FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Craig Lamson]

If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building.

Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse.

Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video.

I'll go quite a bit further, I think Jack just cribbed the entire thing from someone else. Not his original work. He can't show you the video he took the still from because I don't believe he even took it from a video at all.

I have all frames from the brief video clip. Your "belief" is irrelevant. You are irrelevant.

Jack

So what, I'm secure in my belief. Its you who is irrelevlent. Your work has been shown to be faulty and misleading, bordering on dis-information and your reputation, such that it ever was, is in tatters on the floor. There is nothing left of you White. TRY AGAIN NEXT TIME. If you have the full video clip than your study must be a lie since the full clip shows the tower in coming down. So who is irrelevent White? Hint, its not me.

[Len Colby]

Jim Hoffman was one of the first people to propose that that the WTC was brought down by CD. He was the originator of several theories including: most/all the concrete was pulverized, the dust clouds were pyroclastic and there was and “energy deficit” that could only be explained by an external energy source among others. Most of Richard Gage’s points on the thread Jack started use 911research.wtc7.net, his site, for documentation

Like the 911 Timeline 911research is a valuable resource because differently from almost all other “truther” sites it provides ample documentation for it claims and normally has it’s facts straight (though I disagree with most of his conclusions).

Here what he said about the subject (emphasis in this and subsequent quotes added):

Some reports suggested that explosions were responsible for the holes in WTC 6 and WTC 5. 1 The depths of the holes have been cited as evidence of this, as have their clean profiles.

However, it does seem plausible that falling pieces from the breakup of the North Tower could have created the holes. The steel in just the upper half of the Tower's northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower's northeast wall. Thousands of tons falling from a thousand feet could have crushed all eight stories of such a building. Moreover, THE RECTANGULAR SHAPE OF THE HOLE, AND THE FACT THAT IT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE TOWER'S NORTHEAST WALL (whose remnants can be seen in the left side of the photo), SUGGESTS THAT IT CORRESPONDS TO THE REGION OF HEAVIEST STEEL FALLOUT FROM THAT WALL. If the Tower continued to disintegrate in the uniform manner seen before dust clouds obscured the region of breakup, it is easy to imagine that the column-and-spandrel panels of the perimeter wall would be blown off fairly consistently in the direction perpendicular to the wall. That would result in a roughly rectangular distribution of fallout.

Other evidence cited to support the idea that there were explosions in Building 6, and Building 5 as well, is a photo showing a dust cloud rising higher than the top of 47-story Building 7, in the area of WTC 5 and 6. Proponents of the explosion theory have suggested the photo was taken around 9 AM, just after the South Tower was hit.[He includes a CNN still very similar to the one Jack used – Len] But that photograph actually appears to have been taken just after the South Tower collapsed. NOTE THAT NO PART OF THE FACADE OF THE SOUTH TOWER IS VISIBLE IN THIS PHOTO TAKEN FROM THE NORTH-NORTHWEST. Although the South Tower was behind the North Tower, a section of its northwest wall would have been visible to the right of the North Tower, were it still standing. The rising cloud is clearly part of the immense cloud of dust from the destruction of WTC 2. As the South Tower fell, the dust clouds raced across the plaza and were deflected upward when they encountered Buildings 5 and 6. The upwelling of columns of dust to over the height of Building 7 is clearly seen on videos of the subsequent North Tower collapse.

A more detailed analysis of the photograph can be found on the nerdcities.com/guardian website. 2

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

Here's the beigining of the analysis from the Guardian site Hoffman recomended

A cute animated gif made from CNN video footage, has been making the rounds of the internet. You can view it at

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towerblast.html (local copy here).

If you want your own copy, right click on the image and choose save as from the menu. The file is called gunblast21.gif and is 1.64 megabytes in size.

The story is that the animated sequence shows the dust cloud from a huge explosion at WTC Seven, which happened before the collapse of either of the twin towers, both of which can be seen to be still standing (in some versions of the story the explosion is at WTC Six).

The following is the eighth frame from the animation.[looks like Jack’s image to me – Len]

The dust cloud is clearly visible, BUT I COULDN'T FIGURE WHERE THE "CLEARLY VISIBLE" SOUTH TOWER WAS. IN THE END I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WASN'T THERE, IT HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED.

I found the following analysis very persuasive but the text is of little use without photos and the site doesn’t allow hotlinking. The rest can be found at the link below. Though now mirrored by 911research it used to be an independent site so we have a 2nd “truther” who came to the same conclusion as the “debunkers” on this thread.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...e-explosion.htm

I went to the site which houses the 8 frame gif and it seems that the site owner who one thought the video clip was shot when WTC2 was still standing has now concluded that:

“THE PIC SHOWS ONE TOWER STANDING, and the dust ploom is from *the collapse of the other tower*. This was proven beyond any doubt. The full unedited CNN video clip is available on the "9/11 in Plane Sight"The pic shows one tower standing, and THE DUST PLOOM IS FROM *THE COLLAPSE OF THE OTHER TOWER*. This was proven beyond any doubt. The full unedited CNN video clip is available on the "9/11 in Plane Sight" I somewhat accept this, barring additional evidence. When we were doing ongoing realtime chronicling we simply presented all incoming theory, many ideas and viewpoints--to be sorted with out historically.”

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towerblast.html

So that’s a third “truther”. According to the Internet Archive the page dates back till at least 9/20/01 so he was one of the first.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010920103531/...towerblast.html

I agree with Dave that watching more complete version of the CNN coverage Jack got his stills from (starting at about 17:00 in on the link below) its clear that what Jack, Duane and Peter think is WTC2 is in fact a dust plume. CNN cuts between different clips that had been shot earlier presumably in rough chronological order from first we see clips of both towers still standing, then from 18:25 – 18:46 we can see WTC 1 and a lot of smoke but no building where WTC 2 used to stand. From 18:58 – 19:06 one can see the South Tower collapse and then in 19:07 – 19:14 is the clip from which Jack got the still as with the 18;58 – 19:06 clip downward motion can be seen.

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216

[Len Colby]

Besides identifying a plume of dust as the South Tower Jack’s analysis suffers another major defect. The dust cloud that he identifies as being from the “explosion” of WTC 6 is not in the location we’d expect it to be if that were the case. For simplicity’s sake when I refer to “north” and other directions in quotes here I don’t mean it in the strict sense of compass directions but along the Manhattan street grid, thus “due north” is towards the top of the site map and Vessey St. goes “due east/west”.

The helicopter that shot the video was at a position “north west” of the of the WTC. We can reasonably surmise its location based lines of site (LoS) related to points of reference in the image.

Black line – We can see a slight gap between WFC 3 and WTC 1 (North Tower).

Yellow line – The two faces of the WTC 1 are almost exactly the same width thus if we could continue the LoS from the camera to the NW corner of the building it would go through of close to the SE corner. If the camera was significantly to one side or the other one of the face would appear to be wider. This is reinforced by watching the more complete clip because as the author of Guardian page (see previous post) pointed out in a wider shot the radio mast (in the middle of the roof) aligns with the “northwest” corner of the building.

Since the lines don’t seem to be converging the helicopter was probably flying quite a distance away i.e. somewhere over New Jersey. And indeed wider shots from the helicopter show that’s exactly where it was. Using the same technique we can determine the approximate location of the dust cloud:

Red line: In the still the center of the dust cloud is aligned with the western end of WTC 7 and middle of One Liberty Plaza. Note how the LoS. Note that it is nearly parallel with the black and yellow lines and would probably converge with them “quite a distance away i.e. somewhere over New Jersey”. It also jibes with Hoffman’s conclusion that the cloud was the result of dust from WTC2 being pushed up by WTC 5.

The green line shows the LoS from the center of WTC 6, location of the larger whole, to the western end of WTC 7. IF the dust cloud was really the result of an explosion there the helicopter should have on it. The purple/blue (I’m a bit color blind) show the LoS from the eastern end of WTC 6, location of a smaller hole to the western end of WTC 7.

If you prefer to see the site map upside down so that left and right correspond to the video stillhttp://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/len...sidedownAoV.jpg" target="_blank"> click here.

[Jack White]

Jun 04, 2007  

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience

in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in

structural design and analysis and project management of construction of major

projects, including large steel structures.

Essay 9/25/06: "The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...

In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's

family organizations that are saying the same thing.

Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs

by Charles Pegelow

As an introduction: The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. The most important tool of any criminal investigators is the eyewitness and first responder accounts; if for no other reason, they were there at the scene. For example, the first thing the police do at an accident scene is to gather all witness accounts and within a week the insurance companies are also telephoning the witnesses to take their testimony. In addition to the NYFD, the NYPD also had reported finding a suspicious device and another report stated than they thought a van in the basement of WTC1 had exploded with a bomb.

In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.

To give you some perspective on what a comprehensive, thorough, scientific investigation looks like, please recall the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Although there may remain minor questions concerning some of the periphery conclusions, the report, on the whole, stands without major dispute within the scientific community. Contrast this with the FEMA 9/11 report and its major inconsistencies.

The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired. For example,

Mr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl stated before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives 6 March 2002 Hearing: FEMA did not provide "videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort";

the same story of hampering investigations comes from other scientists and engineers, see Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center.

on 26 October 2004 An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11.

In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.

An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage? Here it is instructive to consider the concept of global vs. local damage. From the standpoint of global collapse, that is, evidence that overturns [the official account]is easy to show because it revolves about (a) resistance of the columns to overstressed conditions and ( the impact shear was less than the designed wind condition. We also have the following statements about the original design:

The Richard Roth Telegram: According to the calculations of engineers, who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager: "meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns". See Towers' Design Parameters.

According to Matthys Levy (chairman of Weidlinger Assoc) who did independent computer structural analysis study for Larry Silverman (and also had a set of the drawings); states: (a) the failure of the trusses did not cause the tower collapse, ( the fires did not lead to floor collapses, © fire temperatures were lower than typical office fires, and (d) "to create the vertical collapses that we saw in the Twin Towers all of the 47 very large columns that comprised the core had to fail at the same instant" What failed, when and how?.

At this point we are left with only one question: How could "all 47 core columns fail at the same instance"? Fires could not do that. This was not addressed in FEMA's report.

From the standpoint of local design, we do not have any verifiable information from the 1968 design. However, we note that:

The airplanes initial impact column damage (FEMA WTC Building Performance Study Chapter 2). Perimeter columns 31/36WTC1 & 27/32WTC2 perimeter columns were destroyed, and WTC1 & WTC2 core columns were destroyed).

We, off course could expect substantial local damage under the circumstances, but FEMA is attempting to prove the truss theory, the pancake collapse, the truss bolts theory, and so on along with fires as a reasonable collapse theory for the core columns. This is about as reasonable if I told you that you could cut some branches on a tree and the whole tree would fall down. Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.

2. Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis? A key critique of NIST's work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a "progressive collapse" after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

5. Why were two distinct spikes--one for each tower--seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)--speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

The February 13, 1975 WTC1 North Tower Fire. The 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C. < http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ wtc_1975_fire.html> lists NY Times articles.

8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Smoke impedes radiant heat flux to surrounding surfaces.

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

Open flames produce direct, radiant, and infrared heat. Both radiant and infrared heat are blocked by smoke and solid objects. A reconstruction of the arrangement of the room (on paper if not in actual fact) is critical to this assessment. This may be done by witness statements, physical remains, burn indicators, or pre-fire photos or even videos. Stoll Curve - A plot of thermal energy and time predicted to cause a pain sensation, or a second degree burn, in human tissue. *As defined by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) in Standard F1002

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

[Kevin M. West]

Ah finally, the source of Jack's images.... an animated gif on a CT site. That explains the low quality, short duration, and Jack's unwillingness to show us his source.

[Ron Ecker]

It should be obvious to any unbiased eye that the collapse, total and symmetrical, of not one but both towers was, from a terrorist's perspective, simply too good to be true. (Even the intelligence folks who scripted the faux OBL "confession" tape of October 2001 had OBL saying that he never expected the towers to collapse.) What seems clear to me is that someone made sure that those towers came down, in the most dramatic, photographically striking manner possible, and with plenty of fireworks, "shock and awe," when the towers were struck. The total and dramatic destruction looks simply too good to be true, and it was.

But of course an "inside job," someone helping the towers come down (in whatever covert manner it was done - explosives, secret weapon(s), who knows, take your pick) is simply too hard to accept.

[Kevin M. West]

I disagree with the 'most dramatic' part, that would have been if the towers fell the way truthers expect, by tipping over like a tree.

It's not that 'inside job' is hard to accept, it's that all of the methods suggested don't make sense and none of the evidence supports any of the wild theories that truthers come up with.

[Ron Ecker]

WTC7 is the clue. What makes the most sense is controlled demolition.

Of course you can argue all day that the towers could not be rigged without detection. Well, never say that something can't be done until you try it - with a few billion dollars plus the building's security operation at your disposal to tinker around with.

[Duane Daman]

I have posted this for Jack .

[Jack White]

Ah finally, the source of Jack's images.... an animated gif on a CT site. That explains the low quality, short duration, and Jack's unwillingness to show us his source.

More nonsense! My "unwillingness" is that I do not keep records

of sources of saved images; I have more than ten thousand images

saved to my external hard drive. Spending an hour looking for an

image because some jerk demands it is counterproductive. I have

several clips from the CNN video. The best is full screen size and

I played it frame by frame in QuickTime and did screenshots of

relevant frames. I do not know the type of graphics file it is.

Jack

[Jack White]

It should be obvious to any unbiased eye that the collapse, total and symmetrical, of not one but both towers was, from a terrorist's perspective, simply too good to be true. (Even the intelligence folks who scripted the faux OBL "confession" tape of October 2001 had OBL saying that he never expected the towers to collapse.) What seems clear to me is that someone made sure that those towers came down, in the most dramatic, photographically striking manner possible, and with plenty of fireworks, "shock and awe," when the towers were struck. The total and dramatic destruction looks simply too good to be true, and it was.

But of course an "inside job," someone helping the towers come down (in whatever covert manner it was done - explosives, secret weapon(s), who knows, take your pick) is simply too hard to accept.

Precisely, Ron!

The details are really irrelevant. All three buildings came down in a

manner inconsistent with common sense and the laws of physics.

The official story is untrue.

A comparable analogy is the JFK murder. The assassins achieved

their purpose. The president is dead. Little is gained by arguing over

who and where the shooters were, and what weapons they used.

The official story is untrue.

Jack

Edited September 24, 2007 by Jack White

[Kevin M. West]

The images in jack's study are from a few seconds AFTER the above image, after the debris hit the ground, the dust cloud started spreading horizontally, and it hit the inside corner of wtc5 and was funneled upwards.

Jack: If you want to be taken seriously, keep notes of your sources when you use them for your 'studies'

[Duane Daman]

The images in jack's study are from a few seconds AFTER the above image, after the debris hit the ground, the dust cloud started spreading horizontally, and it hit the inside corner of wtc5 and was funneled upwards.

Jack: If you want to be taken seriously, keep notes of your sources when you use them for your 'studies'

Kevin : If you want to be taken seriously , you need to stop posting this kind of stupidity .

The dust cloud in BOTH of Jack's studies show the dust cloud BEFORE the building collapsed ...and the dust cloud from WTC 6 was a seperate cloud .

[Kevin M. West]

No Duane, the only stupidity here is from the people who believe Jack's lies. You know as well as I do that there is NO video of any explosion or giant dust cloud from WTC6 at 9:04 because it NEVER HAPPENED. Every news station in the area (and several international) had LIVE video at 9:04, and there was no explosion recored. There were tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, and there is no testimony. Len has even proven that the dust cloud in question is above WTC5 not WTC6. And photos taken AFTER WTC2 COLLAPSED still show the roof of WTC6 intact.

[Duane Daman]

No Duane, the only stupidity here is from the people who believe Jack's lies. You know as well as I do that there is NO video of any explosion or giant dust cloud from WTC6 at 9:04 because it NEVER HAPPENED. Every news station in the area (and several international) had LIVE video at 9:04, and there was no explosion recored. There were tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, and there is no testimony. Len has even proven that the dust cloud in question is above WTC5 not WTC6. And photos taken AFTER WTC2 COLLAPSED still show the roof of WTC6 intact.

I do believe that accusing Jack of posting "lies" is breaking the forum rules here .... If you pulled that crap on the UM you would be banned for it ... Oh , wait what I am thinking ? ... You and your pals can post whatever you please on that forum , as long as the government stooge moderators there agree with you ... It's people like Jack and me who get banned for posting unpopular truths .

Look again ... This time with your eyes open instead of closed .... Does the WTC 6 roof look intact to you ?