Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

Jack,

As anyone can see the plumes of smoke closest to the south face of 7 are much smaller and thicker than the ones further out towards 6. This is without doubt the point of origin. Anyone can see that without video.

My question is this in reply to the convertible analogy. How fast do you have to be going to create that vortex? I myself have had a Jeep Wrangler for most of my life, and living in Florida spend many a day with the top down......

Judging by the plumes of smoke moving south once they rose about the roof tops, I would say the winds that day were not very significant. 10 mph range....most likely.

Hardly enough to invoke the type of vortex you are suggesting.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

Jack,

As anyone can see the plumes of smoke closest to the south face of 7 are much smaller and thicker than the ones further out towards 6. This is without doubt the point of origin. Anyone can see that without video.

My question is this in reply to the convertible analogy. How fast do you have to be going to create that vortex? I myself have had a Jeep Wrangler for most of my life, and living in Florida spend many a day with the top down......

Judging by the plumes of smoke moving south once they rose about the roof tops, I would say the winds that day were not very significant. 10 mph range....most likely.

Hardly enough to invoke the type of vortex you are suggesting.

Mike

A frisbee works on the same principle. No high wind needed.

Please take this little true-false quiz.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two factors influence the flight of a Frisbee, gravity and air. Gravity acts on all objects the same way, accelerating their mass towards the center of the Earth at 10 meters/second. Once in the air, lift and angular momentum act on the Frisbee giving it a ballet-type performance. Lift is generated by the Frisbee's shaped surfaces as it passes through the air. Maintaining a positive angle of attack, the air moving over the top of the Frisbee flows faster than the air moving underneath it.

Under the Bernoulli Principle, there is then a lower air pressure on top of the Frisbee than beneath it. The difference in pressure causes the Frisbee to rise or lift. This is the same principle that allows planes to take off, fly and land. Another significant factor in the Frisbee's lift is Newton's Third Law which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Frisbee forces air down (action) and the air forces the Frisbee upward (reaction). The air is deflected downward by the Frisbee's tilt, or angle of attack.

Spinning the Frisbee when it is thrown, or giving it angular momentum (gyroscopic inertia), provides it with stability. Angular momentum is a property of any spinning mass. Throwing a Frisbee without any spin allows it to tumble to the ground. The momentum of the spin also gives it orientational stability, allowing the Frisbee to receive a steady lift from the air as it passes through it. The faster the Frisbee spins, the greater its stability.

I hardly think smoke has the surface area to create the angle of attack needed for lift. Smoke and its particles thus lift because of the super heated air they hold. They disburse and become less dense the further they move from the source, Just as indicated in the photo I posted.

The evidence of this of course is in the fact that the plumes we see are more dense and smaller near the south face of 7, indicating origin, however if these plumes originated at 6 and were caught in a vortex forcing them against 7, 7 itself would be disbursing them, clearly not the case.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is interesting, but predictable. I readily admit to disbelieving the official story of 911 almost from the beginning. Just as some of us are predisposed to scoff at "conspiracy theories," and ascribe altruistic motives to our leaders, others (like me) are naturally inclined to suspect that the powerful are usually up to no good. I think the history of the last 50 years or so ought to make us all very skeptical about our fearless leaders.

We can argue about which way the wind is blowing (I keep hearing Dylan's "Subtereanean Blues" in my mind), in different photographs, but the big picture is far more important. On September 11, 2001, we are asked to believe that all the following just happened, and that no one other than a relative handful of "terrorists" were the cause:

Four seperate planes were hijacked, with significant amounts of time in between, without a single

authority at any level realizing what was going on.

These hijackers were able to take over each plane, armed with nothing more than box cutters. Until

the Hollywoodish "Let's Roll" group brought down Flight 93, none of the passengers on these planes

apparently did anything to fight back against these men, who were armed only with these less than

deadly weapons.

President Bush sat reading a story about a goat to a group of grade school students. He continued

reading that story, even after being notified that a second plane had hit the WTC. Then, against all

logic and seurity protocol, Air Force One took off and remained in the air, where those in charge

should have considered it quite a vulnerable target to the hijacked planes that were, for all they

knew, still being hijacked and eagerly looking for such an inviting target. Kind of like the way the

Secret Service sat there and did nothing for six seconds while gunfire raged in Dallas.

Two of the largest buildings ever constructed collapsed, pancake style, after airplanes hit the

top floors. We have nothing to compare this to, but common sense suggests that this is preposterous.

The whole thing looked like a Hollywood production- an implosion by demolision. There is no other

example of a high-rise building, in the history of the world, imploding so perfectly like that, into

literal smitereens, yet we are supposed to believe that THREE huge buildings did so that day. Since

that time, buildings have evidently reverted back to their previous capabilities, as no other ones

have been reported to have collapsed from fire since then. Finally, if the official story maintains that

jet fuel, somehow maintaining the incredibly high temperatures needed to melt steel for a very long

time, alone caused the collapse of both WTC towers, then how do we explain the fact that the second

tower hit was the first one to collapse? That makes absolutely no sense.

The Pentagon was allegedly hit by a plane that was far larger than the hole caused by the impact,

but there was almost no debris at all left outside. This part of 911 has been analyzed in great detail

all over the internet, including by Jack White. I'd urge everyone to study what is supposed to have

happened in light of all the inconsistencies, and also in conjunction with the bizarre, unprecedented

events taking place elsewhere that day.

Despite spending untold trillions of dollars over the decades, for what is supposed to be an

impregnable national defense system, no one utilized it on a day when a couple of airliners, who were known to have been hijacked, were flying around directly overheard Washington, D.C. The same government that did nothing in this unparalleled case of national emergency (unitl they most

probably shot down Flight 93 over Pennslvania and lied about it), had, a few years earlier, sent up

two fighter planes, within 20 minutes of being notified that the plane carrying golfer Payne Stewart

was not responding to radio and flying out of control. It is obvious, therefore, that the system could

respond quickly if it wanted to. Why didn't it want to on 911?

There are so many other things I could mention, from the curious cell phone calls allegedly made from the doomed airliners to the seemingly shabby flying prowess of the alleged hijackers (much like the

shabby shooting abilities of Lee Harvey Oswald), but I think I've ranted enough.

Looking at 911 with an all encompassing view, I think there are more than enough significant questions about what happened that day to cause a reasonable person to distrust those who were in charge then, and are in charge now. We could never even have a discussion like this anywhere in the mainstream media, who have ignored or ridiculed the 911 Truth Movement much like they ignore or ridicule all those who question the most significant historical events of our time.

If we only had one powerful political figure who would raise this issue in public, or one powerful television network that would give airtime to critics of the official story, we might be able to demand a real investigation into what actually happened on 911. Until then, we will have to be content to debate things on the only places we can- internet forums.

Note- I tried re-editing this post, but despite looking normal in the "preview," some of it comes out

looking strange on the actual post to the forum.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The cloud purportedly emerging from what Jack thinks is an exploding WTC6 is simply the debris cloud blowing northward from the collapse of the South Tower. Witness reports show that after Jack thinks WTC6 blew up, fireman actually attached hoses to a "Siammese connection" right in front of WTC6. It was in reasonably good shape at this time. The lethal hit came later when the North Tower dropped on it and punched a huge hole in its center.

The photos Jack cites are from Internet "truther" sites. The problem is that noone identifies photos by time, place and photographer. This leads to needless confusion.

For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Two factors influence the flight of a Frisbee, gravity and air. Gravity acts on all objects the same way, accelerating their mass towards the center of the Earth at 10 meters/second. Once in the air, lift and angular momentum act on the Frisbee giving it a ballet-type performance. Lift is generated by the Frisbee's shaped surfaces as it passes through the air. Maintaining a positive angle of attack, the air moving over the top of the Frisbee flows faster than the air moving underneath it.

Under the Bernoulli Principle, there is then a lower air pressure on top of the Frisbee than beneath it. The difference in pressure causes the Frisbee to rise or lift. This is the same principle that allows planes to take off, fly and land. Another significant factor in the Frisbee's lift is Newton's Third Law which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Frisbee forces air down (action) and the air forces the Frisbee upward (reaction). The air is deflected downward by the Frisbee's tilt, or angle of attack.

Spinning the Frisbee when it is thrown, or giving it angular momentum (gyroscopic inertia), provides it with stability. Angular momentum is a property of any spinning mass. Throwing a Frisbee without any spin allows it to tumble to the ground. The momentum of the spin also gives it orientational stability, allowing the Frisbee to receive a steady lift from the air as it passes through it. The faster the Frisbee spins, the greater its stability.

I hardly think smoke has the surface area to create the angle of attack needed for lift. Smoke and its particles thus lift because of the super heated air they hold. They disburse and become less dense the further they move from the source, Just as indicated in the photo I posted.

The evidence of this of course is in the fact that the plumes we see are more dense and smaller near the south face of 7, indicating origin, however if these plumes originated at 6 and were caught in a vortex forcing them against 7, 7 itself would be disbursing them, clearly not the case.

Mike

A weak way to avoid the issue. Why should we pay any attention to somebody

who does not know the difference between DISPERSE and DISBURSE?

Have you ever used a soda straw? Tell us all about the angle of attack of

the drink in the glass when you suck on the straw.

Have you ever witnessed the operation of a wind tunnel for testing

scale models? How fast do the scale models move?

Have you ever watched a tv weathercast and heard talk of low pressure

and high pressure areas? Have you noticed that clouds move toward

low pressure? What is the angular momentum of the clouds?

Throwing around terms you don't understand fools nobody. Tell us all

about the surface area of smoke. I'd like to know.

Come back when you learn what disburse means.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is interesting, but predictable. I readily admit to disbelieving the official story of 911 almost from the beginning. Just as some of us are predisposed to scoff at "conspiracy theories," and ascribe altruistic motives to our leaders, others (like me) are naturally inclined to suspect that the powerful are usually up to no good. I think the history of the last 50 years or so ought to make us all very skeptical about our fearless leaders.

We can argue about which way the wind is blowing (I keep hearing Dylan's "Subtereanean Blues" in my mind), in different photographs, but the big picture is far more important. On September 11, 2001, we are asked to believe that all the following just happened, and that no one other than a relative handful of "terrorists" were the cause:

Four seperate planes were hijacked, with significant amounts of time in between, without a single

authority at any level realizing what was going on.

These hijackers were able to take over each plane, armed with nothing more than box cutters. Until

the Hollywoodish "Let's Roll" group brought down Flight 93, none of the passengers on these planes

apparently did anything to fight back against these men, who were armed only with these less than

deadly weapons.

President Bush sat reading a story about a goat to a group of grade school students. He continued

reading that story, even after being notified that a second plane had hit the WTC. Then, against all

logic and seurity protocol, Air Force One took off and remained in the air, where those in charge

should have considered it quite a vulnerable target to the hijacked planes that were, for all they

knew, still being hijacked and eagerly looking for such an inviting target. Kind of like the way the

Secret Service sat there and did nothing for six seconds while gunfire raged in Dallas.

Two of the largest buildings ever constructed collapsed, pancake style, after airplanes hit the

top floors. We have nothing to compare this to, but common sense suggests that this is preposterous.

The whole thing looked like a Hollywood production- an implosion by demolision. There is no other

example of a high-rise building, in the history of the world, imploding so perfectly like that, into

literal smitereens, yet we are supposed to believe that THREE huge buildings did so that day. Since

that time, buildings have evidently reverted back to their previous capabilities, as no other ones

have been reported to have collapsed from fire since then. Finally, if the official story maintains that

jet fuel, somehow maintaining the incredibly high temperatures needed to melt steel for a very long

time, alone caused the collapse of both WTC towers, then how do we explain the fact that the second

tower hit was the first one to collapse? That makes absolutely no sense.

The Pentagon was allegedly hit by a plane that was far larger than the hole caused by the impact,

but there was almost no debris at all left outside. This part of 911 has been analyzed in great detail

all over the internet, including by Jack White. I'd urge everyone to study what is supposed to have

happened in light of all the inconsistencies, and also in conjunction with the bizarre, unprecedented

events taking place elsewhere that day.

Despite spending untold trillions of dollars over the decades, for what is supposed to be an

impregnable national defense system, no one utilized it on a day when a couple of airliners, who were known to have been hijacked, were flying around directly overheard Washington, D.C. The same government that did nothing in this unparalleled case of national emergency (unitl they most

probably shot down Flight 93 over Pennslvania and lied about it), had, a few years earlier, sent up

two fighter planes, within 20 minutes of being notified that the plane carrying golfer Payne Stewart

was not responding to radio and flying out of control. It is obvious, therefore, that the system could

respond quickly if it wanted to. Why didn't it want to on 911?

There are so many other things I could mention, from the curious cell phone calls allegedly made from the doomed airliners to the seemingly shabby flying prowess of the alleged hijackers (much like the

shabby shooting abilities of Lee Harvey Oswald), but I think I've ranted enough.

Looking at 911 with an all encompassing view, I think there are more than enough significant questions about what happened that day to cause a reasonable person to distrust those who were in charge then, and are in charge now. We could never even have a discussion like this anywhere in the mainstream media, who have ignored or ridiculed the 911 Truth Movement much like they ignore or ridicule all those who question the most significant historical events of our time.

If we only had one powerful political figure who would raise this issue in public, or one powerful television network that would give airtime to critics of the official story, we might be able to demand a real investigation into what actually happened on 911. Until then, we will have to be content to debate things on the only places we can- internet forums.

Note- I tried re-editing this post, but despite looking normal in the "preview," some of it comes out

looking strange on the actual post to the forum.

Thanks, Don...on target.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The cloud purportedly emerging from what Jack thinks is an exploding WTC6 is simply the debris cloud blowing northward from the collapse of the South Tower. Witness reports show that after Jack thinks WTC6 blew up, fireman actually attached hoses to a "Siammese connection" right in front of WTC6. It was in reasonably good shape at this time. The lethal hit came later when the North Tower dropped on it and punched a huge hole in its center.

The photos Jack cites are from Internet "truther" sites. The problem is that noone identifies photos by time, place and photographer. This leads to needless confusion.

For an understanding of the explosion of Building Six, go to:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

and subsequent pages.

Even showing this photo of the huge hole in the Vesey Street side

of Building Six before either tower fell is not enough for those who

choose not to see truth, for whatever reason.

Jack

Migod! People standing around watching firefighters at work a block from the collapsing south tower?

All the videos I have seen show people running for their lives when the towers collapsed, chased

by immense clouds of dust. How can the people in the photo not know the south tower is falling

a block away? This is astonishing behavior.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in the post is of course is related to the specific issues being discussed in this thread. All of these claims have pretty much been shown to be false on other threads here. It is an interesting example of the disinformation fed to people who only research 9/11 on truther sites. For lack of time and due to the of topic naure of the post I’ll respond to 2 points only

Finally, if the official story maintains that

jet fuel, somehow maintaining the incredibly high temperatures needed to melt steel for a very long

time, alone caused the collapse of both WTC towers, then how do we explain the fact that the second

tower hit was the first one to collapse? That makes absolutely no sense.

None of the investigations said the steel melted nor that the jet fuel was the primary fuel source. The 66 foot long thin tubular floor trusses are believed to have been weakened by piled up office content fires. As to why the South tower collapsed first, I have a radical idea for you, - read the The NIST report

The same government that did nothing in this unparalleled case of national emergency (unitl they most

probably shot down Flight 93 over Pennslvania and lied about it), had, a few years earlier, sent up

two fighter planes, within 20 minutes of being notified that the plane carrying golfer Payne Stewart

was not responding to radio and flying out of control.

It took over 80 minutes to intercept Stewart’s plane it appears that simple matter like time zones are too complicated for some people to fathom. The last comment was not directed at Don who presumably got his information from someone with such difficulties. As to flight 93 that was amply discussed here as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other...

Perhaps because that was the side closest to the ignition source. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m revising my estimated location for the ambulance. Seeing a crosswalk west of West St. I assumed it was at the next intersection. But that didn’t fit the photo which shows WFC 3 but not WFC 4. The photo seems to have been taken on the north side of Vesey in a location “between” the 2 buildings and low and behold GoogleMaps shows a cross walk in that location. The crosswalk is about 870 feet from where 1 WTC once stood; the photographer was close to marker A about 100 feet further away.

CrosswalktoWTC1.jpg

Jack you can continue to spin like a top till a transgender lesbian communist gets elected president of the US about the smoke in the photos zideo shows the smoke clearly emanating from building 7 and building 6 intact till the collapse of the north tower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very illuminating many of his claims were unsourced. The bulk of those that were were references to his or his colleagues works, citations of independent experts are mostlyancillary points. References are only given to entire works some of which total many pages so locating his supposed reference would be quite difficult. He often (intentionally or not) gives very distorted versions of what his sources said for example he wrote:

“Additionally, despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer…”

Here is the relevant passage from his cited source:

Q: There was a previous mention of the day tanks and pressurized lines for diesel fuel in WTC 7. A 4 lb/ft2 fuel load fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had good fireproofing?

A: The fires in the towers did not stop after 20 minutes. The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would be progressing to adjacent combustibles. Also, recall that the 4 lb/ft2 is the fuel load that is actually consumed. The total loading of furnishings could have been higher if there were substantial numbers of file cabinets, etc.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

Ryan’s errors:

• This is a false contradiction because as Dr. Therese McAllister, the respondent, said after one area burned out adjacent areas continued to burn.

• She also pointed out that “total loading” in areas “could have been” higher.

• Although McAllister didn’t mention it, probably because she studied the collapse of 7 WTC rather than the towers, NIST concluded that the planes acted like plows and caused the building contents on the affected floors to pile up in areas distant from the points of impact.

• His claim that “all parties” “agreed” is completely baseless this was from a webcast conference call in which 5 of the 6 members of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee asked McAllister and Shyam Sunder, head of the Twin Towers investigation, questions. In response to a question about the fuel load in 7 she opined about the Twin Towers no one else expressed an opinion on the matter, there isn’t even any evidence Sunder was still participating in the call

But the nonse doesn’t stop there he wrote:

“Sol-gel nanothermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004…”

That might well be so but he pulls a bait and switch presumably trying to oull a fast one on inattentive readers:

“And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).”

“Granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon” has nothing to do with thermite, super thermate, nano-thermite or even super-duper with a cherry on top nano-thermate. In any case that is something the son looked into not the structural engineer who studied the collapses of the towers but wasn’t part of the NIST teem.

Nanocomposites is wide class of compounds the ones studied by Bazant (senior) have nothing to do with “energetic nanocomposites”, this is like suggesting a sports writer who is interested in basketball should be acquainted with the finer points of racquetball because they’re both ball sports.

The degree of separation he is willing to resort to show a connection is bizarre

1) MIT (with hundreds if not thousands of faculty) “was represented at nano-energetics conferences”,

2) Martin Bazant does research at MIT,

3) his father (who teaches at Northwestern in Chicago) studied the collapse of the towers,

4) NIST based some of their assumptions on Zdenek Bazant’s research.

Therefore NIST should have been familiar with nano-thermite. Some how I doubt the were familiar with every subject that the universities were relatives of people’s whose research the used were interested in. Chomsky teaches at MIT should we assume that NIST is familiar with the intricacies of arcane points of linguistics as well?

To make a long story short this work is a perfect example of the crappy research produced by Ryan, the Scholars for Truth (and Justice) and the truth movement in general.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...