Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

*In looking for the photo it mentioned that the satellite that took the photo [and one can get a much more detailed image of it] has the resolution capability of seeing things one meter/yard!!!! How helpful would the images of the planes attacking and the fires and explosions be?!...and why are they not being released or asked for in court cases!? I believe this was from a commercial/scientific satellite. The military/intelligence ones have higher resolutions - that are classified. It might be that for the highest resolutions one needs to be purposely watching [zoom in] - but that is not known and highly classsified. It is my understanding, however, that these are constantly taking shots of everything at about the one meter range, at least. Certainy NYC and DC. As with Dallas the 'officials' never solved the cases [i'm being kind here]; but only gave the appearance of solving the case to molify the Public. Many are not molified in either!

Peter...I googled the statue of liberty and it is exactly SW of the WTC,

like the satellite smoke...but your photo of the statue and smoke show

at least a 90 degree shift AWAY FROM THAT DIRECTION.

Jack

There is a great current site that lists the wind direction in NYC every hour - but I couldn't find the data for 9/11/01 and maybe the site did not exist then. The information must exist somewhere and would be very helpful in determining times in photos. It now seems that the winds were both brisk and moving in different directions at different times. The stronger the wind the greater the Venturi effect sometimes seen - as well as its direction. Strangely, a few shots after the collapse of the towers seems to show the smoke and dust just hanging there, with little apparent wind.....perhaps as the wind direction was changing or an artifact of a moment captured in time. The force of the explosions [oh, excuse me collapses] may also have caused local winds. Again computer modeling of all of this, while complex, would be helpful. The authorites clearly don't care to do it. They took the best evidence [the steel and other debris] and quickly got rid of it; they also haven't been very helpful with complete photo or film interpretations....(just like in Dallas). I'm sure just another coincidence.

---------

Jack I dont think it was a very windy day at all. I was outside at around 10am and then later after 3. It was an incredibly beutiful day, and what struck everyone was how peacefull it was. Wind just wasnt noticable at all as I recall it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner
Charles, I have deleted your post as it contained an attack on Len Colby that you have been told previously not to repeat. Any complaints to John/Andy.

The following was sent to Stephen via PM:

Stephen,

You are ill-informed and out of line.

1. I was NEVER "told" (asked) not to post my warning.

2. "Colby" himself is on record -- via a public post on this Forum -- stating that he has no problem whatsoever with the warning being posted.

Accordingly, I am "telling" (asking) you to replace my post immediately.

Charles

Charles, you have my answer via P/M. John or Andy can adjudicate. i, however, have no intention of replacing a post which contains an attack on a fellow forum member.

How about Colby's constant attacks?

Jack

Exactly! Mr. C [via the moderators] is Provacteur General of the Forum - with most every post a slam/provocation/attack/ad-hom/etc. [though I see Mr. L is back today] has taken another victim - a good voice of reason and real investigative power and knowledge - the loss is to the Forum loosing Charles Drago! The 'political correctness' of protecting the provacateurs and NOT those who respond to them will kill this Forum IMO....and I've been in conversation with many who privately feel it is slowly - dying and the likes of Mr. C [or their protection via the 'rules'] are the reason. There are pro provocateurs here on this Forum, who know just how to get the responder in trouble and just miss getting so themselves. Bravo for the wrong side. Justice and Reason have lost. Again. It is NOT a matter of opinions - but of 'technique' and 'constant attack'. Look who starts it - or never stops it and not reaction that was cultivated/planned/connived/reactive. This entire thread is a provacation/taunt - as are almost all the person who started this one creates. Some apparently can't see the pattern. We all loose. Most on the Forum will be very sad loosing Charles and being stuck with you-know-who [remember the cheers at the weeks he went 'a missin']. Shame on this outcome. If any mods feel they need to 'protect' a contant problem person because they are sometimes attacked in response - just look at how they court it - desires it - cultivates it - plans it - provokes it - intentionally, IMO. Charles, don't go away. Just cease and desist with that warning label. It became a focus of controversy - and we wouldn't want that here.....

It is odd indeed that provocateurs receive favored treatment and that respected gentlemen like

Charles Drago are shown the exit. Makes one wonder. The reputation of Drago as a JFK researcher

is very high. None of the provocateurs has a reputation as a researcher or gentleman. Makes one

wonder what the purpose of this forum is. That provocateurs have been made moderators gives one

cause to stop and think.

Jack

Nobody showed Charles the door, he got in a huff about a moderator decision, and flounced out all by himself. But don't fear, if recent history is any guide he will be back shortly. In the meantime we will all just have to try and get along without him. Jack/Peter, please feel free to PM me with any examples of abuse you feel you have suffered, I can't be everywhere at once, but I will take action to prevent forum rules being abused by ANY member.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I've seen some of the strange melted, bent and eroded pieces that were not destroyed. Thank goodness for them. They tell a very different tale, I think, than the official version...and then there is the molten steel that certain people would like to just plain deny the witness reports and even photos of......Still all too much of the evidence was removed and quickly. Why? Why were there restrictions on people going into the debris pile to investigate and photograph? Why was only <1% of the steel examined in any way? [what kind of a real investigation would look at <1% of the evidence?] Why the false tale of the air safe to breathe. Etc. Et al. The seeming incompetance was not just the failure to identify and intercept the planes.....it seems to still continue - but I think this is just a cover for something much more sinister.

As for the huge support beam reduced to the thinness of paper [and showing erosion holes, as well (and eutectic chemical alteration)!], I guess it was because there was a paper fueled fire :rolleyes:

This one photo below can not IMO be explained in any way by the official version - so it is 'explained' by not explaining it - much as the unexplainable parts about Dallas were handled by officially not explaining them. I'm sure the long delayed 'explanation' [and never to have been forthcoming had it not be DEMANDED] of the collapse of WTC7 will be a real 'fascinating' read.

Peter, Peter, Peter... that's not molten steel. That is the orange sculptural installation from the foyer of tower 12 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that Peter, although I would suggest that the 911 Research information be taken with caution:

This image was purportedly taken by Frank Silecchia. I've seen it a number of times. When I ran a Google search on "Frank Silecchia", I got a whole bunch of hits on a construction worker who found a cross of steel beams among the rubble and became a sort of folk hero of the faithful shortly after 9/11.

I can find no reliable information on whether or not he took this picture. For me, it leaves the source of the picture deeply in doubt. There are few clues to determine whether or not it's even taken at Ground Zero.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=155...amp;postcount=2

Frank Silecchia seems to me more involved with the establishment of the WTC Cross and possibly suffering from health problems due to his efforts during the WTC cleanup.

I can't seem to find anything that actually confirms he was the photographer, and the date on which it was taken. I think that the date that is was taken and confirming it was taken at the WTC site are important.

Peter,

Are you able to tell us when that image was taken?

It hardly matters. Even the official version didn't get steel up to yellow-hot temperatures and there are drips of metal coming off it - and there were reliable and multiple sighings of pools of molten [flowing] steel - as well as [later] cooled lumps of same - called meteorites. This must have been during the clean-up and not in the first days - no very hot metal was found on the top layers in the first days [cooled by air and water sprayed upon if ever there]. I'm sure there is a way to date the photo, but again, it doens't matter for my point. Molten metal and ultra-high temperatures were found for weeks - well over a month, if I remember correctly. Molten metal was not covered in the official version.....nor were LHO's intelligence connections. [i.e. ignored]

OK I found the date of the photo Sept 27th Source: Frank Silecchia

Professor Steven Jones has cautiously determined the temperature to be:

"as a salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (1550 - 1900oF, 845 - 1040oC)."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&...sa=N&tab=wi

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is visual (photo) evidence that at one time the wind at the WTC was from

the north.

However, apparently at some point the wind shifted direction, if this passage

I found today on the internet is reliable:

"From the Seattle Times

Dust choked downtown for nearly 20 minutes, blocking out the sun and leaving a layer of film on cars, streets and storefronts. The dust cloud reached nearly as high as the top of the Bank of America Tower and drifted northwest about 8 miles an hour."

Note that it says the dustcloud DRIFTED NORTHWEST. Early photos show it going SOUTH.

Was there a wind shift?

Jack

Jack

That passage refers to the dust cloud which was created when each building collapsed, rather than the pall of smoke from the top of the building while the fires burned.

I don't think the dust cloud only went north-west, it spread out in all directions, being channelled through the surrounding streets. The smoke cloud continued to drift southwards, as evidenced by the photos and video taken from NYC, and the satellite images taken on the day. There's no evidence for a sudden and drastic change of wind direction at the height of the towers.

Which still leaves the claim about WTC6 exploding as the north tower was hit right where we left it: not only unsupported by any video or photographic evidence, but palpably falsified by the photographic and video evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

Peter

The satellite image showing smoke blowing off to the south-west was taken on Sept 12th (see link).

There are many satellite images taken on 9/11 on the net, here's one taken from the ISS, showing the smoke plume being blown to the south (actually slightly east of south)

wtc_010911_iss003e5388.jpg

Other images taken on 11th and subsequent days can be found here.

More satellite images here:-

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...spaceflight.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...files/mixed.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...es/Terrared.jpg

Source

I can't find any evidence anywhere of the smoke plume being blown in any direction other than (slightly east of) south on the 11th of September.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why implement recommendations based on flawed conclusions?

One recommendation that was implemented was a national intelligence director. I remain mystified that the CIA, whose director was top dog in U.S. intelligence, allowed Congress, which it has long controlled so efficiently, to pass such legislation. One more unanswered question about 9/11.

What was so bad about the Afghan government that the US conducted a terror campaign against it?

The purpose was to set what Carter's adviser Brzenski (sp) called the "Afghan trap," to lure Russia into the fight and thus give Russia "its own Vietnam." Which raises another unanswered question, which is why the peace-loving Carter signed off on this human slaughter business. Was he scared into complying by the "assassination attempt" in Los Angeles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
One recommendation that was implemented was a national intelligence director. I remain mystified that the CIA, whose director was top dog in U.S. intelligence, allowed Congress, which it has long controlled so efficiently, to pass such legislation. One more unanswered question about 9/11.

Given the spectacular uselessness of the intelligence service in general and in particular their failure to foresee 911 or even the end of the Soviet Union/Cold War instead of setting up yet another intellegence apparatus they should dismantle them all and put all the spooks to good use dismantling cluster bombs. Save themselves a lot of money too.

The purpose was to set what Carter's adviser Brzenski (sp) called the "Afghan trap," to lure Russia into the fight and thus give Russia "its own Vietnam." Which raises another unanswered question, which is why the peace-loving Carter signed off on this human slaughter business. Was he scared into complying by the "assassination attempt" in Los Angeles?

Yes, Carter's actions are interesting and it is uncharacteristic. The Soviets really didn't want to go into Afghanistan. They knew it would likely not go well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For your info, (no conclusion or opinions offered)

Weather observations at JFK on 11 September 2001

found here

http://english.wunderground.com/history/ai...;theprefvalue=1

Wind observed coming from variations of NW to North until late afternoon. Specifically at time from impact to collapse (my comments italicized, wind speed and direction bolded)

METAR KJFK 111151Z (0751 AM) 32006KT 10SM FEW250 19/14 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP197 70069 T01940144 10200 20172 51013

METAR KJFK 111251Z (0851 AM) 31010KT 10SM FEW250 21/14 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T02110139

METAR KJFK 111351Z (0951 AM) 35007KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 23/13 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP205 FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG SE T02280133 (note mention of plume direction added)

METAR KJFK 111451Z (1051 AM) 34006KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 24/12 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 SFC VIS LWR SW-NW FU FEW010 FU PLUME DSNT NW DRFTG S-SE T02440122 50006 (again, the mention of the plume)

METARS are direct observations of current conditions used primarily by the aviation world. They are issued hourly unless the condition changes enough to issue a special report. If the wind is variable or gusting, that will be noted also.

METAR tutorial for those interested in reading the rest of each line (translations of each also on first page referenced)

http://english.wunderground.com/metarFAQ.asp

I'm still looking for the weather as forecast for that day (TAF format) but TAFs seem harder to find, at least in my quick search.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think now there were at least three directions for the wind [and obviously all the intermediate directions] and there must be times and directions known that would help time-position some of the photos]. Most of us have seen the satellite [where are the ones from the time OF the attacks and just after!*] photo showing the entire lower manhattan and a smoke plume going off toward the Southwest. I believe that was quite a bit after the attacks but before the collapse - but of the time it was taken I am really not sure. The direction and general time matches the photo with the Statue of Liberty - although in that one it may be headed more toward the South. I also found this report that the wind changed direction 180 degrees - BUT WHEN?!

Peter

The satellite image showing smoke blowing off to the south-west was taken on Sept 12th (see link).

There are many satellite images taken on 9/11 on the net, here's one taken from the ISS, showing the smoke plume being blown to the south (actually slightly east of south)

wtc_010911_iss003e5388.jpg

Other images taken on 11th and subsequent days can be found here.

More satellite images here:-

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...spaceflight.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...files/mixed.jpg

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Russia...es/Terrared.jpg

Source

I can't find any evidence anywhere of the smoke plume being blown in any direction other than (slightly east of) south on the 11th of September.

Greer did not look very hard. Peter posted a satellite view that is 82 degrees

different than the one he posted.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Give it a break!....there are lots of photos showing the wind [or smoke/dust] blowing southwest and west-southwest and other directions. I've already posted some above and won't waste more time on that.....why not say the WTC never existed, so never was destroyed?

Now you're just being ridiculous. You haven't posted any images showing evidence of wind blowing in anything other than a south to south-easterly direction. The satellite image you posted was taken on September 12th, NOT 11th.

TIME-OUT!

I have a feeling the discussion is getting sidetracked. The reason we started looking at wind direction was in response to this study by Jack.

JW-wtc6-1.jpg

The fundamental problem with Jack's study isn't really the wind direction issue, but the fact that he's failed to correctly identify the image on the left (in terms of time). It is part of a video sequence shot while, and soon after, the south tower was collapsing. This has been proven by seeing the footage in it's entirety. It has also been admitted by the author of "9/11 In Plane Sight" (who was initially a proponent of the "WTC6 exploding" issue) to be taken just after the south tower collapsed. The image on the right was clearly taken while the south tower was collapsing, and slightly before the image on the left. The dust cloud hasn't yet had time to billow up above WTC7.

That is why the issue got side-tracked. I should have just posted the above paragraph instead of getting embroiled in a discussion about the wind-direction. The wind-direction is a red herring that I shouldn't have wasted my time chasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greer did not look very hard. Peter posted a satellite view that is 82 degrees

different than the one he posted.

Jack

You didn't read my post. The satellite image Peter posted was taken on Sept 12th, not 11th.

The wind direction is a red herring. The problem is that you mis-identified the frame from the CNN footage as being before the south tower collapse. Looking at the entire footage proves that the frame is soon after the south tower collapsed.

You should follow Dave Von Kleist's example, admit you mis-identified the frame, withdraw the study, and move on.

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...