- From Mark Wright
- 6-12-4
-
- Obviously the author does not understand or want to understand
physics. The buckling effect of millions of pounds of steel make the windows,
gyprock and concrete "burst" under the strain. The explosion
effect is indicative of that.
-
-
- From SRM
6-13-4
-
- Re: the Comment of Mark Wright -
-
- Comment From Mark Wright
6-12-4
-
- Obviously the author does not understand or want to understand
physics. The buckling effect of millions of pounds of steel make the windows,
gyprock and concrete "burst" under the strain. The explosion
effect is indicative of that.
-
- Reply to Mr. Wright -
-
- Obviously the author of the comment does not understand
or want to understand physics. NO steel structure has *ever* come down
from fire or 'melting beams'. (see: Fire Engineering).
-
- Obviously, he does not understand that (5) independent
seismic recordings recorded a 'pulse' *preceeding the 'time of collapse'*
- what people 'saw'. The physic problem here is: the initial 'pulse' was
bigger than the 'pulse' recorded when the buildings hit the ground. Please
explain in terms of phyics - what would accuount for that?
-
- Obviously, he has not considered that the 1st tower to
'collapse' - was the 2nd tower to be 'hit' - where 80 - 90% of the fuel
*burned outside the building.* Considering the first tower took a 'full
hit' (all fuel deposited in the building.
-
- Obviously, the author of the above comment does not know
about the 'molten puddles burning' for 100 days after 9-11, at the base
of *both* towers (mini-nuke).
-
- Obviousy, the author of the comment above can't explain:
"Why, if the building collapsing was due to 'melted beams' - given
that the 2nd tower hit came down before the first tower hit - it was hit
near a side corner. Why didn't the building 'sag/lean/topple over' - at
the point of impact/failure? It went essentially straight down. Explain
the physics of that.
-
- This only goes to show that 'Reason' ...is but the slave
of Passion'...we will draw attention to facts out of context - or ignore
them - to fit our 'explaination'.
-
- But what they rely upon most...is that we will forget
all the above in the fog & confusion of faulty analysis on partial
information. The same thing was pointed out by General Partin on the OK
City Bombings.....'the physics of it". He was ignored and forgotten
as well.
-
-
-
- From Henry Ayre
- 6-13-4
-
- Re: the Comment from Mark Wright -
-
- From Mark Wright
- 6-12-4
-
- Obviously, the author does not understand or want to
understand physics. The buckling effect of millions of pounds of steel
make the windows, gyprock and concrete "burst" under the strain.
The explosion effect is indicative of that.
-
-
- Further comments from henri@alaska.net
-
- Mr. Wright's comment might be valid in some other case
but not in the case of the collapse of the Twin Towers. The clearly visible
simultaneous explosions in rows of windows - for demolition explosions
is what they had to be - occurred BEFORE the collapse began, thus BEFORE
thousands of tons and millions of pounds began their descent. Thus, Mr.
Wright has the cart before the horse. The collapsing building did not cause
the visible perfectly even spurts of dust from the rows of windows (and
just how could these spurts of dust have been so perfectly even if they
were a side result of other damage?), rather, the spurts of dust, signifying
the ignition of the demolition charges, caused the buildings collapse.
Mr. Wright has another problem.
-
- At http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html
visitors can hear a conversation between WTC lessee Larry Silverstein describing
how he had Building #7 demolished in the late afternoon of September 11,
2001.
-
- http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/letsroll911/Web/PullIt.mp3
- MP3 of Silverstein "Pull It"
-
- Silverstein says:
-
- (The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna
be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible
loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that
decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse
-
- In the demolition industry, "pull" is the common
term they use for demolishing buildings with explosives.
-
- How very neat and tidy! The problem here is that there
isn't a convenient single rip cord or button that can be pulled or pushed
to make a steel building fall down. None at all. So how was Building #7
"pulled" without demolition charges in place ready to make it
fall down? Short answer: Obviously there WERE demolition charges already
in place in Building #7 so that the demolition then could proceed by pushing
a single button. But now we have an even bigger problem. It's clear that
the demolition charges were not set in place on September 11th while Building
was already burning.
-
- So, when were they set in the building? Is it customary
for commercial buildings to be leased packed full of demolition explosives?
Rather not, what? So, we are forced to admit that demolition explosives
were placed in Building #7 in the weeks before 9/11 in anticipation of
their early employ. Weeks? Yes! To demolish a large building is a very
precise undertaking, and placing the explosives in just the correct places
can take weeks, even longer.
-
- So, Building #7, Mr. Wright, was mined with demolition
explosives with a purpose in mind. What purpose? Evidently the same purpose
that caused the Twin Towers themselves to be mined with demolition explosives.
And it is very hard to see how such a large-scale demolition job could
have been planned and accomplished - all very secretly - by an Arab in
a cave in Afghanistan. That's a very low probability, isn't it? The vastly
greater probability is that the demolition mining of these several buidlings
was done with the express knowledge and tacit cooperation - to say the
very least - of lessee Larry Silverstein himself... since he stood to benefit
greatly financially from this operation.
-
- Mr. Wright must go back to freshman physics for some
refresher courses.
- Comment
- From Marc Spess
- animateclay@suscom.net
-
- Hi Jeff,
-
- Please excuse my long rant. I looked at the web site
and also the comments, and nobody seems to look much further then explosions
to account for the windows and dust bursting out from the sides of the
tower. But the fact is nobody was inside those two floors and lived to
say what exactly happened after that point shown in the videos. My cousin
is a fire fighter and was near the towers when the whole thing happened.
I did tell him about the conspiracy theories out there, and how people
said there were explosions inside the building. His response to me was
that fuel ran down the entire length of the building from the plane, and
had exploded all the way down - even to the lobby and basement. This does
appear to be why the fire fighters heard the "boom boom boom boom"
sounds. But not many sites mention this as evidence that these secondary
explosions were the igniting of fuel down the shafts. It is passed off
as explosives. Yes - there could have been, but given the testimony and
the fuel explanation in the shafts, this is the most correct explanation
of those sounds from fire fighters themselves. You do have to go against
what fire fighters are saying to fit this into the explosive theory.
-
- I also mentioned how the smaller tower fell with little
damage, all supports going at once. He couldn't explain that, but I didn't
want to press him. I know he has seen some horrific stuff. So when I met
him I didn't just come out and ask without considering his feelings. I
think the recent "pull" evidence is definitely a shocker. There
was fuel stored illegally in this building in the basement, giving a way
for this buildings collapse to be explained without more evidence that
explosives themselves were used. That's really the key, because they could
have just let it burn in the basement, letting it collapse if they knew
the situation after going inside to get victims out.
-
- My cousin did mention one thing that surprised me. When
the first terrorist attack occurred where they bombed the basement of the
tower, the first seven floors had been blown up. Not just the basement.
He told me when he walked inside the tower that you could literally look
up a giant hole. You could not tell looking at news clips of only puffs
of smoke coming out of the base of the building. If that was the case,
the "pull" video does not definitively prove they planted explosives.
The burning fuel could have done the job in the basement without being
able to see the raging fire. Look at this picture and notice the amount
of smoke at the base of the building:
-
- <http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg>http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg
-
- What is all that gray smoke below the burning floors?
Can you see the basement on fire? Is it on fire? If not, wouldn't the fuel
catch on fire after they pulled the building when they cleaned up this
site and a spark were to set it off? Where did the illegally stored fuel
go if it was not on fire at the start? Was it pumped out after the collapse?
Or did it burn itself out? Fire fighters would have a more dangerous job
cleaning up a building with a fuel bomb under it waiting to explode during
clean-up wouldn't they? How did they handle this? It is the biggest clue
to the buildings collapse that is the least thing looked at.
-
- This brings to mind the burning floors and the windows
blowing outward in the video. The floors that were on fire could have collapsed
before the building actually started to fall. Those two floors could have
fallen downward, shooting smoke - dust, debris, and causing enough pressure
to blow the windows outward. Yes the floors shooting out smoke were probably
on fire, which is the reason smoke comes out of them when the floors give
way. They would not have to be on fire for very long for the smoke to build
up with all those closed windows.You can't see what is actually happening
on the inside. So any guess here can seem logical. And fuel moves to lower
floors just like water would do. And to say the smokes color explains it
is also more guess work. Who knows to what extent those floors were burning,
what materials were on fire, and how long the smoke was building up.
-
- Another thing is that if the above part of the tower
was starting to slowly bend, would it bend far enough for you to see given
the distance the video was shot? Or would ten feet be equal to a pixel
or two at the point you see the puffs of smoke? The fall would be slowest
at the point you see the windows shooting out given the fact momentum builds
up. Once things sped up quickly from that point after, there may not be
time for this smoke to be seen on lower floors. Kind of like pulling a
towel out from under a table with plates and glasses set up. Do it slow,
everything moves. Do it quickly and things stay in place. Yes, this is
my best physics explanation, but of course I think everyone who is commenting
can't really explain things accurately because were talking about millions
of tons. Just as nano technology has it's own set of physics, things behave
more like liquids on such a big scale. Just research rock and mountain
slides.
-
- As for molten metal in the basement, if all that fuel
"who can say exactly how much?" went into the basement as my
cousin said it did from witnesses in his own fire department, and then
you have tons of metal and concrete around it from above - and air feeding
in from lower subway entrances - you have now a literal jet fuel fed furnace
down there. It is logical that you would get molten metal because heat
can't escape. Metal will melt. This is no mystery, just look up black smithing
furnaces. You can buy them, a very small one will melt steel which is fed
by a natural gas or propane fuel line. Black smiths in the old days used
only coal and a billows to do the exact same thing to melt steel. Why is
it surprising jet fuel does this, and on a scale much larger then any black
smith furnace ever created? Maybe the biggest!
-
- I don't think it is smart to throw out the explosives
theory, but anyone can make their own theory fit things with partial evidence.
The thing that bothers me is to claim all this as literal facts when there
are none. And to discard other pieces of evidence instead of looking at
all angles.
-
- Marc
-
-
- From Henry Ayre
- 6-15-4
-
- Jeff,
-
- These comments started with the offering of Mr. Wright
telling us we needed to pay attention to physics. Yet then it appeared
that Mr. Wright had not, himself, taken adequate cognizance of the laws
of physics. Now we have an offering by Marc Spess who miraculously has
constructed in his mind a "jet furnace" in the basements of the
Twin Towers to explain the molten steel there. If only he could sell his
technology to the U.S. steel mills we might have a resurgance of iron-making
in this country!
-
- No, the conditions in the Twin Towers basements certainly
were NOT right to create a blast furnace to melt steel. In fact, I wonder
at the ability of Mr. Spess to concoct very low probability theses and
try to string them together to avoid the evidence - anecdotal, seismological,
photographic, etc. - which all points best to the scenario in which the
Twin Towers AND Building #7 were brought down by demolition charges which
had been planted in the weeks before 9/11.
-
- Mr. Spess says we may never know. We don't have to "know."
if we can assemble a scenario that carries a probability of 80% or better
then, in fact, we DO know! We live our entire lives on such probability
numbers. We will never know every last detail of this massive and lethal
magic stunt... or of virtually any other happening in our lives. Mr Spess
does not address other little details such as the missile pods carried
by presumably commercial jets. Go to http://www.letsroll911.org/ for further
details.
-
- In closing I would like to opine that had the lessee
of the Twin Tower Complex been named Ali bin Gulka (not a real name) from
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or Egypt, and had said he had "pulled"
Building #7 he would now have been in jail for two and a half years trying
to explain what he meant. To solve this problem, we have to be utterly
neutral. No one gets a free pass any more. No one.
-
-
- From Marc Spess
- 6-15-4
-
- Hi Jeff,
-
- I'm just writing a reply to Henry Ayre on the melted
steel theory I put out. I agree with what he is saying about the seismic
evidence, it is strange. Only I wish he would explain himself better about
the melted steel theory. Henry mentions that the molten steel could not
be possible, but does not explain why. Only that I am wrong. If you have
a burning fuel, it is enclosed in the same way an actual furnace is, and
it has air to keep it burning. I think those conditions can melt steel,
and rightly so. As long as the temperature is hot enough, long enough,
steel will melt.
-
- Demolition charges do not melt steel into molten pools.
They don't burn long and slow enough to melt steel to turn it into a molten
pool after many weeks. This clue might not matter in the big scheme of
things. But if you want to say I'm wrong about a certain point, at least
you can explain a better theory. One based on some kind of science about
metals at least. And no there is nothing I am throwing out or ignoring
in my theory about that. There was fuel, it was on fire, the fuel made
it to the basement based on a first hand account by a fire fighter that
I spoke to personally.
-
- Maybe you are just trying to debunk me because I don't
seem to go along with the other theories close to your heart. But I never
said I am not suspicious about all the evidence that is out there. That
is not the case. I am just cautious in believing every tale that shows
up. And yes, several months ago I wrote about the pod conspiracy which
showed up on Jeff Rense. You can read it here:
-
- http://www.rense.com/general41/ils.htm
-
- The pod dimensions do not make sense with what was captured
on film in my eyes. You can argue my findings, but next time tell me why
I am wrong if you disagree.
-
- Marc
-
-
- From Henry Ayre
- henri@alaska.net
- 6-16-4
-
- To a world seemingly full of 'marks' (Marcs)... (pun
intended):
-
- Marc finds the seismic evidence "strange."
Period. End of cerebral activity on that subject.
-
- Then, in a perfect disconnect, he goes on about melting
steel, pools of fuel, etc. So let's get right down to cases. Jet fuel ONLY
burns with a very hot flame under extraordinary circumstances. Those circumstances
include a precise sustained fuel/air ratio, atomization of the jet fuel,
compression, and continuous ignition. (If you have an oil burner to heat
your home go down in the basement and have a close look at how it operates.)
Otherwise, the temperature of burning jet fuel is many hundreds of degrees
BELOW the melting point of steel. It wouldn't matter if the fire "raged"
for years, it still wouldn't melt the steel. Now Mr. Spess is indeed correct
in saying that demolition charges will not melt steel. The flame is marginally
hot enough but its duration is much too brief. So, to explain the molten
steel in the extreme sub-basements of the Twin Towers we cannot blame either
huge pools of cool-burning jet fuel or demolition explosives. So now what
do we have?
-
- Let's go back to the strange seismic evidence, those
huge thumps that occurred JUST BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed. Could
they have had something to do with the pools of molten steel remaining
for weeks at the bases of the Twin Towers? If so, how?
-
- Small nuclear charges at the bases of the Twin Towers
produced - it is surmised - both the clear seismic evidence of these unusually
massive explosions AND sufficient heat (in excess of 100,000 degrees) not
only to melt the steel instantaneously, but also to keep it in a molten
state for weeks. Since this assumption fits the physical evidence, and
no other assumption can explain the physical evidence, we must logically
accept the theory as true... with a probability of about 92%.
-
- All this leaves Larry Silverstein in the uncomfortable
position of explaining - if anyone in authority has the gall to ask - how
he could have permitted Osama bin Laden to plant nuclear devices at the
very bottoms of the main beams supporting the Twin Towers. We might, in
a moment of weakness, forgive the businessman who, burdened with excessive
and unsalable inventory, tosses a match into his gasoline-soaked warehouse
to collect the insurance. But can the world forgive a high-roller businessman
who resorts to nuclear explosions and 3000 deaths to get rid of asbestos-plagued
old buildings in order to collect insurance money for new buildings?
-
- Henri.
|
