You are much closer to truth than the official contradictory and unsupportable trash.
|
|
|
Czoe Mahmuh writes:
Just to get something straight. Steel doesn't have to be heated to it's melting point. Any sufficient amount of heat could weaken it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is very hard for weakened steel to hold up tons upon tons of steel and concrete.
marty responds:
coleman stove flames don't seem to blow the cooking pot into smithereens. it uses kerosene and focuses a blue flame onto the bottom of the pot. ask any welder how easy it is to keep steel hot enough to weld with a blue flame . if you don't keep it focussed constantly the heat gets wicked away by the rest of the steel around it, frustrating attempts to weld the spot you want. kerosene burning in a bowl or the floor of an office tower is not focussed in a nozzle it's a yellow flame not blue ie way cooler , and the wtc was millions of tons of steel redistributing the heat away from the hot zone aided by a September breeze keeping the steel cool. the exoskeleton alone would have held it up not even mentioning the 47 core columns. get a grip buddy. you been lied to and you're aiding and abetting the liars.
|
|
|
Ken writes:
HA! Creep rates! Assume that the steel did fail. Assume that the pancake theory is true. Documents on buildings 1 and 2 tell you that they each contained 47 interior columns, and 250-odd exterior columns. The interior and exterior columns were connected by steel supports, and used to create each floor. The floor beams were bolted to the columns, and the heat from the jet-fuel caused the bolts/nuts and the surrounding area to "weaken", not melt, so that those bolts were warped. With no support in the floor whatsoever, the floors pancaked onto eachother in a "domino effect"
Thats the long and short of it.
Except for one minor detail. Those 47 columns in the centers of WTC1 and WTC2. They would not have been affected. Look at PBS digital depictions, as well as those of the History Channel. Notice that they leave the interior columns in place, because their collapse cannot be explained by jet fuel, nor by the impact itself. The floors only could have pancaked between the interior and exterior columns, leaving both erect. I'd be glad to discuss this with anyone.
Tiandre Cardenas of Lansing, MI responds:
Hey man, don't you know by now after you've probably seen every 9/11 or WORLD TRADE CENTER video of the collapses that the nuts on the bolts that they used on the supporting columns did not weaken? I bet you didn't know that they had explosives placed all over the World Trade Centers 1 & 2, now did you? Just because you've seen it on PBS doesn't mean that the Government is not lying to everyone around the world. Dude I've seen just about ever single World Trade Center Collapse video out there, but after seeing it in slow motion (both collapses) you can see in clear view the explosions blowing out the of the buildings.
Addy responds:
Were the planes that hit WTC1 & 2 government planes?
Were there controlled explosions?
Dennis responds:
We all have to keep pushing to get the truth about 911 out. Rosie O'Donnell has the guts to do this and we must support her in her efforts. If we don't, we are going to lose the next election to the neoconservatives again (2000 and 2004 elections were stolen - my son worked in Ohio on the election and saw the voting machines malfunction and give Gore's votes electronically to Bush....the exit polls do not lie...only liars such as the neoconservatives lie and steal elections).
We have to keep working to wake up everyone to the situation we are in. Our democracy is in danger from within.
|
|
|
Marcin of Lublin, Poland writes:
The official version breaks physics laws.
|
|
|
Dan Carr of Las Vegas , NV writes:
I've gone on the internet and watched many, many videos of demolition of buildings. Can you explain why when I look at controled demolitions that the building always falls from the bottom up and the WTC fell from the top down?
|
|
|
Vivian of ROME, LAZIO, ITALY writes:
Being a psychic, I cannot give a scientific observation, only one that involves parapsychology. The author's explaination could be flawed but nevertheless, more than a million psychics world-wide do not believe the moslems orchestrated the attack. It was the work of a cowardly multinational satanic force. Explosives are probabile. I am not a TV psychic, or a fraud. I am genuine and feel for the victims. I heard them scream when the towers collapsed. They know the truth without physics and equations. The spirits of the victims are trying to reach out the world to let the truth be known. The USA is guilty! It is false-flag terror!! Peace on Earth!!!
|
|
|
Keith McConnell of London, UK writes:
I belive your argument about the failure due to fire to be fundamentall flawed, as any engineer worth his salt will tell you. It is true that aviation fuel doesn't brun high enough to melt the steel, but the steel didn't fail through melting it failed through creep. Creep rates in metals becomes significant at 0.3Tm (where Tm is the melting point) using your own figures and a very rough conversion to degrees Kelvin ( as used in the creep calculations) the temperature at which aviation fuel burns is about 0.6Tm. This allready puts it well over the level at which crrep becomes significant, but if we also consider that creep rate has a power law relationship, and increases exponentianlly with temperature it is easy to see that creep can cause the failure of the building. The assertation that now skyscrapper has failed due to fire before is also true, but aviation fuel burns at much higer temperatures than a conventional fire would and so no skyscrapper had ever been subjected to such high creep rates before. This raises (in my mind atleast) some important points. Firstly, you haven't fully understood the failure mechanism, yet you still state with absolute authority that it couldn't happen. This cast serious doubts over your research and would lead me to take everything presented here with a pinch of salt, afterall, if you got this wrong, what else might you have gotten wrong. More worringly perhaps, you deliberatly misrepresented the facts, peddled half truths (the best knid of lies) on the assumption that most people won't be able to find th flaws. I sincerely hope it is the first rather than the second.
Andrew A. McLachlin responds:
Mr Keith McConnel, indeed temperature increases do result in increased creep rates of the steel (destrengthening of the steel over time), but your argument fails because most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, hence the large fireballs. Office combustibles in the building burned at low temperatures (lots of thick black smoke indicates lack of oxygen); the resulting creep rates are therefore low, which would have been taken into account when they designed the building to withstand being hit by fully loaded planes. Also, how do you explain the molten iron discovered in the basement of WTC 1,2 and 7. Satellite imagery after the collapse show temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees celcius at all 3 sites, plus many videos showing molten iron being dug up months later. The amount of energy needed for this melting cannot be attributed to jet fuel or to the kinetic energy of the collapse, which would leave a gigantic pile of rubble (not a hole in the ground).
People, do your own research, find these videos on the net, and see for yourself. Don't let so-called experts tell you otherwise.
Ahmed of London, UK responds:
You have a very good point Keith, but your creep theory still cannot explain the most fundamental newtonian physics question which is, why did the towers collapse at free fall speed?
Secondly, eyewitness reports as well as video evidence shows molten steel at ground zero days after the event!
Fire experts will tell you this is not possible with jet fuel.
I would be very interested in your reply to these two facts.
Jose Diaz of OC, California responds:
Doing your own research should include reading the NIST report (292 pages of boring not what you want to hear government "propaganda") but if you did, you would find out that most of the fuel did not burn outside of the buildings (large fireballs and all, which by the way are mostly heated gas), but inside the core and some of it went down the elevator shafts. As for the availability of oxygen and its relationship to temperature you lost me there. I figure that the hole left by the airplane and the broken windows from the gas explosions, gave plenty of air flow to the fires. I don't know where you were when this happened, but this colapse did leave a gigantic pile of rubble that took weeks to clean up (the hole you see in the ground is after the clean up). The molten metal and the temperatures reached are addressed in the report and is too complicated to reproduce here but please just read it before you post.
Patrick of San Jose responds:
For air flow you need two openings, not just one.
This is why high-rise elevator shafts have (horizontal) doors from time to time: to cut air flow in case of fire.
Incidentally these doors also impede propagation of fuel.
George Wortham responds:
Kieth McConnell must work for the Bush Administration and the international oil companies which are responsible for the 9-11 crime. The towers were leveled to gain worldwide support for bombing Iraq. Also I would like to point out that immediately after 9-11, Israel started heavily bombing Palestinians, it seems Israel had prior knowledge of the 9-11 attack as did the US Government.
First of all jet fuel is not like kerosene, it is kerosene...which burns at a lower temperature than regular car gasoline. Kerosene is very much like diesel fuel... this low temperature fuel was burning at an even lower temperature than usual, as evidenced by great amounts of black smoke, indicating incomplete combustion.
Here's the 9-11 smoking gun:
(Forget the creep rate...which in this case is nothing more than worthless information)
The two tallest towers that fell (more on the third tower #7, later), fell in 10 to 13 seconds each. The floor levels at which the planes hit...fell to the ground at the same speed as would be determined by gravity if there were no floors beneath to offer resistance. The floors beneath would offer some resistance, which would results in a longer fall time. But because the floors beneath were destroyed by explosives, the buildings were able to fall at a free fall speed. Creep does not cause things to fall through the air at faster than normal speeds, which it would have to do to explain how these huge buildings collapsed in such a short time. Expertly set-off explosives is the only possible explanation. Period.
The U.S.governments 9-11 commission report claims fire unlikely caused the collapse of building #7, the third tower that fell near the twin towers. The commission report also suggest more investigation is needed.
As a side issue, I'll mention that G.W. Bush's brother "Marvin" was a principal owner of the security company (Securacom now Stratesec) that was responsible for providing security to the twin towers.
If someone gouged you or someone in your family, would you think of this gouger as your friend? The International oil companys involved in stealing trillions of dollars from Irac in the form of "privatised oil" have gouged the USA before, they are not our friend. Nor are they Iraqs' friend. They are just mass-murdering multi national oil companies, Whom, if our army is successful in Iraq, will become the benificiaries of trillions of dollars, Iraq's dollars, Iraq's oil.
Now imagine WHAT the oil companies can do to us when they get these trillions (80% to oil companies...20% to Iraq. (This is the deal being offered the Iraq's if they want our continued military help, without which Iraq becomes one big free fire zone, one big hell.) Especially now that Bush has driven our country deep in debt... As a people...we are placing our own future in jeopardy as we continue to help the oil companies to steal trillions of dollars.
Check this Time Magazine site out.
This is all true, and makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
Anonymous writes:
The type of Steel used in the construction of the WTC Towers is ASTM A-572, which is a Cb-V based HSLA (High-Strength Low Alloy) steel with 50 ksi Minimum Yield Strength. The purpose of the Cb addition to this type of steel is to reduce grain growth at elevated temperatures. Vanadium also retards grain growth at elevated temperatures. Low carbon steels begin to austenitize at about 1600 degrees F, and the addition of vanadium slightly raises that temperature. You do not see any significant weakening until about 2000 degrees F. Jet Fuel is basically refined Kerosene, which burns at about 1200-1600 Degrees. Even at 2000F for 1 hour, this type of steel would not be soft enough to have catastrophic failure. The fires in the building causing the collapse, from a metallurgical view, is impossible.
|
|
|
Matteo Duro of Buenos Aires, Argentina writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
I'm encouraged to have found this article (great job, Mr. Heller), and even more encouraged to see a lot of people starting to question things.
I notice a few people stuggling with thinking outside the box about 9/11 because they get hung-up on the seemingly illogical notion of a government attacking its own people. The way out of that mess is to stop thinking about "government" in the abstract and start thinking about the real people with personal interests in positions of real power... Continued
|
|
|
Jose Diaz of California writes:
I have read several articles concerning this and here are my thoughts. I have a physics degree but the arguments are simple.
1-Steel does not have to melt to weaken enough for a colapse. It is a metal so heat will travel through it to the top and botom floors.
2-Building 7 was damaged by the fall of the twin towers but it does not show on pictures taken from the north side.
3-Although people here keep ignoring the facts the three colapses are different from each other and the second tower did tilt to one side (you can see that on several videos). The hit on the first tower was more dead on, but higher so it took longer to weaken and fall in a more "symmetric" manner. If you watch the videos on this very web site of WTC 7 falling, there is no "pankaking", at least not just that. It falls backwards and partially from is own weight (fires) from the damage on the south side of the building caused by the not so "clean" fall of the twin towers earlier in the day.
I see a lot of wishful thinking at play here and too much pride to admit that one might have gone down the wrong path.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, California responds:
Jose-
The final NIST report released in Oct. 2005 states that the steel they tested from the impact zone did not get above 200 degrees centigrade (about 450 degrees F). Your oven can get hotter than that. That temperature isn't even close to weakening the steel.
There are also photos and videos of a woman standing in the impact hole of one of the engines in WTC1. How could she have survived fires hot enough to weaken steel? How could she even be standing in that hole if the steel was heated to 2000 degrees F?
If the South face of WTC7 was damaged and created fires to weaken the steel, why did the building collapse symmetrically? How come almost every window on the North side remained intact? Could those windows have resisted shattering in heat intense enough to weaken structural steel to the point of collapse?
|
|
|
Jay of Los Angeles, Ca. writes:
I have a question on the collapse of these buildings. Knowing the height and weight would'nt they pick-up speed? And if the airplane took out vital support beams at the top of the building, isn't that like taking a hammer to an object with down force that cause a shockwave downward and force pushing down at the same time cause such a reaction? The question is whether the plane struck the building and caused serious damage, or did it?
|
|
|
Bill K of Massachusetts writes:
Yeah, 30 years in the making. Possible? Yes, but as likely as my capturing Nessie. A tree felled is not recoiling, it's succumbing to gravity. The bricks that follow a wrecking ball into the "wound" are drawn in by the ball itself and the materials it sends in that direction. My major problem with this conspiracy theory is logistical. How much explosives would have to be snuck into the place, undetected? How many people would it take to pull it off? Why have none spoken up? Why do so many of the theorists avoid parts of the truth? The reporter quoted as saying there was no airplane wreckage evident at the Pentagon was replying to a question about whether the craft had hit the ground first, the 'no airplane wreckage' was wreckage to show it had. Another thought, a board 8" by 12" and 3/4" thick can support my weight, yet there are people who can exert enough localized force with their hand the break the same piece of wood. You will not see evidence of resistance when it happens, that doesn't mean it's not there. Then there's the "evidence" of explosive "squibs". Uh, hello? Where does all the air go when a floor collapses onto the one below? Out, anywhere it can. So I'm not surprised that some air travelled down a level (elevator shafts, stairwells) and out the windows.
Just a few random thoughts.
Jaimie of Queensland, Australia responds:
How much explosives? The question should be, what explosives were used? Make a circle with you thumb and fore-finger. That circle you just made filled with Thermite (a Simple mixture of Aluminum filings and iron oxide or RUST) will, when place on the hood of your car, quite happily burn it's way all the way through your engine and leave a burning pile of slag where the front end of your car used to be.
You need only tiny amounts of thermite combined with a primer or igniter (I'm assuming it was an explosive primer due to the pulverisation of the concrete sub structure) to burn very rapidly through even the heaviest of steel support columns.
This is about the only plausible explanation there being "molten hotspots" of steel within the rubble literally months after the event.
As for all these wankers stating that the squibs are a result of the physically impossible "pancake" effect caused by a fire not even half the required temperature to start weakening the fire-retarded steel central columns: They're the 65% of under-educated America sprouting hearsay like mass media parrots. If the WTC building were in the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 or less chance that all three buildings collapse into themselves due to fire making them the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd buildings(with steel columns) in the history of mankind to collapse in such a fashion.
I feel sorry for the average "educated" American stuck in a Country full of under-achieving sheep, whom all believe in their hearts that they're a "Patriot".
At the same time I can see commonwealth governments following the destruction of the American People's civil liberties with interest. I mean if the US government lead by George Bush can do it then why can't the UK? or Canada? or Australia?
Why are there no massed peaceful demonstrations or riots or criminal trials? Because the American public seems to have traded Patriotism for oil.
|
|
|
Ian of Rochester, UK writes:
If Towers 1,2 and 7 fell exactly in their own footprints as a result of fires, then perhaps demolition companies should seriously look into the possibilty of using some kind of self igniting wrecking ball to bring down high buildings? Just swing it into the building somewhere (doesn't really need to be anywhere specific or planned) get the fires burning, stand well back and just let the buliding do it's own thing.
paul howard of london responds:
What a smashing idea!
Dan of Burnley, UK responds:
I am in total agreement here. If the towers truly did fall by means of the fires melting the steelwork then this should be able to be re-produced repeatedly under controlled conditions.
A very well written article based on scientific fact.
|
|
|
Gabriela of Chile writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
So many feelings come to me after reading your article. I'm Chilean, and something horrible happened on September 11, 1973, and the american government was also...behind those facts. Unfortunately, we are easily carried to believe what we first hear and just a few of us doubt that what the media presents is the truth. Thanks for this article...there are still too many hiden truths we must discover.
|
|
|
TG of NY, NY writes:
You are all sick demented people. This was a horrible attack that cost many lives. Having the honor to be at the WTC site on the 5 year anniversary I thought it was sickening to see you conspiracy theorists ruin the day for so many there to honor the memory of their loved ones. If their is truly a GOD and/or a conspiracy out there I hope it is in place to rid this country of people like you. It is you extreme liberals out there that will handcuff our government from protecting us and get us all killed.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Ahmed of UK responds:
What right do you have to claim that we do not honor the victims of 9-11? It is you who are dishonouring the victims by ignoring physics & science. I cried when I watched PAINFUL DECEPTIONS as I realised how vicious & ruthless the perpetrators of 911 were. I cried when I watched LOOSE CHANGE 2. Did you know that fire chief Orio Palmer who risked his own life, actually reached the 78th floor of WTC and formulated a plan to evacuate survivors? What chief palmer didn't realise was that someone was probably spying on his transmissions. Palmer & the survivors were probably going to become witnesses against the official story. But they pulled the WTC shortly after Palmer radioed he was on floor 78. Yes, just 10 minutes after Palmers last transmission, the WTC fell. How could an experienced fire chief on the 78th floor not see signs of steel weakening? That is because there was no weakening. The steel was built to withstand much higher temperatures for much longer.
Remember that the victims of 911 have to be honoured by re-investigating the very cause of their death. We owe it to them.
|
|
|
manzoor of pakistan writes:
Great Mr. Heller, you have done a great job. It is necessary for all the sane people of the world to unite to defeat the blood hungry junta of oil traders. These people are pushing this planet into an abyss of strife and war, and themselves remaining in the helm of affairs by feeding the people with phobias and hoaxes.
Just think Osama always releases videos when the Bush and his blood thirsty junta in dilemma. This is another sinister aspect of their designs.
|
|
|
Adrian of the UK writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
If the the top five floors give up and crash down into the 105 floors below, then there is resistance because the top five floors are gravitiy assisted, so in your mind they have the potential energy to crash through the floors below! But the 110 floors below are also assisted by gravity. The (cold undamaged steel structure) foundations pushing into the ground - they resist pressure and the 110 floors already pinned to the floor have a greater resistance to the potential energy of 5 flaming floors above! That is why they should not free fall like they did, it's never happened to a building like this before and never will again in this way.
Consider anything material or organic, when it is wounded it recoils and closes around the point of attack or damage (a tree when it is felled, a knife wound to a human, even a wrecking ball to a building).
Also it is possible that the explosives could've been engineered into the structure when it was first erected some thirty years ago! If the New American Century was conceived before the towers were built then it is entirely believable that this could have been a plan many years in the making.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, Caifornia responds:
I doubt that the buildings were built with integrated explosives. This seems too dangerous.
In reality, the towers were poorly designed. The narrow windows provided poor views of the magnificient vistas. As of the early 90's, when I lived in NYC, the towers never achieved over 50% occupancy, and probably did not after that. It was also in need of a very expensive asbestos remediation.
|
|
|
Sabina Clarke of Philadelphia, PA writes:
In response to 'The Top Ten Unanswered Questions About 9-11'
by Tony Brasunas:
This is all very interesting. It seems everyone has a story either directly or indirectly regarding a massive cover-up. An FBI agent told someone I know to "stay out of New York city" for awhile--this was prior to 9/11.
|
|
|
Dionne Deschenne of WA writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
In response to the question as to whether or not demolition grade explosives could have been planted in the WTC buildings without detection and with the precision and consistency required to achieve such a successful and clean blast - highly unlikely. I worked on the federal trial of Timothy McVeigh in Denver, and with the level of security maintained simply for his trial it would be impossible. Every box, every handbag, every item, no matter how small, was checked and rechecked before being admitted. Every person entering was run through an FBI system to check for questionable affiliations and anyone with any criminal history or questionable background was not admitted and often detained. All vehicles were surveilled and those that seemed suspicious or that were large enough to carry dangerous cargo were inspected. Buildings that house CIA and FBI personnel on an ongoing, routine basis employ similar security measures every single day, 24/7, and they have the added benefit of multiple surveillance cameras. Unless the entire camera system was shutdown for routine maintenance and the entire security staff of the WTC had been relieved of duty for some random thank-you dinner or employee in-service, it is simply impossible for the necessary men and explosives to have covered those three buildings undetected for the hours needed.
And even if Muslim extremists did, by some miracle, manage it, what of the myriad other inconsistencies in the Bush Administration's story? Too many ill-fated miracles surrounding one event for me to swallow! Let us look instead to those profiting from this war: their behavior on 9/11 is odd; their stories inconsistent and seemingly untruthful; and their ongoing efforts to prevent a meaningful and genuine inquiry are troubling, at best. Let logic reveal the truth. Thank you, Mr. Heller, for applying this principle in your examination of the collapse of the WTC buildings and for having their courage to make your findings public!
louder responds:
Dionne, did you have McVeigh's brother do the security? Makes a difference.
Crystal L. Cox of Eureka, Montana responds:
Wow, thanks for sharing this valuable information. I totally agree.
|
|
|
Jon of USA writes:
Anyone who is interested in this article should pull up the declassified documents concerning the "Northwoods Project," showing that the US was contemplating setting up something a lot like 9/11 to justify a war on Cuba. The plan was never carried out because it became apparent that Cuba was not going to be a big threat.
View the document here:
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430
Click the link "Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp."
Amazing. Great article.
|
|
|
alysheba1987 writes:
This kind of thinking makes me scared to send my kids to college. Too much education can be worse than none at all.
Brent of Palmdale, CA responds:
Gee, and Mrs. Laura Bush, the ex-librarian is pushing for education for the young and innocent. This is a woman who is exposed to scary thinking every day. Her kids have protectors looking after them. Even though their "daddy" has put their lives in jeopardy through his actions and deeds.
I say make yourselves more intelligent, learn as much information as your brain can handle.
Just follow some old basic laws and principles, that ask one to be nice to your friends and acquaintances. Not deliver threats to them. Fling arrows of disintent. Attempt friendship.
Some say that the problems caused by this current Administration will take a long time to mend. Should impeachment follow through, as the state of Illinois has intended, the net results could help with the healing process.
|
|
|
Bob of Cape Girardeau, MO writes:
The most troubling evidence in my opinion is the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7. Watching the different videos of this event, it is easy to see the plumes of smoke (from thermite explosions) coming from the front and side windows. No plane hit this massive 47 story structure, and yet it came down miraculously in its own footprint supposedly due to fire. Even more amazing is that there was not a thorough investigation into this event since steel framed skyscrapers could (in theory) succumb to collapse by fire. Has insurance on steel framed buildings gone up in the days since 9/11 with this taken into account? Mr. Heller has done a good job of presenting the facts and unanswered questions in a clear and concise article. Bravo!
|
|
|
Eleonore Rodriguez writes:
My lingering thoughts with regards to all the inconsitencies and conspiracy theories related to the decision to invade in Iraq.
Related sites:
www.theassassinatedpress.com/fetzer.htm
(was Sen. Paul Wellstone murdered?)
www.rense.com/general26/susp.htm
(anthrax scare and threat to 2 Democratic senators)
The timeline in all of these events are suspect as it correlates with the war in Iraq.
|
|
|
Spencer of Salt Lake City, UT writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Actually, the towers were designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts according to the designers.
|
|
|
Anonymous writes:
Planting enough explosives without those exploives being noticed would be nearly impossible to do. Have you ever seen the wiring done to down a 20 story casino let alone a 110 story building. The type of prework that needs to be performed, often times pre cutting steal to control direction, removing some supports to increase explosive effectiveness etc. Taking out walls etc. To set and prepare a 110 story builidng for controlled demolition is much more unlikely than an unfortunate collapse. Sometime people in america feel they need a reason for eveything. This is in fact how religion came about, so when something tragic happens it seems there are two answers: beacuase God did it or the Government did it? The article is nonetheless interesting and a nice story, kind of like the bible.
anonymous responds:
Wireless transmitters for the explosions would explain why all the other wireless stuff was not working. The government has weapons we don't know about... so no wiring was needed (I am guessing).
Anonymous responds:
The Bible is based on faith and some supporting factual evidence, but more on faith if you are to believe in it's basic message.
The WTC collapse is based on hard evidence as pratically every human on earth saw it on film. All one has to do is question "how" it happened..and science will give you the facts.
I suppose our government would like us all to have "faith" in their explanation...that the cause of WTC7's collapse is "unknown". Yet elementary science has already proved that there is only 1 explanation...demolition explosives.
Maybe you should rethink your comparison of the WTC collapse with religious belief. I think you got it backwards.
Patrick of San Jose responds:
I don't have an idea about the cut steel, but for the wiring I could imagine that they used the redundant Ethernet cabling, as suggested before.
|
|
|
Jon of Virginia writes:
How many people were in building 7 when it collapsed? Were any deaths attributed to its destruction?
Dave Heller of Berkeley, California responds:
WTC7 (including the Office of Emergency Management) was evacuated shortly after the 2nd plane hit.
By the way, the Director of the Office of Emergency Management, Richard Sheer, was at the ground floor of WTC1 walking back and forth in front of the NYFD's incident command station with a walkie talkie (which never gave a response to him) saying that a third plane was on its way.
Was he just trying to frighten and confuse the fire crews?
|
|
|
Jim writes:
To the person who said we are communists - get your Public Enemy right - it's terrorists that your government wants you to be afraid of now...get with the times dude!
|
|
|
Jon P of IL, USA writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Brandon Christensen made a post citing the logistical enormity of rigging a Detroit building for demolition, as evidence to refute the strong case for demolition at the WTC. Not content with Mr Heller proving scientifically that this was a demolition, Brandon Christensen wants us to use conjecture to explain how it was all set up! Mr Christensen: Mr Heller has put forward a sound theory based on hard evidence. Instead of ignoring that theory, why don't you directly address it? Explain to us all, for example, how 110 floors 'pancaking' into each other, offer such insignificant resistance as compared to freefall in air.
|
|
|
Gibby of Cape Girardeau, MO writes:
Mr Jones, you are referring to the "Gliewitz Incident," correct? If so, nice historical correlation. There are a lot of similarities between the two incidents if what some people are saying is true. Project for the New American Century says that "the New Pearl Harbor" would awaken America and make it clear that we need to emphasize even more on military dispite the fact that the cold war was over. It doesn't really forecast it. But it should still raise a couple of eyebrows. It's written by everyone currently in Bush's administration along with a few other lower profile neo-cons in 1998.
But I am being too politcal.
When you break it down, science and the irrefutable laws of physics hold the truth. If anyone feels that there is something fishy about 9-11, put your faith in science and reason. Igonre any and all political implications, etc.
Mr. Heller, would you like to help a group I recently joined called "The 911 Truth Project"? It is made up of college students on The Facebook who seek more answers about 9-11. It's not political. We just want qualified people to set up tests that prove/disprove the official/conspiracy stories that we have been told since 911 and the ones that have been floating around the internet. I know little to nothing about physics. But the Law of Conservaiton of Matter seems to refute everything the official story says.
Please email me if you read this sometime soon. We are looking for members of the scientifc community to come in unbiased with no political baggage and test this out. We want people who represent both sides of this debate to help us out.
My email is mtgibson1s@semo.edu
|
|
|
Steve of LA, CA writes:
Hi, Mr. Heller, your article is absolutely excellent. However, my realization of the WTC demolition theory is not from your article but from a video made by a american student who believes that 9/11 was a domestic attack and a plot executed by the Bush administration to open war on the whole Middle East. The video said exactly the same thing as you said in your article, including the free fall theory and how absurd it is that the "Media" acutally try to convince everyone in this country that the WTC towers acutally collapsed due to the impact of the airplane. How can a building designed to withstand almost any natural disaster collapse because its top 15% was damaged? The most possible scenario should be the top part of the WTC fell off sideways, assuming the jet fuel actually could melt the steel that's tested to stand up to 3000 degree heat.
I think the reasons many Americans still believe in the official story about 9/11 are:
1) Many of them indulge in their luxury ... Continued
Curtis Scott responds:
You hit this nail on the proverbial head. The primary problem with much of the culture in the USA is the fact that ignorance & debauched thinking is idolized. Homer Simpson is real & he probably lives in the average US home (or at least next door)! The really tragic part is that people have a choice as to what they'll submit their mind to. Since the bread & circus mentality is easier to consume than the whole grains of mental disciplines like math, science & fundamental law, the mental results will most likely parallel the metaphorical illustration. Anyone feeling "deficient"? Probably not: As "stupid" doesn't know just how stupid, stupid is.
But "stupid" loves to voice his opinions (which are like what, I've heard...)! and since "stupid" can't figure out how he'd have pulled of "this or that", he figures it's beyond the scope of anyone. Stupid hasn't considered what evil men armed with intellect can pull off. Stupid's too busy paying off the 30-year mortgage (on schedule & sooo proud of it) & other 'responsible stupidities' they've willingly taken on. "Extended warranty! How can I lose!"
Unfortunately, "Stupid" is often inbred with "Lax". I've discovered this because even after stupid is put on notice, his first reaction is to declare the problem so large as to be irresolvable (the implied message being that it should just be ignored).
"Don't ask me to give up my box-seat tickets in order to help out your cause. Don't you know that it's too big for anyone to do anything about!" - Stupid
Fortunately, there are people who have a moral sense deciding to toss out the TV-service & bring in the broadband. As they grow in number (thanks to a small vocal minority) - some very amazing things are bound to happen (and at some point - some motivated person is going to plant a single stone between the eyes of what appears to be an unstoppable giant).
At the end of the last revolutionary war, Judge Lynch was having British-sympathizers strung up so fast that the English language got a new word. There is one facet about history that is a constant: It tends to repeat itself. All we need is some good old Common Sense to prevail.
|
|
|
Douglas Watts of Augusta, Maine writes:
The nature of the collapse of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 towers is of interest because of their marked resemblance to the intended goal of a controlled demolition (ie. a building falling quickly and within its own footprint). Basic probability suggests that 3 buildings structurally weakened by completely uncontrolled damage would tend not to all fall in such a markedly similar fashion to each other, nor in a fashion so highly similar to that of a controlled demolition. Out of three buildings, all other things being equal, one would expect that through probability alone, one building would sway or topple sideways, just as a coin randomly lands on heads or tails in three tosses.
I am also intrigued about the ability of burning jet fuel and combustible building debris near the top of a building to so thoroughly weaken the steel supports of a building adjacent to the localized heat source that the entire building collapses very quickly rather than the weakened steel at the top of the building giving way and the top of the building sliding off and falling while the unweakened steel near the base of the building remains relatively intact. This bothers me because it seems counter-intuitive, and would constitute an enormous design flaw for a multi-story steel building. By definition, a first order task for engineers would be to design a very tall steel building in such a way that a severe fire in the top 3/4s or 2/3s of the structure would not cause the entire structure to disintegrate, which clearly occurred at WTC1, 2 and 7. This, by definition, would represent... Continued
|
|
|
Brandon Christensen writes:
I have been studying this issue now and it seems to me that there is an extreme lack of evidence supporting this theory. In fact the largest building to be toppled by a controlled demoliton was the J.L Hudson department store in Detroit. Link. This building took 24 days to just load the explosives and many months in planning with a thousand engineers on site. So I ask you with all these people involved. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!
The NIST has posted its findings on how the combined stresses of the airline hitting the buildings and the fires and heat have lead to the failure that sent the building down. Now I ask you for an open look at the evidence because several other people and I gave your article a fair, unbiased read now return the favor and give us evidence from a demolitions expert not just your opinion.
Joelle of France responds:
Mr Brandon Christensen, your reference to the controlled demolition of the J.L Hudson department store in Detroit attracted my attention as I am still trying to sort out arguments in this debate. While clicking on the link you gave, I immediately realized that you forgot to quote a major part of the article: the Hudson department store was one of the greatest dynamic structural control challenges the demolition company had ever faced. If you look at the picture of the building, you easily understand why. The structure of the building is nothing like a simple shape like the one of the WTC 1, 2 and 3. The authors of the article even mention that: "No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDI's demolition program had to cope with."
I am also not an expert but I am surprised that while suggesting that the planning of the WTC demolition would take at least as long as the one of the Hudson building, you forget to mention these important elements. It seems from the shape of the WTC building that planning their controlled demolition would have been a pretty easy task. In addition I doubt no structural drawings were available for the WTC buildings, which means that the engineers could easily plan the demolition from their offices without needing to spend 24 days on the site. And in case WTC 1, 2 and 3 hadn't fallen really straight and caused some collateral damage, I don't think that the planners would have really cared anyway. After all, everyone would have understood that a building which is hit by a plane doesn't fall perfectly. So I guess they could easily take the risk to do it fast so as not to attract public attention.
|
|
|
Michael Nicholls writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Dear Mr Heller,
Congratulations on a well written article and it's warm reception here. I am 20 and in college, and I have only begun to realize the disinfo that is spread through the media to the citizens of this country. It is very frightening to wake up from a dream to realize that we seem to have very little control over our own thoughts, we are spoon fed by parents, television, teachers, and so on and become incapable of forming our own opinions.
After watching Loose Change, the documentry by Dylan Avery, I feel the visual evidence alone is enough to suggest/prove a controlled demolition. The seismic activity just prior to the fall, the puffs of dust flying out from the buildings 20 floors beneath the so called "pancaking", the fact that the second tower to be hit actually fell first, and of course, an overwhelming amount of eye witness accounts, including media reports that morning, of multiple explosions. I am outraged that more of this country has not woken up. The US is very capable of inflicting wounds on itself to intervene overseas in it's attempt to secure its empire. It is about time something was done, we have the right to know the truth.
|
|
|
Henrik of Oslo, Norway writes:
Just one question: If demolished by explosives, shouldn't it be possible to hear explosions on some of the footage?
I actually remember that my co-workers commented on the buildings falling straight down without tilting at all, which as you state, looks like a perfect demolition job.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, California responds:
Henrik-
There are many videos which quite clearly recorded the systematic explosions of the WTC buildings. There is one excerpt from a History Channel documentary ("First Responders")which not only has the sequential sound of the explosion recorded, but the video as well. The camera person was fairly close to the towers and the angle of the shot caught the outer columns' demolition which cannot be seen from the more orthoganal angles from afar.
Incidentally, this DVD also shows famed left wing Democracy Now! reporter Amy Goodman running away from the collapse of WTC7. It's at the 42:00 minute mark. She has never reported on nor asked any questions about WTC7. When I asked her about it, she admitted being there, but explained that the building had been burning all day. She added that there are many questions that need to be asked about 9/11. I retorted that she's a reporter and that is her job. Still, no questions from her regarding WTC7 and very little else about 9/11.
There is more reporting on 9/11 conspiracy on Fox News than in the "Progressive Left" media. Fox does the best they can to extinquish 9/11 truth. And the establishment (read Democratic Party) does the best it can to 100% ignore the issue, making them complicit in the crime.
|
|
|
Jay writes:
I enjoyed the article, and indeed, it has me thinking. I like you're reasoned approach, but it also poses some questions.
1. If in fact there was no plane debris in the Pentagon explosion, then what happened to that flight? If something other than crashing into the Pentagon occurred, then why wasn't it described by the many passengers using cell phones at the time?
2. Who planted the explosives in any of the four buildings (WTC 1,2,7 & the Pentagon) and how long would that take?
Even if certain American conspirators arranged for such demolition, how hard would it be to keep all of those bomb technicians quiet for so long? If you're suggesting that they were all killed, then who keeps those killers quiet?
The Dog of Palmdale, CA responds:
Jay, I think what confuses people about conspiracies is that they always evaluate them from their own moral idiom. The average person, who would never consider killing or torturing another human being, cannot understand someone who will. The average American can't accept that their government is evil or corrupt, because that somehow demeans themselves. The government is not and has never been the American people. That must change. Should you vote this November? I've heard that even if the vote is rigged, you still should vote just to make them steal it (again). Karl Rove promises an "October surprise" for the GOP; I'm hoping it's just Bin Laden's body, not another "terror" attack.
Wake Up!! FEMA has over 400 concentration camps ready for occupants, one just 12 miles from where I sit. No need to pack your bag for Gitmo, you've probably got a secret facility close to you. Can't happen here? It already did in WW2 and some of those old camps are open for business again. I know what you're thinking; why would they want to put me away?
Did you realize that people all over the world can't understand why the American people don't revolt and string these criminals up? George W. Bush isn't the Devil, Poppy Bush is. G.H.W. Bush has killed more Americans with war and drugs than any of our "enemies." And the average American recoils in horror when you accuse any President of treason or any high crime. You like Clinton? Can you say Mena, ARK, Waco or Oklahoma City? Now you're going to be given a choice of McCain(Corrupt), Hillary (Corrupt & A Bitch) or Jeb(Losing my lunch). It's not about parties or ideologies anymore, the globalists are in full charge. Isn't signing into the SPP an act of treason?
What's the solution? I fear that the only solution will be a violent one. Our political process doesn't work anymore.
Guillermo of Florida responds:
To answer your question #2, the director of the company that provided electronic security for the World Trade Center and Washington's Dulles Airport -- both involved in September 11, 2001 -- was none other than the president's youngest brother, Marvin Bush. From 1996-2000, Securacom installed what was referred to as a new security system at the WTC, and Wirt D Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was CEO of Securacom from 1999-2002. Interestingly, these facts have not been made public. Was it only a security system that was implanted during those years, or was it also the wiring for a long awaited plan?
Scott Forbes, an IT specialist working in the towers on 9/11, reported an unexpected power down for almost a whole weekend prior to 9/11: "We were notified three weeks in advance of the power-down, by the [inaudible] authority, that was relatively short notice to plan to shut-down all of our banking systems. It was a big deal, it was unprecedented; we had a data center on the 97th floor, so our originating services were all there. During that weekend, the power down meant there was no security, and that the doors were all open basically and also the security video cameras were all off. There were guys in overalls carrying huge shoe boxes with wheels of cables walking around the building that weekend."
The employees at the WTC were notified that internet cables were being upgraded, but who were the strange workmen and what were they really doing? Having worked overtime to get his company's servers back up, Forbes took the day off on September 11, 2001. While he watched the towers collapse, he said he was sure this had been the purpose of the mysterious weekend work. He notified many authorities including the 9/11 Commission about the unusual and long outage but was ignored.
William Rodriguez, a WTC employee, and the media's 9/11 "Last Survivor", recalled: "All the power was shut down. If there was power down, that meant that everything was gone in terms of security, in terms of access to the building so anybody could have gone there and do any kind of setup."
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst, spoke of unusual evacuations that were ordered at the WTC during the weeks before September 11, 2001. Other employees reported that the security alert was mysteriously lifted days prior, and bomb sniffing dogs had been removed. What would the dogs have discovered had they remained on duty?
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, Ca, USA responds:
I'm a security and access control system installer and most systems I've installed would lock down all controlled doors, except the really old lock types with the big magnets at the tops of the doors, instead of opening them all up. In other words, if the controlled doors did not have keys to unlock them, they wouldn't have been able to be opened.
Chris of Atlanta, GA responds:
Several problems with your explanation of #2:
The power was off in only the top half of WTC2, and never off in WTC1.
Scott Forbes denies Ben Fountain's assessment of "unusual evacuations."
Most telling, if bomb sniffing dogs were removed only in the days prior, then the explosives most have been put in AFTER the dogs were removed. How long would it take to wire every floor (as is necessary according to this controlled demolition theory)? Impossible to wire buildings the size of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 over a weekend, without either massive manpower which would leave too many people knowledgeable, of which none have EVER come forward. I still doubt the possibility of the buildings being wired in a weekend regardless of the manpower used.
So the explosives had to be placed BEFORE the dogs were removed, and therefore had to be placed BEFORE the power outage.
The coincidence of Bush's brother being director is just that, coincidence, unless you believe that there was prior knowledge of George Bush becoming president in order for anything to be "planned" in the years prior to GWB taking office.
That leaves the timeline of 8 months to wire the buildings for explosives, which has not been explained how it could have been done without being noticed. The power down theory cannot be considered viable, since there was no power outage in WTC1, and only half of WTC2 was affected, and there were WTC employees in the building with unrestricted access to any part of the affected areas.
Heizenreder of Kitchener, Ontario Canada responds:
You hit the nail on the head. It took me a while to understand that people at the top can be fully functional psycho killers.
|
|
|
Ray of Visalia, California writes:
I'm definitely no expert, nor am I the least bit educated in all the science involved in the Twin Towers' collapse. However I do believe that they collapsed in much too smooth and identical a manner for being hit with airplanes entering at different floor levels and hitting the towers at different angles. I find it hard to believe that an even more dense object the size of the airplanes and travelling at the same speed, would have caused such an anomaly. After watching the collapse of WTC7 in the same identical manner, I have to agree that something appears rotten, and it's not in Denmark. In this evil world, I can believe anything, including what people in high places can and will do. With God being kicked out of the Country, satan and his minions will rule through our government as he does in others. Let's hope for the best, but expect the worst, 'cause I think that's what we're going to get.
|
|
|
Pierre-Normand of Montreal, Canada writes:
I just read Judy Wood's article and it seems prety bad. She clearly does not understand the law of conservation of momentum. She believes that if a floor falling on a floor below looses kinetic energy through disintegration then there would be little energy left to accelerate the second floor downwards. How little? It is not physically possible that less than half the momentum be transferred to the floor below unless it all magically slips to the sides of the tower. She also seems to believe that a collision can both be completely elastic and still loose energy, which again violates the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Jack Ryan of Toronto, Canada writes:
The seemingly perfect collapse of two 100+ story buildings into their own footprint while not doing any real damage outside the area itself is one one of the most spectacular engineering feats ever seen, even surpassing the contruction itself.
The human rights that so many americans have died for in the name of their country for so many years seems now to be a waste of precious life. Just like those who died on September 11. Shame on everyone who had a hand in this fraud perpetrated on the good people of America and the world. We are watching you!
|
|
|
Andy of Martinsburg, Ohio writes:
Dear Mr. Heller, THANKS for this article! You da man. Finally some light thru all th' bomb dust! Keep up th' good work:} God Bless You. ~Andy~
|
|
|
Robert Jones writes:
First to Mr. Heller, great article, especially about the anthrax. That is a point many people miss. Military grade bioterror. Interesting about Hunter S. Thompson.
Chris writes: "Ok, my question then is, why would we attack ourselves?"
Very good question Christopher. There are many, many historical precedents, please pick up a decent history book for starters.
Or you could read "Project for a New American Century", a paper written by neocons prior to 911, whose adherents included Cheney, Jeb Bush and Richard Perle and/or Wolfowitz. In this paper, they write that America is slow to change so needs a Pearl Harbor type event for quick change. (Also see what these psycopaths write about biological weapons - these are a good thing?)
Just as Hitler detailed his despicable plans years before he took power in Mein Kampf, these nuts wrote exactly their plans in this paper. And indeed, this is matches the Reichstag fire in that it was an inside job, with the blame for a carefully planned catastrophic fire blamed on a nutty Dutchman with a few rags. Immediately after the fire, Hitler enacts the Enable Act, and rounds up his enemies, Bush puts into place the Patriot Act.
There are indeed traitors in our midst, trying to undo 200 years plus of democracy and freedom.
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, CA, USA! and a vet! responds:
Let's also not forget an interview Bush did not long after 9-11:
"Of course, all that I'm trying to do here would be much easier if this country were a dictatorship."
Scaaaaaaaary words from a man that is supposedly "doing god's work" (his words, not mine, as you can see by my spelling, I'm not a believer)
|
|
|
Kenneth M. Laster of Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee writes:
As we all know now, Mr. Silverstein said he had the fire department "pull" building no.7. This statement, based on science and facts at hand, will hang all the guilty parties without a shred of doubt as to who is complicit. No building of this size could be rigged to blow in such a short time. What in Gods' name are people thinking about? We should already be having Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all others in government who shirked their duties, tried and hung!!!!!! They have mocked the American people, and all peoples of the world, not to mention God himself with their lie. It is God they should worry about. He will not be fooled or mocked.
|
|
|
Dave of United States writes:
This is an excellent article. As an engineer here in the US, when I first saw the buildings collapse on TV, I also noted how quickly they fell. In high school, in our AP Physics exam, the one problem I always remembered as an easy one to finish quickly was:
Determine the time and final speed it takes for a ball to fall from a building 500 meters high, disregarding air resistance.
My favorite equation to start that one with? mgh = 1/2 mv^2
I studied like hell for that exam, and passed with flying colors. So, can anyone tell me how the people who support the pancake theory (BWahahaha!) an engineer in MIT, and several others, would've fared on the exam? In the words of my high school physics teacher, an indian from IIT in India, "I FAIL YOU!"
Excellent article. I think this should become a standard problem on every AP Physics exam.
Determine the time it takes for a ball to fall from 413 meters, determine the energy and momentum for 10 floors falling and impacting on each other, determine time for those said 10 floors to collapse, and then show em a video clip of the WTC collapse.
|
|
|
Sechaba of South Africa writes:
This is all old hat. It's always been obvious that the American government (the anti-Christ) played the dominant role in what happened to the American people (the sheep). It's common knowledge that the CIA created and actively supports the Al-Qaida of today. They also supported Iraq during it's fight with Iran, even supplying technology and ingredients for the chemical warfare, which Saddam then used against the Kurds.
For as long as the American public prefer to watch CNN and Fox News, they will always remain ignorant about the role their government is playing in the destabilisation of global peace.
|
|
|
Tache Hyket writes:
Judy Woods analysis is flawed. It is amazing she still has a job as it is rumored she preaches this stuff in class!
Your ideas are flawed, you did not do any energy equations! You just say there is not enough energy! Show your work next time. (by the way there is enough energy to collapse the building push out steel and crush the concrete, dry wall, etc ,,, and if you would watch the collapse that is what happened. Or if you were capable of calculating it you could come up with the real story instead of you fiction)
You missed the speed of the plane hitting the building. The aircraft had the energy of a 2000 pound bomb when they smashed into the WTC towers. On a 200 by 200 foot building that does quite a bit of damage. Okay, it was more like flt 11 was 3.8 billion joules, and flt 175 was 6 billion joules, no wonder the second building fell first, it was damaged with greater energy at impact.
Your WTC7 is missing the hundreds of explosions that would be heard on a controlled implosion. I missed all the reports from all the explosions, gee I could hear them miles away when real controlled implosions take place. In real controlled explosions there are sounds like, Bang, bang, bang, bang, and not sounded like, they are real explosions, not floors failing.
You should pursue getting you money back for you physics degree since you were unable to see the mistakes of Judy Woods. However if you are just like Judy you are just making up stuff to mislead others. Remember it is rumored she actually rants in class about this stuff! She should be fired for making up junk about the WTC. Is anyone suing you for your lies yet? Or have you not really said anything liable?
Mark Century of Charlottesville, Virginia responds:
Tache, you accuse others of not showing their work and then provide an empty rant without showing yours.
The architects of the WTC specifically designed these towers to withstand high-speed impacts by large airliners.
Please provide a link where you lay out your work showing how the gravitational potential energy available was sufficient to pulverize WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 to dust at freefall speeds.
Since you claim to know a little about physics, you know that the building could only "fall" that fast if the lower floors provided no resistance. Yet the massive and undamaged lower floors provided an incredible amount of resistance.
You say there should have been reports of people hearing explosions. If you've reviewed the available evidence then hopefully by now you know there are many, many reports of people hearing explosions.
|
|
|
JP writes:
You people are all communist hippies.
Ghosty Boy of Canada responds:
Wow. Thank you for clearing all of this up for us JP. I think that your succinct yet obviously exhaustive analysis has really put the matter in perspective, and we may as well close the books on this one.
And to think, all these well-spoken, educated folks who are trying to apply logical analysis and the laws of physics to find an explanation for the events of September 11th that is actually plausible -- they turned out to be hippies. Communist ones at that.
I declare the 9/11 mystery solved!
Now we can all move on with our lives and continue to swallow the ludicrous lies cultivated by our modern media without fear of
them being contested by the brave free-thinking individuals who demand truth.
|
|
|
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA writes:
To Anders of Taarbaek, Denmark:
If you're a mathematician, you should have no problem proving the collapses were due to fire and gravitational forces. The speed of the fall, about as close to free fall in a vacuum you can get without actually being in a vacuum, leaves no room for any other energy.
That means that there is no energy to throw massive beams hundreds of feet into adjacent buildings, there's no energy to pulverize most of the concrete into talcum powder like dust and there's no energy to even break all the thousands of weld joints and nuts and bolts holding the towers together.
I just did a radio interview with Professor Judy Wood of Clemson University who did an analysis of the towers collapse based on my article. Her article is a little more technical than mine, but should help you clarify any doubts you have.
Professor Wood holds a PhD and... Continued
|
|
|
AJ of NYC, NY writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Well done Dave. So many people have been afraid to speak the truth for so long; I thank God for people like you. I started doing my own research ever since I asked myself, Why did WTC7 also collapse?
A must see video for everyone is called "Loose
Change." You can download it for free. Just do a google search on it.
We can stop wondering about how WTC7 collapsed. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC building, admitted that the building was demolished - or "pulled" as they call it. He said this openly on national television (PBS). The reason he gave was that he and the fire department thought it was the best thing to do for "safety reasons". Now, even if you believe his justification, could demolition experts have been able to meticulously place the dynamite in WTC7 amidst the ruins of the WTC1 and WCT2 that same day? That's a ridiculous claim. Ask any expert. It takes months to prepare a building for demolition.
The dynamite had to have been placed well before 9-11.
That's only the beginning of the facts anyone who decides to seek the truth will encounter. Or how about the fact that V.P. Dick Cheney took command of NORAD only months before the attacks? Did he do this just because he was bored, or so he could enforce a "stand down" by the military while the plot unfolded? Or how about the fact that at least 12 of the purported 19 hijackers are
still alive today, some working in... Continued
|
|
|
Chris writes:
Ok, my question then is, why would we attack ourselves?
Whoever believes this is crazy. You are probably the same people that believe we didn't land on the moon.
A plane hit these buildings. They were not made to withstand these huge planes hitting them.
It wasn't the external steel that was melted that caused to collapse of the towers, it was the internal steel that held the floors. They are called trussles. These weren't made to withstand that heat.
Michael Aguilar of Hemet, CA responds:
Why would we attack ourselves? To answer that, ask yourself, why would Roosevelt and Marshall withhold VITAL MILITARY INTELLIGENCE from their onsite military commanders in the weeks leading up to Dec 7, 1941.
The answer is, Roosevelt and Marshall knew that the only way Congress and the American public would allow our entry into "The European War" was if we were attacked by one of the belligerent powers. Ergo, Bush knew that the only way he could get his Executive powers extended was to have our country attacked by those he wanted to attack. My opinion is that he and Cheney orchestrated the attacks with the help of the bin laden family; remember, the bin laden family's personal jet was the only non-military aircraft flying over the U.S. in the days following 9-11.
Chris responds:
That's a load of b.s. If that is what you believe then answer me this...how come Clinton was able to bomb the hell out of Iraq without flying planes into anything?
Mike Aguilar of Hemet, CA responds:
Uh, well, did Clinton invade Iraq without a declaration of war after the bombing? No. He never wanted to. Bush needed "justification" for a pre-meditated invasion of Iraq. Neither Congress nor the American public would have authorized either invasion without some sort of heinous act committed against our nation, exactly like what happened in December, 1941. Read up on your history. Roosevelt, Marshall, Morgenthau, Hull, Stimson and Churchill started discussing ways to get the U.S. into the war in Europe since mid-1940. Hull and Morgenthau even commissioned a "man on the street" poll to see if the public would be behind getting into the war. By a margin of almost 4 to 1 the answer was no. Hence Pearl Harbor.
Afghanistan was mainly a smoke screen for the actual prize of Iraq and the middle east. Take a look at the newspapers from the past month or so. Bush is antagonizing Iran, saying they are the ones supplying all the weapons for the insurgency now, yet shortly after the regime fell, we were being told that Hussein had hundreds of weapons caches created throughout the country so that his supporters (Saddam Feddayin) could resist us and whatever new government we created.
Oh, and Clinton didn't "bomb the hell out of Iraq." He had a few warplanes drop some munitions and maybe threw a handful of Tomahawks at them. Bush bombed the hell out of Iraq. And Clinton's bombing was justified by Iraq violating the "No Fly Zones."
Steve of Louisville, KY, USA responds:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Krystal, Pearl, Feith, Ledeen, and more (these are all guys that are in, or have been in the Bush admin.), are all members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Their stated goal is to spread democracy throughout the middle east...actual goal to secure oil profits for America. They believe that since the US is the lone superpower there is no one to get in their way, and that the US has the right to unilaterally attack if it can be proven that the target was a threat. Their own manifesto states that the American people would not support a middle eastern war without "a new Pearl Harbor". This is the motive to "attack ourselves". It is called a "false flag " operation and they have been used before to convince the public to go along with unpopular policy...Remember the Maine...Gulf of Tonkin...(Operation Northwoods was a plan to use passenger jets as missiles to attack Miami and blame it on Castro to convince the American people to invade Cuba...sound familiar?...it was never carried out of course, but we just learned of it through the Freedom of Information Act).
There is great financial profit to be made by the defense contractors and corporations that put the Bush admin. in power. Bush senior sits on the board of the Carlisle Group,(they own the company that builds the M1-Abrams tank, the Stryker and other weapons systems). Cheney will receive deferred profits from Halliburton after he is out of office.
There is no intention to end the war, in fact they want to expand it by invading Iran...look for a false flag to kick start that invasion...probably a manufactured attack on Isreal. Also look for another 911 type attack in America just before the '08 elections. Bush will use it to attempt to postpone the election indefinitely because they know the Republicans have a huge chance of losing the Oval Office, Senate and House...then the real investigations will begin and it will unravel fast.
I am an architect and those buildings did not come down by planes and fire alone. They had help from explosives. Buildings do not collapse symmetrically from asymmetrical damage. Potentially the floors above the impacts could have rotated and toppled as a mass, but they would have remained relatively intact until they hit the ground leaving the completely undamaged floors below the impact still standing.
Sorry to be so wordy...you can't explain this stuff with a sound bite.
cruz_ctrl responds:
Chris writes: "A plane hit these buildings. They were not made to withstand these huge planes hitting them."
I wish people like you would have a true grasp of the facts before posting. The architects and engineers have explicitly stated that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airplane strike. This is well documented.
|
|
|
Chris of Bavaria, Germany writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
The evidence gives a schocking picture of what might have really happened the days surrounding 9/11. On the other side, the massive geo-politics shows who benefits (political and economic) from this day. I think most "interventionists" remain "dedicated to 9/11". It was a key event for people in the US and the rest of the world. First, for the many victims, and then for the many perople shot down or lawlessly arrested for "freedom" and "democracy". The other side is begging for truth and only gets no-answers or nonsense-answers. What game are these men playing?
With this mass of incredibility, lies, and cover-ups - how can they get through all this without being harmed? They live off of the "standard-bearers" or "patriots" who are watching and reading mainstream-media and telling the sceptics: "I've read nothing more about 9/11 than the 911-Comission - I don`t even wanna hear what you've got to say - but I know that YOU ARE WRONG!"
The evidence is so easy to see, you don`t need any long-haired-hippie-underground-fanatic-idiot-conspiracy; you only need some scepticism and a little trust in yourself.
For me it seems quite clear after researching for over 4 years. Nothing targets the other direction. I've found nothing that relieves the government or investigators of covering this up.... Continued
|
|
|
Andrew of Coquitlam, BC, Canada writes:
Excellent article! I've suspected for a long time that the U.S. may have planned or allowed the attacks.
|
|
|
Anders Madsen of Taarbaek , Denmark writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
I think this article is very clear, logically and pedagogically. It is a presentation of the facts that convinced me that the explanation of the WTC collapse that I had believed is seriously flawed. I am a university mathematician with some knowledge of physics, so I obviously have great trust in Newton. I am intuitively very convinced by this article. But I would like to have more solid ground for some of the intuition.
Apparently the argument goes that when the upper block starts falling then it should be decellerated a little every time it (cumulatively) hits the next underlying floor. Could you explain why this is so, and how you quantify this decelleration, preferably by reference to some guy as credible as Newton.
I feel sure that when I try to promote your views I will have this argument thrown in my face.
|
|
|
Kat of Omaha, USA writes:
How did they plant explosives? Google Marvin Bush. He headed the company that provided the security of the WTC, Dulles (where one of the hijacked planed originated from) and United.
I'm no expert, but I can say one thing, common sense told me from day one that it didn't look right.
We're all conspiracy theorists. It's just which conspiracy is more plausible?
|
|
|
Pam of Wisconsin writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Great article. Clear concise and comprehensive. When I watched it happen, it didn't seem possible. Later the news reports came out and other parts of this planned attack didn't add up either. Thank you for the article. I will share it.
P.S. To H. Matheson re: 'how could charges be planted?' check around for this info. A 'Security Check' was done days before the attack. Marvin Bush was a partner for WTC security service, so pretty easy to do.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA responds:
I will be writing an update to this article soon. I am still reviewing the NIST final report released at the end of 2005.
In the meantime, I'd like to respond to some of the comments posted.
To 'Happy to read this':
For me, who did 9/11 has become easy to figure out simply by the process of elimination. All we need to do at this point is eliminate all the people who could not have done it and gotten away with it all this time. That leaves Bush & Co.
As far as starting an organization, we are the organization. It is up to us because, as Mike of Oakland points out above, there is virtually no discussion about 9/11 in a rational sense anywhere in the media, barely any even in the 'left' media, like Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. It is up to us, We The People, to, as Jello Biafra says, 'become the media'.
Most discussion that does exist is geared toward inflaming irrational emotional response (the "Lee Harvey" Moussaoui trial is a perfect example).
Now, there are some good reasons that most of the journalists are keeping their mouths shut.
If you remember, within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, militarized anthrax was sent to a handful of people. The first was a photo editor from a gossip rag that published photos of one of Bush's daughters stumbling drunk on the sidewalk. He died. Then much of the Democratic leadership got their powdered warnings, as did some of the print and TV news media. Paul Wellstone's plane made a mysterious 90-degree turn moments before landing, crashed, and killed all aboard. Muckraking Journalist Gary Webb 'committed suicide' by shooting himself in the head...twice. Hunter S. Thompson... Continued
Magnus Folaji of Jonesboro, GA responds:
Dave,
I'm an Electrical Engineer and have a question about any possible horizontal deflection of the building after the impact. If the plane weighs about 300K lbs, traveling at a speed of 350mph, is it possible that the building should have swayed significantly due to the impact? Also, if the plane so easily penetrated the building without disintegrating on impact, should it, or at least parts of it, for example the engines,not have exited the building on the other side? The large explosion immediately after the impact seems a bit strange.
Just wondering.
Goldensun420 of Yonkers, New York responds:
Dave Great article. I'm from N.Y. and was living in Yonkers NY during the attacks. I watched the second plane supposedly impact on tower #2 on Fox News as one of their helicopters flew directly towards the buildings. And I remember asking my uncle why did we only see the plane seconds before impact? Couldn't the camera man and or at least the camera see the plane heading towards its target. The pilot or someone should have been screaming here comes another one. How many people were looking up that day???
Ross Salinger of California, USA responds:
If you read the NIST report or do some more research you'll find that some heavy parts did come out the other side. It was these parts that damaged the core columns. By the time the disintegrating plane got to the core most of it was certainly in small pieces and fires were starting.
|
|
|
Mike of Oakland, CA writes:
I don't have enough physics expertise to know if your analysis is valid or not. If it is valid, why hasn't any major univeristy's physics department endorsed it (even perhaps a university from another country)?
Patrick of San Jose responds:
They have.
|
|
|
Diana Lea of North Ogden, Utah writes:
Count me in on this one. I have spent the past week reading up on it, and am convinced it was a controlled demolition.
www.gunsandbutter.net
|
|
|
H of Mighigan writes:
Thank you for something that finally makes sense!
|
|
|
H Matheson writes:
How could the explosive demolition charges have been planted without attracting any attention?
JohnnyThePrick of melbourne, australia responds:
Who said they were "traditional explosives"? Let's not forget it was 2001 not 1901!
Magnus Folaji of Jonesboro, GA responds:
Ever heard about the SR71? It didn't "exist" until it was retired after a few decades of service. Food for thought!
|
|
|
Debbie Upton of Kouts, IN writes:
Your article confirmed all of the feelings that I had about what I saw on 9/11. I did not study physics during the course of my education, but common sense says that one floor falling upon another would take far longer and leave a greater amount of debris than was indicated. Thank you so much for your insights. They have renewed my interest in the truth of September 11.
|
|
|
Happy to read this of US writes:
Hey Dave, thanks for the article. I read one exactly like it on another site, and I feel really stupid not realizing all of this stuff before. But then again, I am in the 9th grade and just learned all of those scientific laws. I think that you could start some kind of organization or something to research who might have done this, and to spread the word to the rest of the American people.
|
|
|
Joe writes:
In response to 'The Top Ten Unanswered Questions About 9-11'
by Tony Brasunas:
You ask why it looks like Flight 93 was shot down. Well, it most likely was. Now, if Americans were involved in a conspiracy to carry out the 9/11 attacks, then why would they let Flight 93 get shot down?
|
|
|
Ahmed Azeddine of Frederiksberg, Denmark writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Thank you Dave for your courage to investigate and write about a tragedy that was masterminded, planned and executed in cool blood by the American Government and the Mossad. Being myself a civil engineer I never doubted that the collapse of the WTC's 3 buildings was carried out by controlled demolition techniques. My suspicion actually started the same day when I was unable to see any wreckage leftover from the plane which the government says had hit the Pentagon?
It is about time for the American people to open its eyes and raise its voice to say: No more lies from a government that has elevated gangster methods and lies to the level of State policy.
A Danish citizen
Brent of Desert, CA responds:
Ahmed: You speak many words of truth, and with powerful conviction. Kudos to you, from an American citizen.
|
|
|
Alistair Morton writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
Great Article! I found it as I have just started to look into the 'official story' myself. What I have found so far is quite frightening.
I hope you continue to look at this with the same non rose coloured glasses...
Thanks, A Canadian Friend
|
|
|
Carel of Eelde, the netherlands writes:
I want to thank Mr Heller for exposing the smoking gun of 9-11. So clear and clean cut.
I am trying to find a way into Dutch newspapers with this simple fact: look, listen, see for your self. They fell too fast! Wake up!
|
|
|
Brian Meynell of Gold Coast, New South Wales, Austalia writes:
I recall seeing TV images of the aircraft 'Hitting' one of the towers and 'vanishing' into the building, immediately followed by a massive explosion. It was surreal! Then I thought, how come a plane made of light weight materials, flying at,as you say, 350mph, can hit a concrete monolith without disintegrating as it did so??? I am highly suspicious of any assurances coming from your President, or the military/industrial complex that is the U.S.A. Your media, led by 'the Dirty Digger' citizen Murdoch, has so shamefully let America down by regurgitating absurdities, lies, and complete bullshit from the neo-cons. God save America...from itself!
Chris of Atlanta, GA responds:
A 767 weighing 396,000 pounds and moving at 350mph is expected to lose a battle against the facade of a high rise building? Impossible, yet that's what you expected to happen. Given the visual evidence that the plane DID in fact enter the building, AND the fact that there are pictures that even show the outline of the plane a the impact site, what is your hypothesis? It seems it is much easier to use the visual evidence and basic physics to explain exactly what happened, but instead you question it because of a lack of basic understanding of physics. That is no reason to disstrust anything but your own reasoning.
Patrick of San Jose, Costa Rica responds:
Hi Chris,
Nobody (at least nobody I know) questions the fact that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were hit by aircraft.
What we question is whether this alone can bring the buildings down.
The official conspiracy theory says the fire weakened the steel.
The first building was hit straight on and the fuel all burnt inside, yet it stood far longer, eventually collapsing after the second building which had a corner clipped by an aircraft whose fuel burnt outside (as evidenced by the huge fireball). The second building could not have withstood as much structural damage as the first one and it fell after just ten minutes.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Carel Muller of Rotterdam, Holland writes:
I very much liked Dave Heller's article: clear, simple, no more conclusions than necessary and without hate !
I felt I could send it to people for whom the content is new. Thank you Dave Heller !
|
|
|
John Cameron of Blackheath, Australia writes:
Dave, I did not believe the fairy story from day one. The towers collapsed too similarly to a planned implosion.
WTC7 was even more obvious. Then there's the insurance profits and the lack aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon.
Still, most experts follow the government like sheep. Unbelievable.
Best from Oz
|
|
|
Anonymous writes:
One wonders whether the hijacked airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania was meant for WTC7.
Stratus Blue of Haleiwa, HI responds:
Good thinking sir. It is often pondered.
|
|
|
George Washington writes:
Thank you for Mr. Heller's outstanding article, Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center.
I have been researching and writing on 9-11 for years (see for example this summary) and this is the single best article I've read on the physics behind controlled demo of the world trade center. It makes the anomolies apparent even for someone with no physics training, and puts it together in a more intuitive way than even Jim Hoffman has done.
Lights of Duquesne, PA responds:
Wow! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to think the whole WTC collapses (especially No.7) looks more like a controlled demolition. I have no real training in this sort of thing, but have seen enough footage of controlled demolitions to strongly suspect that this is what was going on in all three collapses.
Plus there is the janitor who was in one of the sublevels of the Twin Towers and he distinctly said that he heard explosions...makes one wonder, doesn't it?
|
|
|
C Thurston of San Francisco, CA writes:
Thanks for Dave Heller's well-written piece on the science of the WTC building 'collapses.' I would like to try to clarify one or two points.
From the available video of the collapse of WTC7 it is clear that this was a true demolition-style IM-plosion, meaning that the building folded in on itself and the falling material landed almost entirely within the original building footprint, leaving the neighboring structures essentially undamaged. The entire building begins falling simultaneously, almost as if it's going down an elevator into the ground. This can only be accomplished, of course, by removing all of the vertical structural support at the column bases with simultaneously detonated explosive charges.... Continued
|
|
|
James Woods writes:
In response to 'Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center'
by Dave Heller:
This theory of hi/low resistance regarding the WTC collapses is very good. It should literally be publicized everywhere. It should be endorsed by a university or several. It should be worded so that even the most average Joe can comprehend it. Heller's theory proves with irrefutable visual evidence that the government's theory of the WTC collapses is not just implausible, or low-probability. It is impossible. This proof could cause the unraveling of 9-11.
I hope everybody is paying attention to this man!
Anonymous responds:
Mr. Heller should consider reviewing some of the work done by the NIST investigation instead of regurgitating dark-weaved nonsense from loonies.
Dave Heller responds:
I didn't know that Isaac Newton was a loonie.
Stephen P. of L.A. responds:
Sounds like someone watches a little too much Fox news. Maybe instead of attacking Mr. Heller's personality you would like to answer some of the questions - I would particularly like to know how Larry Silverstein had the foresight to claim insurance 2 months beforehand consequently making $7 billion on terrorist attacks that would occur on the World Trade Centers? This is a question based on fact, and it deserves attention, like all of the other questions Mr. Heller had. In my opinion, anyone who read any of the conflicting documentation should have these questions. It is unfair to anonymously call people loonies when they have well-founded questions; you exude the fear the "terrorists" want you to have.
Chuck Boldwyn of Homestead, Florida responds:
A Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor, I have very extensively researched the Twin Tower Collapses and discovered:
The following is the Equation that proves that the 911 Twin Towers could not possibly have collapsed due to exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.
CL(95) = 20*LL(95)
= 20*[5*DL(95)]
= 100*DL(95)
= 100*(95/15)DL(15)
= 100*6.33*DL(15)
= 633*DL(15)
= 633 Force Units of upward support
where,
CL = Collapse Load for 100% & Total Collapse
LL = Live Load = Occupied & Furnished Weight
DL = Dead Load = Unoccupied, Unfurnished
110 = 110 Floor Steel WTC
95 = 95 Floor Steel Block (Lower Block)
15 = 15 Floor Steel Block (Top Block)
20 = Collapse Load Factor of John Skilling
5 = Live Load Factor of Ronald Hamburger
of NIST
Therefore, it required the Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur. ... Continued
|
|
|
Jeff Strahl of Denver, CO writes:
As the person who, with Jim Hoffman's help, constructed the presentation at
911research.wtc7.net's Pentagon site, I have to add a few comments. That Pentagon video, from which 5 frames were released, is highly
suspect, as our more recent version shows. Still, the Pentagon evidence
is extremely important -- the hole's size, given the plane's dimension and
angle of approach; the lack of any significant debris, especially wings and tail;
the lack of damage to the cable spools, fence and lawn outside the damage
area; the lack of evidence of jet fuel fire in exposed sections of the
building. Thanks for including it as one of the 'Top Ten' [in The Top Ten Unanswered Questions about 9-11].
|
|
|
David Ray Griffin of Claremont, CA writes:
While Mark Dallas' review of my book [Unflinching: David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor Asks All the Hot Questions] is generally 'fair and
balanced,' I would like to respond to his critique about the first chapter, regarding the two planes that struck the World Trade Center.
The task I took on in writing The New Pearl Harbor was to summarize the arguments that others have given, not also to do independent investigation for the sake of making the case for official
complicity as strong as possible. The message of my book is that critics have raised
questions serious enough to warrant a different kind of investigation than the
kinds we have had thus far. Since the kind of information Dallas is saying I
should have provided was not provided by my sources, I didn't include it. Had
I started doing that kind of investigation on that issue, then I would have
needed to do it for all analagous issues, and I would still be trying to get the
first edition finished. [Note: The second edition reached bookstores on 8/16/2004 - Ed.]
The strongest part of his positive suggestions, in my view, is his
'bureaucratic labyrinth theory,' which I will probably start using. So I offer my
thanks to him for this in particular and for his thoughtful review in general.
The one comment in his review that puzzled me was his statement that the
chapter on Bush's behavior is weak. Many readers find that chapter among the book's most powerful,
especially given the main point I emphasize ? that the Secret Service's
behavior, in not whisking Bush away, implies that they had advance knowledge that he
would not be a target of a terrorist attack at the school. I consider that one
of the 4 or 5 of the strongest 'smoking guns.'
Mark Dallas of Berkeley, CA responds:
I agree with David Ray Griffin's response to my review, but I wish to clarify two points. He mentions that his book was a summary of arguments and evidence that other authors have compiled. As a summary, his book certainly fulfills its objective. I urge readers to view my counterpoints to Griffin not as critiques of his work, but rather as attempts to improve his argument and make it more rigorous. Granted, this is not the traditional objective of a book review, but this is no ordinary book. My essay was my way of furthering the dialogue, rather than simply summarizing and discussing a book in a detached manner as most reviews are wont to do. So, yes, he fulfills his objectives fully, and my writings should be read as 'brainstorming' to improve it further, not as attacks on his work. I'm sorry if I caused a mistaken interpretation.
Secondly, I may not have made it clear enough in my essay, but I do not view his argument concerning the behavior of Bush and the Secret Service as 'weak.' Rather, I said that it was 'weaker' than the other arguments put forth in the first section of the book. It may be pure semantics, but I still found the sections which provide more abundant hard, physical evidence concerning the buildings, the flights, etc., more convincing than how the Secret Service reacted or failed to react. To the unknowledgeable reader, evidence concerning the physical destruction of buildings is more tangible and real than the reaction of the Secret Service. I have absolutely no information about Secret Service protocol, about who calls the shots when an attack occurs, or about what their past reactions have been. And while I have my opinions about Bush's cool reactions on that day, I will not jump to the conclusions I perhaps wish to make concerning his apparent delay of action (ditto for Moore's movie). So, while I see the argument concerning the reactions in Florida as another plausible path of inquiry which deserves attention, I personally would devote more energy towards the other paths that are more convincing to the lay reader.
Despite these minor points, I fully support and admire Professor Griffin's continued inquiry into these unthinkable questions.
|
|
|
Alan Kobrin of Miami, FL writes:
I found G&G quite by accident today, and I like the line of inquiry,
the focus, and the language. The questions you pose, and the challenges you raise, are
right on the mark, in tone and enticement.
I wholly agree with your analysis of Michael Moore's treatment in
Fahrenheit 9-11. When I left the theater, I told friends that I was
actually disappointed at having seen little new there but could perhaps
understand Moore's desire to play to a larger audience without
scaring them away. Nevertheless, he could have still achieved that while
asking the hard questions.
My personal involvement has been in connection with the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition,
which in many ways has been at the epicenter of the Florida/national
election concerns for the nation. I've also been active in local anti-war
efforts as well as the FTAA enlightenment movement which made Miami look
like Baghdad for a few days. My principle vehicle for activity has been the Green Party, which, for all its flaws and lack of
experience, still seems to offer the best possibilities for sanity and
direction at this moment. For that reason, I especially appreciated the
reference to Cobb's address in Milwaukee.
Keep up with the good work.
|
|
|
An anonymous soldier of a foreign U.S. military base writes:
I am a CPT in the Army ? not anyone very important. Do you know
how many threats we see each day that places that we work are going
to be hit? When it happens this often for me, you can only imagine
how often Bush hears them. People have been trying to take down the
world trade center for at least 10 years. Why would anyone have assumed
that this one would get through? Of course there are records showing
that he knew about it. He knew about lots of attempts that he did
not tell the whole world about. Why do
you waste your energy trying to prove the cliche point: that the
government is trying to get us and is corrupt? Try seeing the other
side for a change and see where it takes you. People in government
spend their whole lives and reputations trying to prevent this kind of
thing. Do you really think that people would let it happen on
purpose? No president, no matter how corrupt, would allow thousands
of civilians to die if he could prevent it. Not only because of good moral fiber, but also cause it makes him look bad.
It is frustrating to see all you intelligent
people putting so much effort into creating stories from figments that
you don't even understand.
Mark Dallas of Berkeley, CA responds:
I understand anger to the sorts of hints and allegations found on G&G, particularly from someone employed in the military. I believe that both sides need to keep an open mind, and I for one try not to jump to conclusions or point fingers prematurely. However, I am also keeping my mind open to the 'unthinkable,' such as that our government was complicit in the attack on the WTC. First, you mention 'the government,' 'the president,' and 'employees of the government.' This is a very diverse group of organizations and individuals, numbering in the tens of thousands, and no one would argue that they are all complicit! So ask yourself with an open mind, could it be in the self-interest of someone, some group or some organization in this massive government of ours to aid or abet the carrying out of the attacks? If your answer is still no, then I urge you to read Professor David Ray Griffin's book, the New Pearl Harbor. It will not offer definitive proof, nor does it aim to. Rather, it convinces the reader that there are inconsistencies that require investigation, and the probing of unthinkable questions. There are innumerable instances of certain individuals, in certain agencies within our government, carrying out illegal, criminal, and morally reprehensible acts. With such a checkered past, I refuse to give a blank check of approval and trust to every individual in our government, and I urge you and your friends not to as well. With you, in unity.
Dave Heller of Berkeley, CA responds:
If the events that transpired in Louisiana have not convinced you that this adminstration has no concern for piles of dead people, particularly non-white people, I don't know what will.
How many billionaires died in the 9/11 'attacks'? This adminstration in particular, is as callous as it gets. The loss of a few people on 9/11 was far outweighed by the myopic super-patriotism that ensued.
It took me a while to be able to fathom the truth, but physics does not lie. It either is or is not in the Newtonian world we live in. The only way the three towers could have fallen was by controlled demolition and thus the only way the 'attacks' could have happened was with complete complicity. Unless you can show how Osama Bin Laden was able to get through George Bush's brother's and cousin's security forces at the WTC (that's right, Marvin is a principle owner of the security firm which serviced the WTC) and plant tons of explosives, I don't see who else could have done it.
brent of the desert, Calif responds:
Oh, we're just sleuths riding a mystery train putting clues together about a crime that was committed. Some prognostications do drift off kilter, until the correct evidence surfaces, and a satisfactory conclusion can be reached.
As it is, we are far from 'case closed.'
|
|
|
Leland Lehman of Sante Fe, NM writes:
Dave Heller's article [Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center] is absolutely correct in stating that Building 7 collapsed without being hit by an airplane or other debris. FEMA was unable to conclusively state why it collapsed. But Heller should know that in September of 2002 owner Larry Silverstein discussed the collapse of Building 7 in a PBS Documentary called America Rebuilds. This is what Silverstein had to say:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Listen to that clip yourself, or watch Larry Silverstein say it. Lest there be any doubt about what "pull it" means, listen to another quote from the same talk: "... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Someone needs to ask Silverstein some tough questions under oath about what he meant in that statement �Eand how it was possible to demolish Building 7 without placing explosive charges in the building prior to 9-11. As it turns out, the collapse of the WTC North and South Towers also appear to have been controlled demolitions �Esince jet fuel simply cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, let alone melt the steel columns uniformly in such a fashion as to engender a controlled implosion.
As to when those charges could've been placed, consider this letter from Scott Forbes, who was an IT professional working for Fiduciary Trust in the South Tower during...continued
|
|
|
Bill Douglas of 911Truth.org writes:
As you may know, "The 9/11 Commission Report" is #1 on amazon.com. Recently
we urged all 9/11 truth activists to write a review at the "9/11 Commission
Report" listing on amazon.com, bn.com etc. and recommend that readers read David Ray Griffin's The
New Pearl Harbor in addition, and perhaps before reading the 9/11 Commission Report.
The results were fantastic. In the section "Read In Addition to" and "Read
Instead of" at the "9/11 Commission Report," now the #1 recommended "addition"
and "instead of" read is The New Pearl Harbor
This is getting thousands who would never know of TNPH to
see it, and many to read it. You can help this effort for 9/11 truth by urging
all you know to do the same, not only at amazon.com, but at bn.com, and at
amazon.co.uk.
You must be an amazon.com customer to write reviews. So, if you aren't now,
buy a copy of "The New Pearl Harbor" for your congressperson, local news
editor, etc. You can have amazon.com ship it directly to them.
|
|
|
Phillip Jayhan of Oakland, CA writes:
Great site! I added it to my links archive this afternoon. Nice, crisp, clean look! The info is terrific as well.
|
|
|
SphereSearcher of Fresno, CA writes:
Fahrenheit 9-11 makes a good presentation on the Bush/Saudi/bin Laden connections, putting such players as James Bath and James Baker �Eagents representing the Saudi and bin Laden financial and political interests �Einto perspective. Moore estimates that the Bush family is in line to receive $1.4 billion from their Saudi deals. Moore also puts Bush's Harken stock deal into such perspective that one might anticipate a presidential pardon for Martha Stewart, whose indiscretions were tiny in comparison.
But Moore's most critical work focuses on the private aircraft allowed to fly Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the United States in the first few days following 9-11. The rest of U.S. private aircraft were grounded at the time �Eeven medevac flights were prohibited. Yet the bin Ladens could fly, and some 23 of them swiftly departed U.S. soil. Moore then narrows the issue down to the question of whether or not the blame for 9-11 should be directed at Saudi Arabia.
But here is where Moore misses the point. The finger more readily points to the non-involvement of Saudi Arabia. Think about it. If the Saudis and bin Ladens actually were involved, it's extremely unlikely they really would have been allowed to escape. It seems more likely they were allowed to leave because they were innocent, and because Bush was planning to blame them. They get a free ride home �Eand avoid all harrassment �Eif they promise not to publicly contest their 'guilt.'
|
|
|
Anonymous writes:
You've asked some interesting questions. I have one: What did Jeb Bush, the president's brother, know prior to 9-11?
It turns out that on September 7, 2001, Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida,
issued an Executive order, 01-261, which states: "The Florida
National Guard may order selected members on to state active duty for
service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4), Florida
Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training and
inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the
smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "Extraordinary Support to Law Enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes (Read the Statue).
Then, on 9-11 itself, while his brother, G. W. Bush, was listening to the kids at the school in Florida, terrorists did in fact strike. Jeb Bush responded with what I understand was the first declaration of emergency in the U.S. He issued Executive Order 01-262.
Could someone possibly assure me, and other concerned Americans, that members
of the Bush family were not aware of an impending terrorist attack �Eand that the
preparation of EO 01-261 was not related to the speedy execution of EO 01-262?
|
ISSUE 5: AMERICA'S POLITICAL SPECTRUM
|
|
|
Max Bushnell of Haddonfield, NJ writes:
Great article [America's Political Spectrum]--for 50% of readers. I applaud the effort to educate the masses that they can define who they are, and which title fits them best. Regrettably, a large population of voters remains unidentifiable by the characterizations you set fourth.
How would you classify the informed, registered voter that seeks electoral restructuring within the framework of the constitution, and wants to ramp up military power? Green or Republican? Moreover, is this Green-Republican a hybrid to be admired or a bipolar jellyfish to be dismissed? Unfortunately, they?re not Green or Republican, and dismissal is not an option due to their proliferation. Each political party you mentioned has adopted at least one concern that appeals to a broad spectrum of voters. This elementary acquisition strategy has been around as long as democracy and spawned a classification you overlooked: the issue voter. This nebulous category of the populace must be scrutinized and understood. Was it the issue voter that silently led to what you call the PNAC Republican entrenchment?
|
|
|
Greg Gerritt of Providence, RI writes:
As a long time Green, and occasional Green candidate for office, I really like Rob Arnow's analysis [What Makes a Kucinich, Dean, or Kerry 'Electable'?]. Too often we let the media control our thinking instead of actually articulating the issues that would resonate with the public. Hopefully, the Green Party will continue to articulate the issues and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
John P. Falchi of San Diego, CA writes:
I agree with Rob Arnow that the concept of electability is a manufactured one. It's become a construct that means whatever the media wants it to mean. Dean was picked as the most promising foil to Kerry by the media in an early attempt to make the campaign an exciting horserace. His volatility was no secret, nor was the moderate nature of his policies as governor. The media chose to show off this man -- who declared early, had enough money to hire a good staff, and utilized the internet to build a grassroots volunteer and fundraising effort -- as the liberal counterpoint to Kerry's centrism.
He was favored over others, such as Kucinich, in the media exposure he received. At the time of the AFL-CIO Debate in Chicago last August, Dean was simultaneously on the covers of three major news magazines: Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. That was no accident. His image was getting a shot in the arm.
However, what one gives one can also take away, and when it was decided to withdraw favor, the media pulled no punches in viciously, repeatedly ridiculing his electability. That someone could be presented as electable on one day, and then soon thereafter as the opposite, was amazing.
Yours for a more positive future.
|
|
|
Kendra Dale writes:
Who is willing to do a study on the extent to which, in this media rich age, voters choose their candidate based on appearance? How much is Kucinich "unelectable" because he's worn a bow tie? Or because he's not six feet tall? What's the American archetype for a leader, and how can someone who does not fit it have a chance?
|
|
|
Starchild of San Francisco, CA writes:
The "Lay of the Land" article got it wrong by lumping Libertarians with Republicans on the right. Libertarians are neither left nor right; they're anti-authoritarian, believing in maximizing individual liberty, as opposed to maximizing state power. It is also mistaken to put anarchists next to communists. Communists want to concentrate all power in a "dictatorship of the workers" (in practice, a dictatorship of themselves!) while anarchists are even more opposed to government power than libertarians! For a more accurate model of the political spectrum, see www.self-gov.org.
|
|
|
Anonymous Progressive writes:
Progressives know that the institution of the Libertarian programme will inevitably favor those already possessing the vast majority of our wealth. Most of our economic institutions are societal creatures, and, as Benjamin Franklin put it, they need to be subject to the needs of our society. Free Enterprise is a wonderful motor to power the economy, but a good car has a bit more than just a gas pedal.
Starchild of San Francisco, CA responds:
As a Libertarian candidate, I strongly dispute the words of 'Anonymous Progressive.' I have run largely on ideas to help the poor and disadvantaged -- for example, eliminating restrictions on selling things on the sidewalks, so that homeless people could engage in self-supporting economic activity without being hassled by the cops. Another idea I had was repealing annual business license fees. These flat fees fall hardest on small businesses that are trying to get established. We ought to make it easier for ordinary people to go into business for themselves, so they have more independence and don't end up as employees working for large corporations. We can do that by cutting the red tape, regulations, taxation, and fees that burden small business. These are just a couple areas where Libertarian ideas have the potential to radically benefit ordinary working people and the poor.
|
|
|
Brad Ouderkirk of Portland, OR writes:
Wonderful insights.
|
|
|
Colleen Donovan of Ellensburg, WA writes:
This is a great site! I�ll be sure to spread the word.
|
|
|
Steve Franklin of St. Louis, MO writes:
Congratulations on developing a provocative and interesting newsletter. You should know:
-
The "War on Poverty" was Lyndon Johnson's baby, not Richard Nixon's. LBJ announced it in his State of the Union speech on January 8, 1964. The dialog during that time was whether we could have both "guns and butter" as the more traditional Viet Nam bombing and killing-people kind of war escalated in Viet Nam. Johnson insisted we could, and he pursued his domestic economic development and anti-poverty agenda, although Viet Nam did make it harder to get adequate funding.
-
Mort Sahl is a master of dissecting the left-wing, right-wing, and "middle-of-the-bird" of the political spectrum at any given moment. He's guaranteed to offend just about everyone, but make you think.
Tony Brasunas responds:
LBJ started the "War on Poverty," and Nixon continued it. Nixon had known poverty in his own personal past, and his family situation motivated some of his (albeit few) good decisions in this regard. In the end, Nixon significantly scaled back both the resources and the language supporting the War on Poverty, and thus moved the nation's discourse on issues such as poverty, education, and healthcare away from high ideals and towards a new conservatism. This was the first of the three rightward steps we've taken over the past three decades. By mentioning Nixon, I was showing how different the discourse was back in 1972 -- a Republican fighting poverty!
|
|
|
Maury Argento, on an Army base in Germany, writes:
Interesting that you are so concerned about balance -- it seems that the left side is the only correct side. The problem as you see it is that our society has moved too far too the right, but you are looking from the left. If you were looking from the persepctive of the right you might see things very differently. Please, if you call this publication a "Grassroots Journal of America's Political Soul," look at the soul. If you just look at one side from the perspective of another, you are just like any other publication that has its own bias.
|
|
|
Lauren Patti of San Francisco, CA writes:
This is a terrific issue.
|
|
|
Starchild of San Francisco, CA writes:
Great article! Chris Maden explains well what it means to be libertarian in Over the Rainbow: Libertarians Offer a Different Spectrum. His point about how 5 to 10 percent of the population can often get a new government program funded with other people's money, once a coercive funding apparatus is in place, really gives food for thought. The system really does seem designed to favor those who have the most to gain by larger government, even when the majority will suffer.
|
|
|
Rob Power of San Francisco, CA writes:
Aside from the problem of placing Libertarians anywhere on a left-right spectrum, which Chris Maden expertly explained, I also noticed that the last Libertarian bullet point in "Introduction: The Lay of the Land" is inaccurate:
- Increase power of corporations via total deregulation and privatization
Yes, Libertarians favor deregulation and privatization, but they are just as skeptical of big corporations as of big government. Libertarians oppose corporate welfare and reject the idea of limited liability for corporate heads.
In fact, corporations are only so powerful today because government is so powerful. The motion picture and recording industry corporations should not have the power to invade my privacy and snoop on my Internet connection...continued
|
ISSUE 4: WHAT IS PROGRESS?
|
|
|
Randy Cauley of Colorado Springs, CO writes:
Just read 'Keep Your Mind Balanced And Your Eyes On The Prize' by Randy Zurcher. I am proud to say I was Randy's friend when we both lived in Fayetteville, AR. His views are very insightful, and although I am not a Democrat, and don't neccesarily share all of his opinions, for the most part, he is on the right track. He is a really smart guy, and some of our conversations gave me a new angle on some of the issues that were discussed. Thanks Randy, knowing you made me a better person.
San Fran, huh? Glad ya made it out of AR. BTW, how's the hair?
|
|
|
F.P. of Recklinghausen, Germany writes:
In For Real Progress, America Needs Better Democracy, Steven Hill mentions Renate K�nast as a very popular German politician. This is more or less true: she's popular. But she is nearly the only known Green Party politician. During their 6 years in government, the Green Party has fixated only on keeping their power. The real green idea has been lost -- years ago.
|
Plant Your Own Sprout
Give in to the temptation and let fly:
|
|
Latest at G&G
03.13 - I have very extensively researched the Twin Tower Collapses
more >
03.06 - Your article makes a hell of a lot of sense, I must say.
more >
PARTY NEWS
Green Party
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Libertarian Party
ALTERNATIVE NEWS
Indymedia
IPS International
OneWorld
GNN
CORPORATE NEWS
New York Times
Washington Post
other US dailies
NONPROFIT NEWS
AlterNet
Buzzflash
Common Dreams
Democracy Now
Labor Start
Mother Jones
The Nation
Tom Paine.com
The Progressive
Tikkun
Truth Out
FEATURED NEWS
9-11 Blogger
|
