The 9/11 Forum

We are living in the New Dark Ages where there is no moral imperative to be good or "righteous". Therefore, for the rich and powerful, it's simply a matter of doing whatever is necessary to achieve your goals, however nefarious these may be.

i'm impressed.
however, on the bright side, the dark ages incite light, just as nature abhors any vaccuum and a pendulum keeps swinging until total entropy shuts down reality. any application of force creates an equal and opposite force.

it will be interesting to see what happens to society when they take away the value of money in the near future. will it bring trade to a halt, or will it merely create a new barter based economy and weave new social webs.
i've been hearing that we're are headed towards tribal/feudal models.

Dr. G wrote:I am not sure that it's useful to conflate the collapse of WTC 7 with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

True. But it may be useful to conflate their causes.

In fact, Bazant has been conspicuously silent on the demise of 7 and has told me he has no plans to publish anything about it in the near future!

Why do you suppose that is? Rhetorical, I wouldn't really ask you to second-guess him.

But I will. I think it's because he hasn't a clue how something like that could happen, despite his depth of expertise, and doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. There's no glory in it, and certainly a lot of headache.

Dr. G wrote:I believe we have to accept the uncomfortable truth that, inspite of all the hype, the internet is really a very ineffective and empty mode of expression and communication.

I agree with what I believe to be the intent of this statement, but let me play devil's advocate for the web:

- I learn more in one day from reliable internet sources than I used to learn in a month at school
- I get to exercise editorial censorship for myself, instead of others doing it on my behalf; this imposes a considerable time burden on me to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's a price I'm willing to pay especially since time spent reading MSM propaganda is, by definition, 100% waste
- The pace of real development of ideas and analyses far outpaces the plodding, exclusive, and censored world of academic publication (a world that may, by the way, go the way of the dodo and newspapers)

Otherwise I agree with your sentiments!

Ideas and thoughts of every stripe - good, bad or indifferent - are posted for the whole world to see only to be washed down the same virtual reality cyber-hole of mindless oblivion.

Yes, that is sad. That's why I save the really important stuff to my local hard drive. Hope the power stays on!

A fate shared by TV news, YouTube, e-mail, blog spots and such........ Messages that are "real time" and instant, yet paradoxically out of time and distant, ........ a melange of still-born creations, gone and forgotten before they are even sent, let alone comprehended!

That was ****ing beautiful. Poetic.

Let's face it: a world where nobody cares and nobody dares!

That's a fact. I'd say the state of the internet is a product of that condition, rather than a contributor to it, although there is always some reflexivity (mySpace, Facebook, Digg, etc, plug in any useless time wasting web fad you want).

newton wrote:truth is viral.
lies eat themselves.

it is only a matter of time.

Are you sure? I'd like to believe it, but I can only take it on faith and wishful thinking. Perhaps if the time frame is very long -- after all interested parties are long gone.

that is why the work of people like one white eye will REALLY matter some day...

You trying to get me whacked? Hahaha...

...work of people who merely distract from the truth(like bazant and jones and me, lol!) will wash down the drain of history along with the baby and the bathwater (leaving only the holy bathtub ring of truth).

That was ****ing beautiful. Poetic.

on that note, was there really a car bomb at the state department, was there really a van with a painting of a remote control plane flying into the towers in NY driven by two arabs detained by police on 9/11, was there really a missile launched from the woolworth's building, was there realy a report of a truck bomb at the pentagon before the plane hit.....etc., etc., etc. tose are some of the babies that will be washed away with the bathwater. the mighty (disgusting) tub ring will remain.

I think you're right. I'd forgotten some of that stuff already.

event times from multiple independent recordings on the other hand would be nearly impossible to fake. i only say 'nearly' because i'm VERY open minded.

My open mindedness prevents me from coming to any conclusions. I'll go to the grave knowing less than when I came in.

Just to clarify: I'm not knocking the internet per se. I too think it's a wonderful invention. But just like all great inventions, it has to be used wisely to be of benefit - used unwisely it becomes counter-productive or even destructive!

And, by the way, sorry if I've derailed this thread so I'll try to get it back on topic. Perhaps this will help:

The trouble with the "scientific method" when applied to all things "9/11" is the paucity of scientific data/evidence for researchers to work with. Unfortunately the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 was not a controlled laboratory experiment were lots of useful measurements were made and pertinent data collected. Thus I think Bazant's famous "Why did the WTC Collapse? paper will always be controversial because it is next to impossible - short of rebuilding one of the towers and smashing a plane into it - to test its conclusions. I think all that scientists can do with the available information is to look at what was possible and what was impossible on 9/11. Bazant has done this for the Twin Towers and shown that, within his set of assumptions, that a self-sustaining collapse was possible. However, what really needs to be decided is whether Bazant's assumptions are valid, and whether the resulting model is a reasonably accurate representation of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11.

Personally, I would never argue that Bazant's model is incorrect within its own set of assumptions - I'm sure it's mathematically and physically correct - but I do acknowledge that Bazant's model could be an idealization of the collapse that fails to describe the actual collapse mechanism. The same is true for the NIST Report, (and its collapse initiation scenario), which is clearly the mother of all scientific/research papers on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. One final comment: if anyone is not satisfied with NIST's or Bazant's efforts in analysing the WTC collapse events, I think they have to offer an alternative analysis/hypothesis that gives a better "fit" to all the available information/data on the collapse. After all, that's the essence of the scientific method!

Until a better analysis is offered by some insightful soul, all you doubting thomases out there will have to accept that Bazant's paper is, and will remain, the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

I think all that scientists can do with the available information is to look at what was possible and what was impossible on 9/11. Bazant has done this for the Twin Towers and shown that, within his set of assumptions, that a self-sustaining collapse was possible.

Not only possible but assured under assumptions that favored survival, like using energy for hinge buckling of ALL the columns, something that didn't even happen. Gregory Urich has questioned some of these assumptions but he says, essentially, they are nitpicks that don't change the result significantly. I agree, for what it's worth. To the extent that I've examined (and understand) this model, it seems there is great insensitivity to parameter values until conditions of arrest are approached.

I would speculate that, in a structure like one of the towers, it would be nearly impossible for arrest to occur. I don't think there could be arrest at all (fire away, everyone) given the way both initiated. I believe the single biggest factor favoring survival in these 1D models is the one dimensionality! Forcing everything to stay in line like that preserves geometry which, in such a structure, preserves strength and integrity. The real situation was much more messy than that.

By the same token, the model fails to describe the actual event with any precision. I'd venture to guess I've spent a great deal more time looking at images than Bazant - the images show reality, and that presents quite a different scenario than the approximation of reality given by the model. If you have both feet in the model and neglect to take a peek at reality from time to time, you can become convinced of the actuality of all sorts of irrelevant academic curiousities, such as the notion that initial crush-up in the towers was confined to the lowest few centimeters.

It is for this reason that I try (as best as my feeble mind allows) to understand the models in these articles, so that I can have that more well-rounded perspective. This is a basis, a starting point, for understanding it all. No real spring obeys F = -kx exactly, but who's going to deny that it's the theoretical underpinnings of simple spring behavior?

To be perfectly honest, the most revealing analog I've seen yet is (a video of) the collapse of a tower of cards posted by newton at physorg. Even though physorg is not JREF, the usual mockery and catcalls were issued. Too bad the naysayers didn't understand the genius. The towers were like a house of cards, as far as I'm concerned. I won't go into all the similarities - although I will discuss it elsewhere - but it is worthy to note that the collapse DOES arrest midway and then reinitiates and continues to completion. By arrest, I mean downward displacement STOPS, but the instability continues to propagate. This, I feel, is a model that more closely resembles the towers than anything 1D. From my purely amateur standpoint, I believe that once the top starts moving, there's no stopping the collapse, except maybe at the last few floors at the bottom and it's not like they'll be intact.

Edit: the last statement may need clarification. It depends on the definition of collapsed more than that of collapse or collapsing. I take it to mean totally destroyed. At the bottom of the towers, there were perimeter columns partially erect and core remnants, even if the floors continued on. By my definition, that's partially collapsed. Is there any doubt that, were 30 stories inserted below this point, these 'bottom' remnants - now 30 stories above ground - would be debris scattered about the plaza? My exception above is oriented towards acknowledging boundary conditions at the ground... and not letting the opportunity pass to show another discrepancy when the model is too simplified.

Dr. G wrote:However, what really needs to be decided is whether Bazant's assumptions are valid, and whether the resulting model is a reasonably accurate representation of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11.

The babble above makes it clear that I've already decided it is not an accurate representation, but an absolute prerequisite for developing an accurate model. Ignore the analysis and conclusions at almost certain peril.

Personally, I would never argue that Bazant's model is incorrect within its own set of assumptions - I'm sure it's mathematically and physically correct - but I do acknowledge that Bazant's model could be an idealization of the collapse that fails to describe the actual collapse mechanism.

BLGB comes way closer, a natural evolution.

The same is true for the NIST Report, (and its collapse initiation scenario), which is clearly the mother of all scientific/research papers on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

I have no quibble with the NIST report on the towers. I'm pretty sure from some of the submitted comments (including yours) as well as my own incidental observations that it's neither complete nor correct but it seems to be close enough on casual examination. The NIST report on building 7 is another matter.

One final comment: if anyone is not satisfied with NIST's or Bazant's efforts in analysing the WTC collapse events, I think they have to offer an alternative analysis/hypothesis that gives a better "fit" to all the available information/data on the collapse. After all, that's the essence of the scientific method!

Until a better analysis is offered by some insightful soul, all you doubting thomases out there will have to accept that Bazant's paper is, and will remain, the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

Absolutely. In that vein, I recall once mentioning that Seffen brought nothing new to the table and Dr. Benson administered unto me the proper verbal equivalent of an open handed slap. Not knowing any better, I further revealed my ignorance by guessing the difference incorrectly; the difference being the 'Newtonian approximation' used in Bazant et al. Any comments on Seffen's work?

OneWhiteEye:

Well, one comment I have to make is about NIST's Report on WTC 7. I agree with you: The more I read it, and think about it, the more I have trouble with it.....

Dr G wrote:

Major_Tom:

I am not sure that it's useful to conflate the collapse of WTC 7 with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. These events were separate and really quite different in many respects:

* WTC 1 & 2 were both hit by high speed aircraft; WTC 7 was not

* WTC 1 & 2 had jet fuel fires high up in the towers; WTC 7 had diesel fuel fires on its lower floors

* WTC 1 & 2 were crush-down failures; WTC 7 was a crush-up

Now I admit that the collapse of WTC 7 was very bizarre and its cause remains very mysterious, (in spite of NIST's best efforts to come up with a collapse mechanism!); but that really should not be taken to imply that the collapse of any building in NYC on that day was of necessity mechanistically connected to the collapse of Building 7 - in fact, the list of differences between 1, 2 & 7 given above certainly suggests different collapse mechanisms were in action. Furthermore, even if someone could prove that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives or thermite, one cannot jump to the conclusion that WTC 1 & 2 must have been destroyed in the same way. Thus, whatever theory Bazant et al. have proposed for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, it should not have any implications for Building 7. In fact, Bazant has been conspicuously silent on the demise of 7 and has told me he has no plans to publish anything about it in the near future!

Above was the whole quote. Below I examine it in parts.

Furthermore, even if someone could prove that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives or thermite, one cannot jump to the conclusion that WTC 1 & 2 must have been destroyed in the same way.

If we knew a demo team was taking down a building on the WTC complex on 9-11-01, do you think that suspecting them of having a hand in the collapse of 2 huge towers in the exact same complex on the same day would be "jumping to conclusions"?

If someone could show foul play regarding WTC 7, our debate would be over, wouldn't it? Why would we then continue to debate WTC 1 or 2?

Now I admit that the collapse of WTC 7 was very bizarre and its cause remains very mysterious, (in spite of NIST's best efforts to come up with a collapse mechanism!); but that really should not be taken to imply that the collapse of any building in NYC on that day was of necessity mechanistically connected to the collapse of Building 7

Of course not.

Honestly, if WTC 7 was a proven CD, wouldn't you view the falls of WTC 1 and 2 a bit differently?

Not any building in NYC, just the 2 that fell down just across the street.

Dr G, you are clearly a smart guy. You don't see the connection between the fall of WTC 7 and why millions of people suspect foul play in WTC 1 and 2?

In fact, Bazant has been conspicuously silent on the demise of 7 and has told me he has no plans to publish anything about it in the near future![/

I agree with the comment by OWE as to why. If Dr Bazant tackled WTC 7, what could he say about it?

WTC 7 spoils the party.


You cannot objectively study the fall of WTC 1 or 2 while ignoring the fact that WTC 7 fell like cooked pasta just across the street a few hours later.

It has nothing to do with some "mechanical link" between buildings. If we suspect a demo crew took down WTC 7, is it so far-fetched to suspect they were working with WTC 1 and 2 also ( and maybe using a similar technique, similar devices) ?

OWE notes:

I would speculate that, in a structure like one of the towers, it would be nearly impossible for arrest to occur. I don't think there could be arrest at all (fire away, everyone) given the way both initiated. I believe the single biggest factor favoring survival in these 1D models is the one dimensionality! Forcing everything to stay in line like that preserves geometry which, in such a structure, preserves strength and integrity. The real situation was much more messy than that.

By the same token, the model fails to describe the actual event with any precision. I'd venture to guess I've spent a great deal more time looking at images than Bazant - the images show reality, and that presents quite a different scenario than the approximation of reality given by the model. If you have both feet in the model and neglect to take a peek at reality from time to time, you can become convinced of the actuality of all sorts of irrelevant academic curiousities, such as the notion that initial crush-up in the towers was confined to the lowest few centimeters.

Exactly.


I am not saying that Bazant is wrong.

I am saying that he doesn't even begin to address the central concerns that people really have concerning the possibility of demolition on 9-11-01.

As OWE notes,

I would speculate that, in a structure like one of the towers, it would be nearly impossible for arrest to occur. I don't think there could be arrest at all

Does Bazant feel that collapse continuation or arrest of WTC 1 or WTC 2 after collapse initiation occurs is the burning issue for those who suspect CD?

It's not for me.

I'll guess that Dr Bazant will stay clear of WTC 7 because it is too much of a hot potato.

WTC 7 is possibly the most central concern for those who suspect CD.

One final comment: if anyone is not satisfied with NIST's or Bazant's efforts in analysing the WTC collapse events, I think they have to offer an alternative analysis/hypothesis that gives a better "fit" to all the available information/data on the collapse. After all, that's the essence of the scientific method!

Until a better analysis is offered by some insightful soul, all you doubting thomases out there will have to accept that Bazant's paper is, and will remain, the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

Dr G, Do you consider this paper as "the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2"?

The paper claims that, given collapse initiation, collapse continuation for WTC 1 and 2 is inevitable considering energy calculations.


How does this address the central concerns of those who suspect CD of WTC 7, and quite possibly of WTC 1 and 2?

(let's remember that WTC 1, 2 CD could include the method of "heat weakening" in the collapse initiation floors only, or the destruction of a 3 to 5 floor section, allowing the top portion to drop onto the bottom portion and allowing gravity to do the rest.)

My problem with the Bazant paper is not that it is wrong, but it doesn't address any of the core concerns for those who suspect CD.

So how can it be used to "debunk" those core concerns?

I believe that if any part of what happened on 9/11 involved some sort of conspiracy, no one will ever come forward and "fess-up" to their involvement, or be successfully prosecuted for crimes of treason and treachery, etc, .......

We are living in the New Dark Ages where there is no moral imperative to be good or "righteous". Therefore, for the rich and powerful, it's simply a matter of doing whatever is necessary to achieve your goals, however nefarious these may be. And this especially applies to our political shysters and hucksters and business leaders. So, a few get caught with their hands in the till from time to time, but these are rare cases mostly played out on targetted individuals to keep up the appearance of "fair play".

Meanwhile, for the real power brokers, if acomplishing your goals involves murder, lies and deception, so be it!

And having control of large sums of money allows these guys to buy all the support - from hit-men to high-price lawyers - they may need to stay in control. This is why our "legal system" is a joke when, for the "chosen ones" only, you can always get all the justice money can buy!

I agree.

Major_Tom:

I just saw your new posts but I was in the process of addressing your earlier posts so I will post this first with more to follow later:

I understand your position on the collapse of WTC 7 and the implication of its strange demise on how one might view the demise of WTC 1 & 2. However, in a court of law, I suspect that the fate of Building 7 would be ruled as inadmissible evidence in a case devoted to the collapse of Buildings 1 & 2. And a clever lawyer would probably argue that damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and diesel-fuelled fires on the lower floors brought down WTC 7. Indeed, I wonder why NIST was so anxious to exclude these factors in its analysis of the causes of the collapse of 7.

My main problem with a CD hypothesis for WTC 7 is that I fail to see how a CD could have been carried out without it being obvious from at least some of the many views of the collapse. For me WTC 7 fell too fast and too symmetrically even for a conventional CD! By "conventional CD" I mean one using high-explosive cutter charges on selected columns. In all the CD's I have seen (on YouTube for example), you can hear and often see the timed sequence of explosions - BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG - moving around the building. We didn't see or hear this for WTC 7 on 9/11.

On the other hand, I don't buy NIST's crazy column 79 theory with the inside of the building collapsing before the outside, ........ so I admit to being totally puzzled by Building 7.

Major_Tom wrote:If we knew a demo team was taking down a building on the WTC complex on 9-11-01, do you think that suspecting them of having a hand in the collapse of 2 huge towers in the exact same complex on the same day would be "jumping to conclusions"?

Maybe, even though that's what I meant by the usefulness of conflating the causes, it could still be jumping the gun. Bear with me.

Side note: the official story is that they are mechanistically connected, even if only by the most tenuous of causal threads. Taking a particular 6.5 second slice of the history of one building has more to do with 'if it doesn't move, we don't see it' instinct than any physical principle which demands partitioning WTC1/7 into two distinct systems over their respective collapse intervals. The controversy arises from the denial of the mechanistic connection. Just wanted to point out the peculiarity.

If someone could show foul play regarding WTC 7, our debate would be over, wouldn't it? Why would we then continue to debate WTC 1 or 2?

Indeed.

Showing foul play, however, may be a step beyond proving intentional demolition. (Like a cat always being on the wrong side of every door, I almost neurotically do the devil's advocate thing; don't take it as me arguing FOR a position)

This is probably as good a time as any to mention something that's been on my mind for several years. What if the official story was that WTC7 was brought down intentionally for safety reasons? This is not a new idea, but it's never been treated with exactly the slant I'd like to give it.

Had that been the story from the very beginning, would we have seen 'debunkers' denying it? Because, as they've said many times:

- it didn't look like a CD
- it didn't sound like a CD
- the building was unstable, on fire, and unsafe to enter
- there wasn't time to prep

Of course, this is hardly an indictment of people holding these opinions because (at least for now) these are perfectly consistent with the official story, there's no reason to have to come into accord with my hypothetical. Neither will anyone have to defend their position against a hypothetical future release of such information, unless it happens! Still, I find it interesting to speculate.

Such a scenario parallels the issue of whether flight 93 was shot down. On 9/11, I surmised that it was and attributed nothing nefarious to it. Frankly, I thought it was about time the multi-trillion MIC got off their collective workfare asses. Ok, so the official story is a really feel-good tale of heroism instead. The PTB were poised to shoot it down, but the guileless (and unlitigatable) heroism preempted that effort. OK.

(I mean no disrespect to passengers and their families in what I just said. No matter what happened, nothing diminishes the tragedy. Were there relatives of mine on the plane, I would hardly be anxious for it to be shot down and neither would I be consoled by any 'greater good' explanations. To be sure, after much reflection over the years, I realize I don't support a shootdown decision, and I believe that I'm wrong to hold that opinion! Imagine having only minutes to decide.)

Back to WTC7. What other parallels are there? Why, the cause of the demise itself. For years, we've heard about:

- groaning and creaking
- a growing bulge
- leaning
- massive debris damage
- combustion of large amounts of stored fuel

Only this time, the official story is... groaning and creaking maybe, but none of the others. Now, one positive remark I can make about NIST's report on 7 - I've never seen a better muzzle! What else could so effectively get self-assured blowhards to shut the hell up? Have you noticed the direct temporal correlation between the release of the report and the diminished posting frequency of certain individuals?

What of the claims above that appear to negate an intentionally induced collapse?

It didn't look like a CD

What does a CD look like? I've now viewed scores of demolition videos representing a variety of structures and methods (including an obvious fake that fooled me for a minute or two). There are patterns, of course, but there's no one particular way they look. WTC7 seems too abrupt and too fast, but so far that's just an impression. On the other hand, there's enough similarity that to deny it would be irrational or ignorant.

It didn't sound like a CD

I've seen two CDs now that were quiet at initiation. They were much smaller structures than 7, but it negates the claim that there must necessarily be ear-splitting bangs. One 9lb charge produces 130-140 db at a kilometer? Seriously??? I guess the crowds who gather within 1km of the Vegas demolitions, utilizing at least hundreds of charges, must go home with their ears bleeding. And I thought the hazard was dust! Can you imagine the people just across the street from the Landmark? They're deaf now! The insurance must be outrageous!

Nevertheless, after my fallacious display of incredulity, I can only offer that I've no opinion on the subject of WTC7 and sound. None of the videos I've seen of the collapse have any sound....

The building was unstable, on fire, and unsafe to enter
and
There wasn't time to prep

Firemen enter burning buildings all the time. It violates common sense, but it's a fact. I expect there are other professions willing to do the same. But that assumes anyone needs to.

I remember reading a magazine article in the late 90s (I think) in which it was claimed the mega-skyscraper in Malaysia(?) was being built with demolition charges in place. I'm neither lying nor mistaken about this claim, although it's certainly possible the author of the article was incorrect. This is not something you forget or misunderstand. I was struck with the imprudence of this on more than one level. Doing it, first of all, then publicizing it! What if a fire set these off? What if bad people commandeer them for nefarious purposes? I've since searched the internet for some corroboration of this claim, with no success.

If it were considered expedient to bring down the building, are we so sure that could not be accomplished? If you had the power, and made such a decision, wouldn't you want it kept on the down low? How many people kept the munitions in the Lusitania secret, for how many years?

All this to say, proving intentional destruction would prove authorities lie and cover-up decisions, good or bad. And slap yet another muzzle on windbags.

OneWhiteEye wrote:I remember reading a magazine article in the late 90s (I think) in which it was claimed the mega-skyscraper in Malaysia(?) was being built with demolition charges in place. I'm neither lying nor mistaken about this claim, although it's certainly possible the author of the article was incorrect. This is not something you forget or misunderstand. I was struck with the imprudence of this on more than one level. Doing it, first of all, then publicizing it! What if a fire set these off? What if bad people commandeer them for nefarious purposes? I've since searched the internet for some corroboration of this claim, with no success.

That reminds me of the small scandal in Switzerland a few years ago, when local residents of a town found out that there were explosives under their bridges and streets to be detonated in case of an invasion.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Swissinfo.h ... id=4123773

There are in fact hundreds of strategic roads, tunnels and bridges in Switzerland which conceal permanent stores of explosives.