Alternative news sources

[Parsifal]

Parsifal

Nice that you found the video, I thought it just great.

If I remember he suggests that the falling debris is ahead of the point of demolition because it's been detonated outwards. The speed and distance of ejection from the tower is completely inconsistent with a purely gravity driven collapse and requires explosive accelerants.

This is contrary to physics.  Horizontal and vertical motion is independent.  Any horizontal component given to a free particle has no effect on its rate of fall.   Chandler also makes a claim that it is impossible for the material to be ejected faster than the collapse rate without explosives.  That is also nonsense.  As the floors pancake the air has to escape and is forced out of the windows.  Since the combined area of the windows is very small compared with the the area of the ceiling the air must move at high velocity to escape.  The falling building is like an enormous piston forcing air out of a series of small holes (the windows).

Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

Dust (pulverized concrete, plaster and other building materials) illuminated by sunshine?  An object moving fast through a fluid (such as a piece of steel fallig in air air) creates a wake and tends to entrain dust.

Anyway, I have my answer here.  You are incapable of following any reasoned argument.  You may actually have some intellectual ability, but it is all dedicated to maintaining the self-delusion that you are some sort of ubermensch, rather than an nonproductive social outcast. 

[Parsifal]

Very well. Thanks for correcting that. Note, though, that the cited geological survey was post 9-11 and the Chinese are getting the contract. So my point still stands that the GWOT hasn't appreciably made a dent in the US position vs. middle east oil.

Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

[kishnevi]

This is contrary to physics.  Horizontal and vertical motion is independent.  Any horizontal component given to a free particle has no effect on its rate of fall.   Chandler also makes a claim that it is impossible for the material to be ejected faster than the collapse rate without explosives.  That is also nonsense.  As the floors pancake the air has to escape and is forced out of the windows.  Since the combined area of the windows is very small compared with the the area of the ceiling the air must move at high velocity to escape.  The falling building is like an enormous piston forcing air out of a series of small holes (the windows).

Which potentially means the forced escape of air resulted in a greater thrust of energy than an explosion, since the energy of the explosion could go in all directions, vertically and horizontally, whereas forcing the air through the windows  means all that energy is aimed in one direction.


I have, btw, only a superficial knowledge of physics, and will freely admit that I may be totally wrong in this,  and at the very least am probably using the wrong terms to describe what I mean to describe.

[Karl Henning]

Jeffrey, you are still testing your thoughts and words, and expressing yourself with sober caution? Have you learnt nothing from Sean here?

[Gurn Blanston]

I generally have a low opinion of rubber-necking motorists  - but I must admit, I am perversely attracted to the inanity of this thread.  Like a slow motion wreck.

Yes, is it not impressively attention-grabbing? Like an old B&W film where the car has gone over the cliff at 80mph and is heading towards the ocean, hitting every ledge (twice) on the way to its doom. And he tumbles yet again....

[Parsifal]

Which potentially means the forced escape of air resulted in a greater thrust of energy than an explosion, since the energy of the explosion could go in all directions, vertically and horizontally, whereas forcing the air through the windows  means all that energy is aimed in one direction.

That is a reasonable speculation.  If a building is taken down by explosives, there is no reason the explosives would be blowing material out the windows.  In a controlled demolition the explosive charges are rather small and are position to destroy key structural elements of the building.  Once those key supports are gone gravity pulls the building down.

The irony is that if the WTC were brought down by explosives it would look more or less the same as the actual event, because that's what the aircraft impact and fire did.  It destroyed key supports so that gravity could pull the structure down.  There would be no need to put explosives on every floor because in a controlled demolition gravity does the work.  The primary difference is that in the typical controlled demolition the structural supports are removed at the bottom and in the WTC the impacts removed the structural supports in the middle.

It goes to show that the "truthers" are morons who don't even know how a controlled demolition works.

[Parsifal]

Yes, is it not impressively attention-grabbing? Like an old B&W film where the car has gone over the cliff at 80mph and is heading towards the ocean, hitting every ledge (twice) on the way to its doom. And he tumbles yet again....

http://www.hulu.com/watch/31870

[kishnevi]

Have you learnt nothing from Sean here?

Well, yes.   I might send in my resume to some Chinese universities.  True, I know about five words of Chinese
(not counting chop suey and chicken chow mein), but if they were desperate enough to hire someone like him, certainly I have a better than decent shot.

[MishaK]

The irony is that if the WTC were brought down by explosives it would look more or less the same as the actual event, because that's what the aircraft impact and fire did.  It destroyed key supports so that gravity could pull the structure down.  There would be no need to put explosives on every floor because in a controlled demolition gravity does the work.  The primary difference is that in the typical controlled demolition the structural supports are removed at the bottom and in the WTC the impacts removed the structural supports in the middle.

NOOOOO! It wouldn't. You would see very very small flashes and plumes from explosives ***well before*** the building started moving (not during the building's collapse, as the truthers would want to make you beleive). Only then would the building collapse by gravity pulling the top down as the compromised supports failed below. How and where the explosives are placed, whether at the bottom or throughout the structure, would depend on the exact structure of the building and how much damage you want to do to the surroundings/where exactly you want the debris to land/how much space is available for landing debris.

[MishaK]

Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Bingo! That's primarily because the strategists in the GWB administration were anti-state ideologues. So, instead of going in full bore like an occupying power the way the US did in postwar Germany, essentially taking over the entire economy and infrastructure at least temporarily, they did it in a minimalist way, leaving as much as possible to private entities who had limited short term horizons and no long term plans that could have aligned with a long term strategic US interest in the region. Many left as soon as they could when the local situation became to sketchy for them.

[Parsifal]

NOOOOO! It wouldn't. You would see very very small flashes and plumes from explosives ***well before*** the building started moving (not during the building's collapse, as the truthers would want to make you beleive). Only then would the building collapse by gravity pulling the top down as the compromised supports failed below. How and where the explosives are placed, whether at the bottom or throughout the structure, would depend on the exact structure of the building and how much damage you want to do to the surroundings/where exactly you want the debris to land/how much space is available for landing debris.

You have misunderstood my comment.  If an unknown organization wanted to cause a collapse by placing explosives in the aircraft strike-zone there would be small, hardly detectible charges set in the strike zone, then the collapse would have proceeded just as it did, with all of the plumes of dust and debris caused by the gravitational collapse, just as in the real event.   Of course, then they would have had to make sure the planes hit just where they had  planted the explosives, which is another layer of absurdity.

[Florestan]

Bingo! That's primarily because the strategists in the GWB administration were anti-state ideologues.

Their anti-state ideology was just a cover up for their own private interests. There is no more convenient position for an "anti-state ideologue" than that of being in control of the administration (ie, the State power).

[MishaK]

You have misunderstood my comment.  If an unknown organization wanted to cause a collapse by placing explosives in the aircraft strike-zone there would be small, hardly detectible charges set in the strike zone, then the collapse would have proceeded just as it did, with all of the plumes of dust and debris caused by the gravitational collapse, just as in the real event.   Of course, then they would have had to make sure the planes hit just where they had  planted the explosives, which is another layer of absurdity.

Yes, sorry. You are right. Which is also what I was saying above. Once the explosive charges did their work, the building would have collapsed the same way as once structurally weakened by aircraft impact and fire. This whole "free fall" nonsense is the reddest of red herrings.

Their anti-state ideology was just a cover up for their own private interests. There is no more convenient position for an "anti-state ideologue" than that of being in control of the administration (ie, the State power).

Absolutely! Libertarianism and anti-state conservatism are most often co-opted by powerful private interests who merely want to escape regulatory oversight and use state power to their ends.

[Florestan]

Absolutely! Libertarianism and anti-state conservatism are most often co-opted by powerful private interests who merely want to escape regulatory oversight and use state power to their ends.

A libertarian candidate for the US Presidency has always stricken me as the top of intellectual  inconsistency... 

[Sean]

MishaK

Well I don't care too much for the Mormon religion but it doesn't seem to be relevant here.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is peer reviewed and reviewed at least as carefully as other journals because of its content's implications- it's online only with occasional articles as contributors are encouraged to publish in regular journals first.

Don't forget the important Jones et al paper in the Open Chemical Physics journal on why the towers collapsed, I think in 2009.

MishaK, the planes were the excuse for the three towers' demolition- this is very simple to understand and I can't make out why you're asking about this. People aren't going to buy Osama bin Laden creeping into the building to rig it with explosives.

One key point about the towers' collapse in all three cases was the sudden onset, suggestive of controlled demolition- none of them showed any deformation leaning in any direction and all fell in perfect vertical symmetry.

How the occupants were distributed in the tower I don't know but many were advised to remain where they were because the fires up above were going out.

At this point of course the demolition had to be started because suspicion would increase when the fires were entirely gone.

Even so, you know of the famous picture of the lady standing in the hole the first aircraft made, in her perfectly good clothes and all the fire out?

You'll notice that despite heating your stove, even though it's only made of steel, to several hundred degrees perhaps a few times a week it has never softened, partially melted or collapsed.

The US is in Afghanistan for geopolitics- it puts troops between China and the Middle East oil fields.

Repressive regimes are happy with the surveillance culture following 9/11, I'm aware of this point.

The twin towers weren't replaced for many years because the scam was working well and with nothing there people weren't going to forget about 9/11 so easily. The truly incredible fiasco of Building 7 by contrast had to be covered up with all possible haste.

And finally, no, I'm not into the alternative views here because I think I'm superior enough to see them. I am superior but I already know that, as Parsifal may also observe. I do have an ulterior motive though- it's that I mistrust major components of my society and I see so much injustice and inhumanity all around me. Hence to see one of the key events of recent times exposed as a fraud is heartening.

I will redouble my efforts not to respond further- you're welcome to have the last word.

[lisa needs braces]

Ironically, China now controls most of the oil production in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Oil was tangential to Iraq. A small group of neocons really pushed for that war when America was still reeling from 9/11 with the purpose of making the middle east safer for Israel, and Bush and America went along out of a desire for revenge against that part of the world.  These neocons are not embarrassed in the least about Iraq being in chaos or unstable for decades on end...because that serves Israeli hegemonic interests all the more, though I sense that Americans by and large regret letting their emotions rush them into an unnecessary war.

[Sean]

This thread's done and dusted but it just occurred to me that I ought to thank the contributors- well done whatever your views.

A short while ago in one of my staff group emails to about 20 people at work here I asked them what they thought of the mainstream media, and 9/11 and its alternative views. There were almost no replies- it's such a big thing psychologically and at least MishaK et al have the objectivity of mind to provide a discussion, and not try to see it fearfully as beneath contempt.

Best, Sean

[Gurn Blanston]

This thread's done and dusted but it just occurred to me that I ought to thank the contributors- well done whatever your views.

A short while ago in one of my staff group emails to about 20 people at work here I asked them what they thought of the mainstream media, and 9/11 and its alternative views. There were almost no replies- it's such a big thing psychologically and at least MishaK et al have the objectivity of mind to provide a discussion, and not try to see it fearfully as beneath contempt.

Best, Sean

Perhaps that WAS a reply, Sean.

In any case, this thread did provide some interest, in a twisted sort of way, so it was good of you to get it started.

[Sean]

Hi Gurn, no problem, and MishaK likes 9/11 issues same as me. I signed up with GMG again because of some of the characters over where I am who're supposed to be part of an intellectual environment instead break into a run when they see me...

[MishaK]

The only one running away from anything is you when faced with incontrovertible evidence. You've still not addressed the fact that the facade debris in the posted pic is evidently falling faster than the rest of the WTC, which completely eviscerates the "free fall" bunk theory and you still have not provided a coherent chain of events, an affirmative theory of the crime. You have no standing to criticize others for preferring not to engage with you when what you present is so self-evidently incoherent.