Only Lone Nuts Need Apply

[Guest]

Just now, Charles Blackmon said:

Broken record here but I just want one person to explain to me what thermite was doing in the WTC towers debris. If a good answer makes sense my doubts on this might be lowered. 

Didn’t they export the rubble to China as quickly as possible without testing for thermite? You’d think any investigator would want to check that after watching the world trade centre come down just like an old tower block in a controlled demolition. 

[Charles Blackmon]

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Didn’t they export the rubble to China as quickly as possible without testing for thermite? You’d think any investigator would want to check that after watching the world trade centre come down just like an old tower block in a controlled demolition. 

The paper makes clear that four separate dust samples were obtained in 2006 for the study. Some good folks had the sense on or about 9/11 to collect samples for future testing.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The paper makes clear that four separate dust samples were obtained in 2006 for the study. Some good folks had the sense on or about 9/11 to collect samples for future testing.

Ahhh. Were they omitted from the commission report. 
 

Good on them, they obviously had ideas what they were seeing from the off. 

[David Lifton]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:24 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I'm sorry, but I think he should have known better than to associate with Alex Jones.  Among other craziness, after 9/11/2001, Jones joined the bizarre 9/11 "Truther" movement in claiming that the WTC towers were destroyed by "controlled demolitions." Disturbingly, several other JFK assassination researchers also began peddling this garbage. This did enormous damage to the cause of spreading the truth about JFK's death.

 

Agreed.  In particular, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that Niederhut is among those who subscribe to this hypothesis (I hesitate to use the term "theory").  As for 9/11, says Niederhut, the scientific evidence for explosive demolitions of the WTC is overwhelming, (Oh pleez!  --DSL); furthermore, I say that with considerable confidence (but now wait, and be prepared to take at least one aspirin before continuing):  Niederhut cites his own credentials to be "a guy who used to tutor physics at an Ivy League college"!  

That's laughable, and a bizarre over-reach.  It is the sort of statement that Bill Maher might cite at the beginning of his Friday night show ("Real Time with Bill Maher"), if he was attempting to ridicule a specious --and truly comical -- "argument from authority."   If Niederhut thinks  citing his high school tutoring experience as "credible" credentials in terms of properly analyzing what made the Twin Towers fall, he's either a total neophyte (when it comes to the mechanics of structures) or just awoke from a fanciful dream, sort of like Walter Mitty, and forgot to drink some strong morning coffee before posting on this forum.  (DSL, 8/28/22  2:30 PM PDT).

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

To those who follow the Twin Towers tragedy:  

The 105th floor was the location of a wonderful restaurant -- "Windows on the World"- -where my late father took us (my Dad, my mom, and my sister) for lunch or dinner on numerous occasions. I'm sure others have posted excellent photos from that location.  Sitting right next to the window was special, and somehow --by my Dad tipping the right people --we always used to end up with a window seat.

0n 9/11/2001, about 6 AM, I was in Santa Monica, and was at the cashier's stand--paying for breakfast at my local deli --when I heard radio reports of a plane crashing into one of the Twin Towers in New York.  My very first reaction was way off the mark:  I immediately thought of what happened in 1945, when -- while flying low in a haze of heavy fog-- a B-25 Bomber made a wrong turn in New York City and crashed into the Empire State Building.   (Use Google if you wish to know much more.) But media reports on 9/11 noted the weather was crystal clear. . .so how could such an accident have happened?  What the heck was going on?  Then, within minutes, came reports of a second plane crash, and immediately I knew --and said so aloud: that this was "a military attack." I had no idea who was behind it.   I ran back to my apartment, turned on a small TV, and watched for hours.  

Another memory.  I often jogged along the beach, at water's edge, at night. That night's jog was memorable:  It was completely dark, and there was not a plane in the sky.  

DSL (8/28/22 -2:25 PM PDT)

Edited August 28, 2022 by David Lifton

[Joe Bauer]

Simple question:

Was the incredibly explosive "showering outward firework" collapse of the towers versus the non- exploding straight down fall collapse of building 7 solely because of physical structure materials and design differences?

I mean look at the huge exploding out showers of the Towers.

It really does look like there was an exploding force all the way down the towers.

Almost volcanic eruption looking. Including a massive ash cloud spreading out for a mile or more?

Reminds me of the old films of the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980.

But building 7?

Clean as a whistle straight down pancaking collapse?

And I ask again the questions I listed in my first post. No one answered those?

Why?  None of them were true?

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Agreed.  In particular, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that Niederhut is among those who subscribe to this hypothesis (I hesitate to use the term "theory").  As for 9/11, he says, the scientific evidence for explosive demolitions of the WTC is overwhelming, (Oh pleez!  --DSL); furthermore, I say that and  (now wait, and be prepared to take at least one aspirin before continuing):  Niederhut cites his own credentials to be "a guy who used to tutor physics at an Ivy League college"!  

That's laughable, and a bizarre over-reach.  It is the sort of statement that Bill Maher might cite at the beginning of his Friday night show ("Real Time with Bill Maher"), if he was attempting to ridicule a specious --and truly comical -- "argument from authority."   If Niederhut thinks  citing his high school tutoring experience as "credible" credentials in terms of properly analyzing what made the Twin Towers fall, he's either a total neophyte (when it comes to the mechanics of structures) or awoke from a fanciful dream, sort of like Walter Mitty, and forgot to drink some strong morning coffee before posting on this forum.  (DSL, 8/28/22  1:30 PM PDT).

Well, I'm astonished by David Lifton's ignorance of Newtonian physics, and also by his surprisingly scurrilous ad hominem nonsense here, so I'll respond to both.

First of all, I was recruited by Professor Phillip Bray at Brown University to tutor undergraduate students at Brown in physics in the mid-70s, after achieving a perfect score on Bray's Physics 101 final exam.  I also had a perfect Physics score on MCATs before graduating from Harvard Medical School.  So there are those minor details about my knowledge of basic physics.

And, incidentally, a knowledge of basic physics, and a capacity for basic empiricism, is sufficient to properly recognize  the WTC demolitions on 9/11, which is why I originally asked Michael Griffith if he had studied physics.

But, let's skip over Lifton's ad hominem nonsense and look at the physics of the WTC demolitions.

These are questions that I would like Lifton, Griffith, and other 9/11 Truth deniers to answer, without changing the subject or resorting to ad hominem deflections.

1)  What was the structural resistance to the observed virtual free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7-- i.e., to the free fall acceleration of gravity?

2)  What rapidly destroyed the entire steel substructures of those massive steel skyscrapers on 9/11, resulting in the observed near free fall collapses into their own footprints-- without gradual, step-wise, assymetrical, gravitational pancaking of floors?

3)  What liquefied the steel that was flowing "like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

4)  What explosively pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete into high pressure pyroclastic flows over lower Manhattan?

5)  What caused the serial explosions that brought WTC1 and WTC2 down-- clearly visible and audible on extant film--and also reported by multiple witnesses inside of the buildings?

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Bacon]

13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

In particular, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that Niederhut is among those who subscribe to this hypothesis (I hesitate to use the term "theory").

I'm suprised and disappointed that you're not seeing it.  I'm guilty of having had you on a pedastal.  Achitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be a good place for you to start.  It doesn't take a Physics degree to see that something doesn't add up.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I'm suprised and disappointed that you're not seeing it.  I'm guilty of having had you on a pedastal.  Achitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be a good place for you to start.  It doesn't take a Physics degree to see that something doesn't add up.

Me, also. 😞 
 

IMHO I think the 9/11 conspiracy is a lot more obvious than the JFKA conspiracy, once a person scratches a little beneath the surface of the official narrative. The trouble is; a century or so of systematic conditioning to make the public have faith in state and the idea that the USA is the most virtuous, pro-freedom, liberty and democracy country on earth, and people would prefer to look the other way, to leave pandora’s box closed. I get it, and I always draw back to the analogy of the guy or girl whose partner is cheating on them, they’d rather not face the ugliness of it and be blissfully ignorant, as their reality remains virtually unchanged, despite friends, family and a trail of evidence pointing toward infidelity. We all know someone like that. In this case accepting it or even delving into the 9/11 false flag would mean entertaining the idea that the state is capable of Killing its own citizens for financial reasons and to provide the casus belli for war. 

If we roll back time I think; Afghanistan made sense to invade based on the narrative provided, Iraq made no sense in the context of 9/11, the pretext was intelligence that we couldn’t see, on a hunt for weapons that didn’t exist. What the government has was a nation afraid, ravaged by fear, neurotic and desperate for life to he normal again. They’d have agreed to any invasions abroad that promised them that. They were also happy to acquiesce when all their data and privacy was taken by the state too.
20 years of military spending at the tax payers expense and how many dead on all sides? 

Someone once defined fascism is when state and corporations merge their interests. 

[David Lifton]

On 8/28/2022 at 2:35 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Well, I'm astonished by David Lifton's ignorance of Newtonian physics, and also by his surprisingly scurrilous ad hominem nonsense here, so I'll respond to both.

First of all, I was recruited by Professor Phillip Bray at Brown University to tutor undergraduate students at Brown in physics in the mid-70s, after achieving a perfect score on Bray's Physics 101 final exam.  I also had a perfect Physics score on MCATs before graduating from Harvard Medical School.  So there are those minor details about my knowledge of basic physics.

And, incidentally, a knowledge of basic physics, and a capacity for basic empiricism, is sufficient to properly recognize  the WTC demolitions on 9/11, which is why I originally asked Michael Griffith if he had studied physics.

But, let's skip over Lifton's ad hominem nonsense and look at the physics of the WTC demolitions.

These are questions that I would like Lifton, Griffith, and other 9/11 Truth deniers to answer, without changing the subject or resorting to ad hominem deflections.

1)  What was the structural resistance to the observed virtual free fall collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7-- i.e., to the free fall acceleration of gravity?

2)  What rapidly destroyed the entire steel substructures of those massive steel skyscrapers on 9/11, resulting in the observed near free fall collapses into their own footprints-- without gradual, step-wise, assymetrical, gravitational pancaking of floors?

3)  What liquefied the steel that was flowing "like a foundry" at Ground Zero?

4)  What explosively pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete into high pressure pyroclastic flows over lower Manhattan?

5)  What caused the serial explosions that brought WTC1 and WTC2 down-- clearly visible and audible on extant film--and also reported by multiple witnesses inside of the buildings?

 

 

In analyzing the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, W. Niederhut  (who's field, I believe is psychiatry), starts by citing his own credentials, which include his test scores (in the physics MCAT) and his experience in tutoring undergraduates at Brown in physics. Much of this is completely irrelevant braggadocio.  Next comes his theory.  Niederhut treads carefully. He does not present us with his own theory about the buildings' collapse, but instead casts his (unstated, but implied) hypothesis in the form of a series of questions  (scroll up, to see them in boldface font).

Perhaps Niederhut is unaware of the various technical reports and published analyses which serve to address many of his questions, and to demystify some of the specifics of the collapse of the Towers.   Here is an excerpt from one study, which addressed the  issue of how fire led to the collapse of a floor, followed by "pancaking" of others:

QUOTE ON:

Collapse of the World Trade Center

In September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the results of its investigation into the collapse. The investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the twin towers, noting that the severity of the attacks was beyond anything experienced in buildings in the past. They determined the fires to be the main cause of the collapses, finding that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow and then to buckle. Once the upper section of the building began to move downwards, a total progressive collapse was unavoidable.  END QUOTE  (DSL, 8/31/22; 8:45 PM PDT)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Edited September 1, 2022 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

No text.

[Ron Bulman]

2 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

No text.

How is the book coming?

[W. Niederhut]

On 8/31/2022 at 9:50 PM, David Lifton said:

In analyzing the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, W. Niederhut  (who's field, I believe is psychiatry), starts by citing his own credentials, which include his test scores (in the physics MCAT) and his experience in tutoring undergraduates at Brown in physics. Much of this is completely irrelevant braggadocio.  Next comes his theory.  Niederhut treads carefully. He does not present us with his own theory about the buildings' collapse, but instead casts his (unstated, but implied) hypothesis in the form of a series of questions  (scroll up, to see them in boldface font).

Perhaps Niederhut is unaware of the various technical reports and published analyses which serve to address many of his questions, and to demystify some of the specifics of the collapse of the Towers.   Here is an excerpt from one study, which addressed the  issue of how fire led to the collapse of a floor, followed by "pancaking" of others:

QUOTE ON:

Collapse of the World Trade Center

In September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the results of its investigation into the collapse. The investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the twin towers, noting that the severity of the attacks was beyond anything experienced in buildings in the past. They determined the fires to be the main cause of the collapses, finding that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow and then to buckle. Once the upper section of the building began to move downwards, a total progressive collapse was unavoidable.  END QUOTE  (DSL, 8/31/22; 8:45 PM PDT)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Mr. Lifton,

     Please dispense with your deflective, ad hominem slurs about my medical specialty, and kindly answer my specific science questions (above) about the 9/11 evidence. 

     My questions have heuristic, educational value, especially for people, like yourself, who haven't studied, or understood, the WTC data.  That is why I posted them for you and others.

     Regrettably, if I were tutoring you in the physics of 9/11, you would currently get an "F."

     As for using Wikipedia and the NIST Report as references, surely, you jest.

      Do you really not know that Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable in matters pertaining to U.S. military and intelligence ops?   If you don't believe me, try reading Wikipedia's version of the JFK assassination!  It reads like the Warren Commission Report.

     Their version of 9/11 is similarly absurd.

     As for the belated Bush/Cheney NIST report on the WTC demolitions, it is a pseudo-scientific fraud.  The NIST authors didn't even pretend to explain the observed abrupt free fall demolition of WTC7 on 9/11.  Nor did they do a forensic/arson examination of the WTC debris, or even acknowledge the obvious-- visible and audible-- serial explosions that demolished the WTC towers in broad daylight!

      They also refused to publish the parameters used in their bogus computer "simulation" of the WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions.  How can the validity of their computer "simulation" be confirmed without the parameters?!  In essence, they used what a computer programmer friend of mine used to call the "Modified Output Technique"-- making up some fictitious numbers to achieve a computerized free fall collapse.

      I presume that you are familiar with the history of Nobel Laureate physicist Luis Alvarez being recruited to concoct a pseudo-scientific explanation for the backward trajectory of JFK's head on 11/22/63?  The cellophane-wrapped melon propulsion theory?

      As for the NIST non-explanation of the WTC7 demolition, if you study architectural history, you will learn that office fires don't cause the abrupt, symmetrical, free fall demolition of steel skyscrapers into their own footprints.  Historically, steel skyscrapers burn for hours-- even days-- without collapsing, and, if they do collapse, it happens in a gradual, partial, asymmetrical pattern.

     You have made a name for yourself by examining evidence in the JFK case..

     Try examining the evidence of serial explosions (on the film above, and in suppressed witness reports) that explosively pulverized hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete into high pressure pyroclastic flows over Manhattan during the demolitions of the Twin Towers.

     Also study the melting point of steel, and the temperatures required to liquefy steel-- which can be seen cascading from the WTC towers during the 9/11 demolitions.  Burning jet fuel cannot liquefy steel.  Nor was there sufficient jet fuel to soften and obliterate the entire steel substructures of those skyscrapers.

    

    

  

    

   

Edited September 2, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

W-

Would the thermite have to be evenly applied to steel beams in the Twin Towers, and then the WTC 7 also? All the beams, or just at joints? 

How thick would the thermite coating on steel beams have to be? Like a layer of paint, or thicker? Thermite seems to be usually a powder.

How it is used to melt steel, remotely? Fro what I can tell,  thermite has to be in contact with the steel to obtain the melting temperature. 

The Twin Towers are much, much larger than any controlled demolitions ever attempted in history.  

How many workers would be needed to apply the thermite inside the two WTC towers? Would the thermite be placed in bombs at evenly spaced intervals? 

What kind of workers would agree to apply or install thermite bombs on commercial structures occupied by up to 60,000 people? 

Was the thermite applied to all 110 floors of both towers? And no one noticed? 

Did FBI Director Robert Mueller purposely derail an investigation into the use of thermite in the 9/11 catastrophe? 

How credible is Mueller, given what was his role i 9/11? 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[W. Niederhut]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W-

Would the thermite have to be evenly applied to steel beams in the Twin Towers, and then the WTC 7 also? All the beams, or just at joints? 

How thick would the thermite coating on steel beams have to be? Like a layer of paint, or thicker? Thermite seems to be usually a powder.

How it is used to melt steel, remotely? Fro what I can tell,  thermite has to be in contact with the steel to obtain the melting temperature. 

The Twin Towers are much, much larger than any controlled demolitions ever attempted in history.  

How many workers would be needed to apply the thermite inside the two WTC towers? Would the thermite be placed in bombs at evenly spaced intervals? 

What kind of workers would agree to apply or install thermite bombs on commercial structures occupied by up to 60,000 people? 

Was the thermite applied to all 110 floors of both towers? And no one noticed? 

Did FBI Director Robert Mueller purposely derail an investigation into the use of thermite in the 9/11 catastrophe? 

How credible is Mueller, given what was his role i 9/11? 

 

Ben,

     I hope you had a chance to study the references I posted for you the last time you raised these same questions about WTC leasing and security in the weeks prior to 9/11, etc.

    They are interesting issues relating to solving the details of 9/11 puzzle.

    I'm hoping that, for starters, we can all get to first base by reaching a rational scientific consensus about the fact that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were, obviously, demolished by explosives.  

    Interestingly, Donald Trump correctly diagnosed the issue on 9/11-- based on his firsthand knowledge of the Twin Towers' architecture -- when he told reporters that, in his opinion, the steel columns of the Twin Towers could only have been destroyed by explosives (i.e., "bombs.")

     Dan Rather also called the WTC7 demolition accurately on 9/11.

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by W. Niederhut