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

Professor Steven Jones : 9/11 Symposium 11/03/07

S. Jones, unfortunately, is clueless about the real questions about what actually hit the towers, and the idea that the stand-down argument (which is LIHOP, limited hangout), is, according to this blogger, a huge distraction from the truth of what really happened.

The following info and link are for those who may want to see more from James Vasquenza:

James Vasquenza, World Trade Center survivorConnecticut resident James Vasquenza, who was on the 24th Floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, interviewed soon after the disaster.

Footage Courtesy of NBC-30.
Watch Video Watch Video

James Vasquenza, World Trade Center survivorConnecticut resident James Vasquenza on his thoughts several years after the World Trade Center attacks — on the next attack, and the need to use government programs to help educate both adults and children to be alert to terrorist activity.

Watch Video Watch Video
Tags: , , , , , ,

INN World Report (Countering the History Channel)

No exposure of Sofia Smallstorm: (manipulation of WTC video)

INN World Report

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

the news and pt. 3 of INN Takes on the History Channnel with Dr. David Ray Griffin and prof. Crockett Grabbe

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-04n

Thursday, August 30, 2007

the news and pt. 2 of INN takes on the History Channel with Alex, Jones and Dylan Avery

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-30n

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

the news and pt. 1 of INN takes on the History Channel with Dr. Steven E, Jones annd Sophia Smallstorm

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-29n

INN World Report (Countering the History Channel)

No exposure of Sofia Smallstorm: (manipulation of WTC video)

INN World Report

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

the news and pt. 3 of INN Takes on the History Channnel with Dr. David Ray Griffin and prof. Crockett Grabbe

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-04n

Thursday, August 30, 2007

the news and pt. 2 of INN takes on the History Channel with Alex, Jones and Dylan Avery

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-30n

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

the news and pt. 1 of INN takes on the History Channel with Dr. Steven E, Jones annd Sophia Smallstorm

http://www.innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?-29n

Update: Live Blogging History Channel 9/11 Special

Update 8/24/07
As readers may notice, Chip Berlet visited this blog and left a comment.

He challenged me to articulate thoughts regarding his performance in the History Channel piece. Several years ago, I had an email exchange with Mr. Berlet. (I wouldn’t say that I said anything which would have been memorable in my question and follow up email to him.)

Rather than address the argument of what he said in the video, and why I find his words intentionally misleading, I’ll simply share this link about him:

The Devil and John Foster “Chip” Berlet

Note: I have left out the reference to Sean McBride (as being an online alternative identity of Berlet, as I find no way to evaluate that charge and have seen no trail of evidence which would lead that direction.

Berlet also gains mention here:

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
At It Again, With a New Twist

In summary, I would outline the following possibilities as crude speculation to account for Mr. Berlet’s commentary about 9/11 and his attitude toward those of us who have alternative theories about what happened on 9/11:

1. He really is quite dull witted.

2. He is “bought off”.

If the explanation lay with #1, I pity you, Sir.

If the explanation is #2, I hope you have extracted a tidy sum for you compliance.

8/21/07
Related Content: The Mother Of All 9/11 Truth Hit Pieces Airs Tonight
The History Channel’s take on 9/11
Here’s a breakdown of the History Channel hit piece in a nutshell
————————————————————-
If Anyone Wasn’t Convinced….

HIT PIECE.

BulletPoints:
(so far :30 minutes in)
* No Mention of Steven Jones
* No Mention of WTC 7
* Lots of Crappy Fetzer
* No Admission by History Channel of Their Conflict of Interest

* Finally Steven Jones, but no true intro to Jones

* Gene Corley lies
crap… from the anti truth crowd.

This whole “debate seqment” about the tower collaspe is Horseshit.

Sofia Sofquat included. Pleeeeeese

* the steel was naked……..

* the quality of debate is not as good as even that of at SLC Blog.

* Meigs… Giant Accordian (Give me a break!)

* This is such a sad attempt by History Channel

* Nothing about Rivero’s statement (from New Mexico Schools of Mines) right after 9/11 and retraction.

Dr. Van D. Romero, a doctor of physics and vice president for Research and Development at New Mexico Tech, first made his expert opinion known in an Albuquerque Journal news article days after 911. He later recanted, giving no explanation.

* More Fetzer face time. Arrrrrrrg.

* Unidentifed person says building couldn’t have been wired with explosives knowing exactly where planes would hit. (au contraire!)

continuing…
* Meigs and others about Pentagon. Idiotcy.

* Structural Engineer in green….like an avalanch of snow, etc. , all of this is horse hockey.

almost the end of 2nd 1/2 hour
————————————————–
… paraphasing…. it’s that evil internet that spreads these crazy conspiracy theories….

Val McClatchy.
silly photo, it probably is real..

* Nothing said so far about the low utilization of seats by passengers in all 4 flights
* Nothing said about Flight 93 not being a standing scheduled flight prior to 9/11.
* Michael Hynes is a fool
* Meigs continues to be an embarrassment

* Alex Jones may be half right (about the debris field). As usual, Jones hurts the process of making an honest case.

* Todd Beamer evidence did not explain the details (Beamer talking to another agent at GTE first). Not wanting to call his wife.

* DRG’s claim may be meaningless. Loose Change, MarkBingham evidence is thin.

* History Channel plucks the “heart-strings”.

Now 9:10 CST.

This white-wash of the issues will only convince the 98% of Americans who aren’t paying attention.

* No discussion of War Games
* No discussion of the fact that the 9/11 Commission have stated publicly that the Miltary lied in testimony about the flights, notification of Norad, scrambling, etc.


Next seqment..
*WTC 7

I guess they had to include WTC 7.

* Arrrrg. More Sofia
* Davin Coburn is worthless (Pop. Mech.)
* Meigs is full of it talking again.
* Jones doesn’t talk about Justice Dept. evidence in WTC 7. (possibly OK City Bombing related)
* Meigs is an expert???? (highlighting on screen)
* Incorrect words on screen (about what anyone claims about Silverstein)

* Brent Blanchard is worthless at every turn.

History Channel is recycling completely worthless “debunking”.

Ah yes… the building’s unique structure… the trusses.

Debunker claim: We now know the scooped out wall was significant.

Debunkers are offering embarrassing mumbo jumbo.

History Channel finally admits 1st NIST report was due in 2004.

(cut to commercial)

MIHOP, LIHOP

Etc.

Michael Scheuer is full of it. (Govt. can’t keep a secret).

Relative of a deceased person: “Conspiracy Theories” a knife stabbing me in the heart.

Tim Ryan (fire fighter, not sure I have his name right) is a know nothing.

(cut to commercial)
Looks like History Channel is going to completely ignore the iron spherical particles in ground zero dust research of Steven Jones.

* More silly Meigs

According to History Channel….Cell Phone calls question “thoroughly debunked”. Outrageous.

History Channel focuses on Loose Change guys as the end all and be all.

Chip Berlet again. Shithead.

On camera… Alex Jones. sort of a shithead too.

Meigs…. This man deserves no respect.

Bottom Line: According to History Channel, people who have concerns about about what happened on 9/11 are egotistical, narcissistic and have espoused an impossible certainly about their alternative theories.

Update: Live Blogging History Channel 9/11 Special

Update 8/24/07
As readers may notice, Chip Berlet visited this blog and left a comment.

He challenged me to articulate thoughts regarding his performance in the History Channel piece. Several years ago, I had an email exchange with Mr. Berlet. (I wouldn’t say that I said anything which would have been memorable in my question and follow up email to him.)

Rather than address the argument of what he said in the video, and why I find his words intentionally misleading, I’ll simply share this link about him:

The Devil and John Foster “Chip” Berlet

Note: I have left out the reference to Sean McBride (as being an online alternative identity of Berlet, as I find no way to evaluate that charge and have seen no trail of evidence which would lead that direction.

Berlet also gains mention here:

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
At It Again, With a New Twist

In summary, I would outline the following possibilities as crude speculation to account for Mr. Berlet’s commentary about 9/11 and his attitude toward those of us who have alternative theories about what happened on 9/11:

1. He really is quite dull witted.

2. He is “bought off”.

If the explanation lay with #1, I pity you, Sir.

If the explanation is #2, I hope you have extracted a tidy sum for you compliance.

8/21/07
Related Content: The Mother Of All 9/11 Truth Hit Pieces Airs Tonight
The History Channel’s take on 9/11
Here’s a breakdown of the History Channel hit piece in a nutshell
————————————————————-
If Anyone Wasn’t Convinced….

HIT PIECE.

BulletPoints:
(so far :30 minutes in)
* No Mention of Steven Jones
* No Mention of WTC 7
* Lots of Crappy Fetzer
* No Admission by History Channel of Their Conflict of Interest

* Finally Steven Jones, but no true intro to Jones

* Gene Corley lies
crap… from the anti truth crowd.

This whole “debate seqment” about the tower collaspe is Horseshit.

Sofia Sofquat included. Pleeeeeese

* the steel was naked……..

* the quality of debate is not as good as even that of at SLC Blog.

* Meigs… Giant Accordian (Give me a break!)

* This is such a sad attempt by History Channel

* Nothing about Rivero’s statement (from New Mexico Schools of Mines) right after 9/11 and retraction.

Dr. Van D. Romero, a doctor of physics and vice president for Research and Development at New Mexico Tech, first made his expert opinion known in an Albuquerque Journal news article days after 911. He later recanted, giving no explanation.

* More Fetzer face time. Arrrrrrrg.

* Unidentifed person says building couldn’t have been wired with explosives knowing exactly where planes would hit. (au contraire!)

continuing…
* Meigs and others about Pentagon. Idiotcy.

* Structural Engineer in green….like an avalanch of snow, etc. , all of this is horse hockey.

almost the end of 2nd 1/2 hour
————————————————–
… paraphasing…. it’s that evil internet that spreads these crazy conspiracy theories….

Val McClatchy.
silly photo, it probably is real..

* Nothing said so far about the low utilization of seats by passengers in all 4 flights
* Nothing said about Flight 93 not being a standing scheduled flight prior to 9/11.
* Michael Hynes is a fool
* Meigs continues to be an embarrassment

* Alex Jones may be half right (about the debris field). As usual, Jones hurts the process of making an honest case.

* Todd Beamer evidence did not explain the details (Beamer talking to another agent at GTE first). Not wanting to call his wife.

* DRG’s claim may be meaningless. Loose Change, MarkBingham evidence is thin.

* History Channel plucks the “heart-strings”.

Now 9:10 CST.

This white-wash of the issues will only convince the 98% of Americans who aren’t paying attention.

* No discussion of War Games
* No discussion of the fact that the 9/11 Commission have stated publicly that the Miltary lied in testimony about the flights, notification of Norad, scrambling, etc.


Next seqment..
*WTC 7

I guess they had to include WTC 7.

* Arrrrg. More Sofia
* Davin Coburn is worthless (Pop. Mech.)
* Meigs is full of it talking again.
* Jones doesn’t talk about Justice Dept. evidence in WTC 7. (possibly OK City Bombing related)
* Meigs is an expert???? (highlighting on screen)
* Incorrect words on screen (about what anyone claims about Silverstein)

* Brent Blanchard is worthless at every turn.

History Channel is recycling completely worthless “debunking”.

Ah yes… the building’s unique structure… the trusses.

Debunker claim: We now know the scooped out wall was significant.

Debunkers are offering embarrassing mumbo jumbo.

History Channel finally admits 1st NIST report was due in 2004.

(cut to commercial)

MIHOP, LIHOP

Etc.

Michael Scheuer is full of it. (Govt. can’t keep a secret).

Relative of a deceased person: “Conspiracy Theories” a knife stabbing me in the heart.

Tim Ryan (fire fighter, not sure I have his name right) is a know nothing.

(cut to commercial)
Looks like History Channel is going to completely ignore the iron spherical particles in ground zero dust research of Steven Jones.

* More silly Meigs

According to History Channel….Cell Phone calls question “thoroughly debunked”. Outrageous.

History Channel focuses on Loose Change guys as the end all and be all.

Chip Berlet again. Shithead.

On camera… Alex Jones. sort of a shithead too.

Meigs…. This man deserves no respect.

Bottom Line: According to History Channel, people who have concerns about about what happened on 9/11 are egotistical, narcissistic and have espoused an impossible certainly about their alternative theories.

Plucking One Comment Post (from the History Channel Forum Online)

Blogger Thoughts: The following explains, I think, why those of us who doubt the official story of 9/11, are looking for Steven Jones to offer further analysis or amend his scientific approach to account for all of the complexity of what happened.

History Channel: 9/11 conspiracey …

RickDanger

Posts: 11
Registered: 8/23/07

Re: 9/11 conspiracey
Posted: Aug 23, 2007 5:05 AM (46 of 58)
Angle and yellow residue

Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can’t be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn’t one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we’re talking about “Scholars” here.

Maybe I’m being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren’t privy to… No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.

Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=13

The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=73

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker. Now look at a conspiracy theorist get schooled on the issue by Mark Roberts.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn’t make clean cuts. It’s a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it’s even an aluminum block but lets say it isn’t. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we’re going. You’d need tons.

Here’s a Debunking911 Fun Fact!

How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:

A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.

Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It’s not easy to get a good number on this. It’s based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

The thermite wouldn’t have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it’s a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn’t work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It’s in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are “Ganged” together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the “scholars” is “rationalized technology”. They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn’t go off. “Gee debunking, you’re so dumb.”