Resolved, 9/11 Truth: The Initiation of Explosions / Collapse of WTC 1 Did Not Begin at the Location of the "Plane" Hit

Update 12/9/07

Update 12/5/07

Update 11/10/07

Keith Seffen’s WTC Collapse Folly: Not Even Wrong

Okay, I’ve read the paper. If I was a referee for this paper, I would write even less than I wrote about the last paper discussed above. This paper is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, “not even wrong.” (An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything. ) That’s probably what I would say in a referee report. But my wife wants me to tell you, the reader, why I say this.

blog it

11/9/07

clipped from 911blogger.com

Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate: Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer MP3

http://media.putfile.com/Commercial-Free-Thom-Hartman-911-Debate-Ryan-vs…

In case you have trouble downloading it from there (as opposed to just listening to it) you can get the full 41.38 MB MP3 file at the following (somewhat slow) link:

http://www.freefilehosting.ws/file/744/Commercial-Free-Thom-Hartman-911-…

Also, mirrored for QUICK download here.

blog it

Exhibit 1.
Slide Show of 1st Hit Damage:
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc_terror_experience/default.asp

Choose the Option at target web page: “The Attack Begins”

Screen shot from that video is shown below:

Exhibit 2.
Video Which Includes the Initiation of Collapse
http://www.vidilife.com/media/videoPlayerFullScreen.cfm?id=AC-41DC-45E6-84DC-D
and
http://www.vidilife.com/media/videoPlayerFullScreen.cfm?id=A8C85307-22CB-4BD1-9A0F-A

Based on these videos, I would suggest the following:

1. The initiation of the explosions starting the collapse, based on the orange hot spots and then a moment later a horizontal row of explosions are roughly as high up as the plane stuck WTC 1.

2. For those who think that the idea that this a “top-down” collapse, (not a bottom up as is usual for other video specimens of CDs), you are omitting the details of clear instantaneous events which do happen to commence near the top of WTC 1. However, whatever one attributes the collapse with the idea that the “plane” crash damage, and ensuing fires, and loss of structural integrity, it is a complete nonstarter. Look at the evidence: there is no way to negate the idea that detonations of some type are underway.

The following screen snaps are presented in sequence:
(this snaps occur at the time stamp of about 1:31 remaining in the video as shown by the video player at the target web page)



clipped from www.911blogger.com

Top Down Demolition

One of the main arguments defenders of the official story have made against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is that demolitions never start at the top of the building. In other words, they claim that demolitions always start at the bottom and proceed upwards.

Moreover, there were numerous reports of huge explosions in the basement and other locations well below the collapse zones in the Twin Towers. For example, a stationary engineer who worked in the basement of one of the towers testified that an entire below-level garage and a 50-ton hydraulic press were demolished long before the tower collapsed.

However, a new video shows an example of a top-down demolition of another building:

blog it

Advertisements

A scholarly, civilized exchange between Prof. Mark Vorobej and Barrie Zwicker

Update 12/3/07

9/11 Truth and the WTC Destruction Debate

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html

via 911 Truth Movement on 11/15/07

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another’s work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker’s book, “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.” Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply — a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy — hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen… But I digress…

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:

Vote Result

++++++++++
Score: 10.0, Votes: 8

read more

Things you can do from here:

9/11 Truth: Massively Important

Letter from Prof. David Ray Griffin

The Appeal to NIST was penned mainly by James Gourley and he deserves recognition for his work in the 9/11 Truth movement. It is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf James and I have written a technical paper which we hope will be published soon. (I’m going to ask you to do a little prepatory homework; please work through the problems here: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html . All four lessons are helpful.)

And we can all look forward to the updated edition of The New Pearl Harbor by Prof. Griffin! Thank you for your work, David. It’s great to work with you and James and all the folks named above — and all those throughout the world contributing to this critically important cause for justice and peace.

blog it

Blogger Completely Ignores the Question

The issue isn’t about melting or strength. The issue is about explosions and never before witnessed demolition markers. These events include “dustification” and clear forces at work beyond heating and gravity.

clipped from www.coyoteblog.com

Rosie O’Donnell and the Failure of Scientific Education

Rosie O’Donnell is a great example of the failure of scientific education in this country. Of late, Rosie has joined the “truthers,” using her show to flog the notion that the WTC was brought down in a government-planned controlled demolition.

I will have to yield to Popular Mechanics for most of the discussion about WTC7. However, I can, from my own engineering training, rebut one point on WTC1&2. (Note again, future commenters, this applies to WTC 1&2. There was a different dynamic at work in WTC 7).

  powered by clipmarks blog it

Blogger Completely Ignores the Question

The issue isn’t about melting or strength. The issue is about explosions and never before witnessed demolition markers. These events include “dustification” and clear forces at work beyond heating and gravity.

clipped from www.coyoteblog.com

Rosie O’Donnell and the Failure of Scientific Education

Rosie O’Donnell is a great example of the failure of scientific education in this country. Of late, Rosie has joined the “truthers,” using her show to flog the notion that the WTC was brought down in a government-planned controlled demolition.

I will have to yield to Popular Mechanics for most of the discussion about WTC7. However, I can, from my own engineering training, rebut one point on WTC1&2. (Note again, future commenters, this applies to WTC 1&2. There was a different dynamic at work in WTC 7).

  powered by clipmarks blog it