WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

In this WayBackMachine terrorize.dk AVI file (that very good Danish former website), you can see much better than in all formerly posted vague spire-videos, that the still standing spire during the WTC 1 collapse, slowly topples to the right, and then breaks apart at lower points and sinks/falls out of sight, but still mainly intact, only the dust that was accumulated on the steel reacted slower, since its mass was of course a lot less than that of the steel columns and beams and its resistance against the air was much less than that from the steel, thus the dust fell much slower :

www.terrorize.dk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Short but sharp video of 911.wtc.1.spire.close.up.avi

Add the second link-below behind the first link-below in your browser's address bar, and click then Enter, to be able to view this much sharper video of the spire destruction :

web.archive.org...
www.terrorize.dk...

Mrs Wood, and all of her misinformed followers should study this video, and at last admit that all their beliefs are based on misconceptions and misinterpretations.

Here's an extensive reference list that counters all the usual faulty reasonings of Mrs Wood and her faithful followers :

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers (Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics, Co-author: Matt Sullivan :

journalof911studies.com...

Pay especially attention to the long and extensive references list at pages 15 to 31.
And all its calculations and links in those, of which some links are long obsolete already.

However, as you can see in my above spire video link, a thorough link-search at the Internet Archive WayBackMachine sites will prove quite productive in resurrecting these long defunct pages :
web.archive.org...
archive.org...

And this is his :

Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics DEW -Demolition Contrary Evidence
By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

journalof911studies.com...

Most of the contents from the WTC 7 building were most likely crushed from the gravitational potential energy of the building falling onto itself. Even in the case of a standard controlled demolition, most of the energy from demolition explosives is focused upon shearing steel columns. Little of the explosive energy is used to pulverize building contents. The energy released from explosives in a conventional controlled demolition of a tall building is tiny compared to the gravitational potential energy. Much more explosive energy above that necessary to shear steel columns would be necessary to match the pulverization energy associated with the gravitational potential energy of the building. The contents of WTC 7 were pulverized mainly due to the gravitational potential energy released upon impact.

Thus, his excerpt's last sentence makes NIST's WTC 7 collapse onset explanation so much more unbelievable :
That the first, PRE-COLLAPSE, HUGE pack of amplitude-peaks registered in the WTC 7 collapse seismogram from LDEO at Columbia University were caused by one snapping/breaking core column under the eastern roof-penthouse. Somewhere at floor 5 to 10 approximately, according to NIST.

If that what followed would have been all caused by natural forces, that seismogram would have shown progressively growing amplitudes all the time during pre-collapse and most of the global collapse their seconds.

It did not.
It shows one pack of huge amplitude peaks a few seconds before that eastern penthouse showed any signs of movement in the available videos of the event, than a few seconds pause and then shows the much smaller pack of amplitude peaks, depicting the whole, following GRAVITATIONAL total collapse of WTC 7.

And at that global collapse start, we see a period of 2.3 seconds real free fall.....

Which clearly shows that a few floors worth of steel columns and beams were blown away.
That is the ONLY sane explanation to explain WHY those 2.3 seconds of true free fall existed.
They can only exist when about 6 to 8 stories worth of thick steel columns and cross-beams resistance inside WTC 7 were "removed" from the global collapse equations.

By the way, NIST accepted after much resistance at last that 2.3 secs free fall period.
Their explanation of it, based on solid science? I have not seen yet..!

Mr Jenkings has this on :

Potential Energy Versus Richter Scale Readings

Seismograph readings were used by Dr. Wood as evidence that much of the debris from the towers never hit the ground. She used an erroneous scaling argument in which the Richter scale reading measured from the collapse of the Kingdome is compared directly to the potential energy of the Kingdome. Based upon this analysis, she then scales the potential energy to obtain a hypothetical Richter scale reading. This hypothetical Richter scale reading is significantly larger than that actually measured from either WTC tower collapses. Her analysis is profoundly flawed as will be discussed in detail below.

As described in a paper by Furlong and Ross (22), the plane crash does not appear on the seismograph charts. Spikes in the chart occur up to 14 seconds too early for the North Tower, presumably from sub-basement explosions which are corroborated by 37 eyewitness testimonials. No spike occurs at the time of the plane impact. This implies weak coupling between the upper floors of the building to ground movement as measured by the Richter scale.
Furthermore, seismograph readings of the surface waves only measured about 6 seconds (23) of seismic activity compared to a 14 second collapse time as measured by video evidence.(30) The seismic duration time, 5-6 seconds, makes sense if the initial debris generated from the collapse fell at roughly free-fall speed which would take about 8 seconds before impacting the ground. The duration of debris impacting the ground can be calculated as 14 – 8 = ~ 6 seconds which is the time duration of measured seismic activity.

This means that the vibrations coupled into the ground through the building during the initial 8 seconds of collapse caused no significant seismic activity. This shows that the energy released during the initial stages of the collapse was not coupled effectively into ground movement.
The energy associated with the measured surface waves (ML, similar to a Richter scale reading) were directly compared to the approximate potential energy of the building:

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10 to the 11th Joule. The energy propagated as seismic waves for an ML of 2.3 is about 10 to the 6th to 10 to the 7th Joule. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.
The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.(23)

There are other reasons for the weak coupling of the potential energy of the
building into ground movement other than those already mentioned. The most obvious is that the period (peak-to-peak time of wave) of the measured surface waves (Rayleigh waves, Rg) generated from the collapse was about 1
second, and the “seismic energy from the collapse was delivered over 5-6 seconds" (23) to four separate seismograph stations. Many separate pieces of debris were impacting the ground over a duration much longer than the period of the wave. This is a very inefficient way to generate a surface wave, and much of the kinetic energy impacting the ground canceled the ground
movement from other debris hitting the ground at a different time. This is analogous to pushing a child on a swing much faster than the natural period of the swing. Most of the energy will be wasted. .
By contrast, small earthquakes are generated over a relatively short time duration.
This is analogous to giving the child on the swing one hard push.

To drive home the point that the potential energy of buildings cannot be directly compared to Richter scale readings, consider the following example.
The ML reported for the North Tower is 2.3. The ML from the raw amplitude seismograph readings for WTC 7 is 1.0. (20)
Even though the potential energy of the North Tower compared to WTC 7 was about 5 times larger, (19) the energy derived from the Richter scale measurements is 87 times larger. (20)
To conclude from this that most of the debris from Building 7 never hit the ground would clearly be absurd.
It is therefore obviously not appropriate to attempt to compare the Richter scale readings of two such dissimilar buildings when the relatively similar buildings, WTC 7 and WTC 1, both steel skyscrapers, give such disparate readings.

LT : read his referenced article nr 22 to see the same, too early explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2, just as in WTC 7.

As I explained in my seismic WTC 7 thesis, already published in late 2005 and in posts in this ATS 9/11 forum in early 2006.
I even posted more sensitive copies of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses (10 nm/s instead of 100 nm/s as LDEO posted on the Internet, so you saw the pre-collapse amplitudes which were as big as the pre-collapse ones in the WTC 7 collapse seismogram.

These two researchers took the time to further investigate it and came up with convincing facts that proved the existence of the same unexplainable seismic anomalies for the Twin Towers as I showed for the later on in the day, WTC 7 collapse :

Ref.22. Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job
(Updated Version II)”, Journal for 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 (September 2006)

or

www.journalof911studies.com...


Mr Jenkings referred to LDEO its publication of Nov 2001 in his ref nr 23 :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...


Dr. Won-Young Kim, seismologist, said this at page 5 :

Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves.
Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.

The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.

The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2 x 10 to the 9th Joule.

That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly
10 to the 12th Joule, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower.
Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves

NIST stated later that it took about 10 minutes to burn all the airplane's fuel loads.

An important note on Mr Jenkings excerpt above :
To my knowledge, all three collapse seismograms from LDEO are showing longer periods of seismic activity above the normal seismic background noise, than his quoted 6 seconds.

The following three seismograph charts for the WTC North Tower, WTC South Tower, and WTC 7 collapses, respectively show :

WTC 1 (N) 34+ secs of significant seismic activity.
WTC 2 (S) 30+ secs of significant seismic activity.
WTC 7 35+ secs of significant seismic activity.

See his nr 20 remark in this Jenkings article-link for those three collapses their LDEO-seismograms. (pages 22 to 24 of a total of 31 pdf-pages)

Pentagon and Fl 93 seismic signals quest by LDEO just after 9/11 :
Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack
Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum :
www.mgs.md.gov...

Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 34, November 2012, by Dr. André Rousseau.
Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at the National Center for
Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves. He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Read his thesis :

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals
Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
www.journalof911studies.com...

This is a highly interesting, new to me, seismic thesis.
Meaning I did not found nor read this before.

The discrepancies in recorded seismic signals arriving times for 9/11 plane crashes and tower collapses with the radar impact data and atomic clocked re-calculated timestamps of 9/11 photos/videos from NIST is surely not new to me, I was the first in 2005 to indicate those discrepancies online, to my knowledge.

Data from the Palisades, NY recording station, located 34 km north-north-east of Manhattan, published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), provide the most detailed seismic waveforms for analysis, particularly for the determination of the locations (surface or underground) and timing of the events that created the seismic waves.
Some authors have been puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded for the events at the World Trade Center, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses. (See MacQueen, 2009). This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void.

On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.
--snip--

Another professional seeing the light !

The analysis presented here will question LDEO's identifications of the causes of the waveforms.
--snip--
Normally in this type of study the time of origin is known with great precision, ( to the millisecond ), which is necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves. Unfortunately, that precision is not possible for the events at the WTC. In this case, timing of the waves must be correlated as well as possible utilizing video evidence.
--snip--
Finally, the enormous indeterminacy of 2 seconds in the calculations attempting to fix the time of origin of each of the signals, admitted by the LDEO authors themselves (Kim et al., 2001), oblige us to view the official conclusions critically.
--snip--

I already pointed at that fact, after my posting of Prof Wallace his seismic research in Kenya into the Nairobi Embassy bombing there. He already admitted the very exact nature of timing of seismic waves.

Although the cause of the two signals is similar--the crashing of a plane, according to LDEO-- the magnitude (reflected by the amplitudes, or distribution on the vertical axis) of the two signals is different. Further, the waves generated by the two events do not have the same apparent velocity. The calculation of the propagation speeds, derived from the times measured in the graphs of Figures 1a and 1b between the origins fixed according to the corresponding crashes and the first wave arrivals–namely, respectively 11.7 and 15.8 seconds- indicates roughly 2900 m/s for WTC1 and 2150 m/s for WTC2.

Regarding the differences in amplitudes : one plane flew bullseye in, one nearly missed.
One flew straight into the central core column packet, the other strafed its corner.

--snip--
The actual waves generated by the crashes had to have been deadened before hitting the ground. Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of 1 Hertz (1 Hz, or one cycle per second)--which is the case with the Rayleigh waves shown in figures 1a and 1b-- while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hz and are often around 100 Hz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments (0.6-5 Hz) cited does not allow for the recording of the high-frequency waves that would be created by plane impacts.

As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it is inadequate because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell-like" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2

I would really like to see his sources for these frequencies of waves generated by explosions in steel buildings, or crash impacts into them. It's great thinking by the way.

Given that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for two waves of the same type at the same frequency traveling the same path only a few minutes apart, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the plane crashes but to another origin.
The waveform data, far from suggesting the conclusion of LDEO that they were caused by plane impacts into the Towers, suggest instead two explosions with different time displacements from the moments of plane impact at each building. Further, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to differences in the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.

Dammit, that's good thinking, I did not implement the placements (heights) of the thermobarics inside the towers in my thoughts about the discrepancies in all those seismic signals.
Strength of them I did count for, but this thinking is refreshingly new.
The higher the charge, the less seismic effect. The amplitudes are more so, deafened out, in case the higher it occurs.

Read the whole piece, it is full of refreshingly new viewpoints, I highly approve of it !


It's getting also a bit obvious by now, that a commitment to 9/11 Truth will bring about lots of trouble in academia. Professors Jones and Harrit, and this Dr Rousseau, all are nowadays former researchers in academic positions.
Either they were "friendly" asked to retire, or they were close to retirement?

CONSENSUS 9/11 : The 9/11best evidence panel.
Point TT-7: Why Did the Twin Towers Collapse? The Seismic Evidence :
www.consensus911.org...

Point TT-8: Why Did the Twin Towers Collapse? The Physical and Testimonial Evidence :
www.consensus911.org...

That's some short and compact form of 9/11 information, with lots of referenced material.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Refreshing thinking.
Graeme MacQueen is the first person I found on-line, to understand the immense important technique I introduced many years before. He wrote his above masterpiece in 2009.
I introduced it with my 2005 WTC 7 Cianca photo its NIST time stamp of the east penthouse first roof denting, compared to the LDEO seismic records time stamps of the WTC 7 collapse :

files.abovetopsecret.com...
















files.abovetopsecret.com...


He does a much better job than me on the Twin Towers.
I merely indicated in my 2005 WTC 7 thesis that those two towers also showed wide discrepancies in event-start times, when one compared the video and photo records of 9/11 with the LDEO seismic records.

I have re-calculated the two Twin Tower collapses from their LDEO insensitive 100 nm/s sensitivity to the same 10 nm/s sensitivity as that from the WTC 7 collapse :

100 nm/s :


Ten times more sensitive (10 nm/s instead of 100 nm/s) :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


100 nm/s :


Ten times more sensitive (10 nm/s instead of 100 nm/s) :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


As you can see clearly, they used about the same amount of explosive force to bring those three buildings down.
These original WTC 7 10 nm/s graph's starting amplitudes from LDEO are surprisingly identical to my two 10 nm/s graphs their starting amplitudes from the two Twin Tower collapses, above.




I'm really excited to have at last found a fellow 9/11 researcher's precise descriptions and calculations based on the video records of the collapse initiations of both Twin Towers, and his comparison of these with LDEO's seismic records of these two collapses.
I just hope he got his ideas off my 2005 thesis, then I indeed have not done all that work in vain.


I do not understand at all, why there seems to be such a dis-interest in my WTC 7 thesis and this well thought-out Twin Towers thesis of Graeme MacQueen.

In fact, in my opinion, our two separate thesis are by far, enough solid evidence, that the whole day of 9/11 was a set-up from the very first beginning.
Meticulously pre-planned and meticulously executed.


I advice the readers to really deep-read what Graeme wrote in this master piece.
He offers so much doubt towards NIST's reasonings, based on solid evidence accompanying his reasoning all the time; that alone should be enough to kick-start the US Congress into opening a new, independent investigation into the day of 9/11.

So, ask yourself what can be the reason that this will never happen. And then start thinking, reading and developing your own thoughts on 9/11.

Because they are only afraid of one event.
The rise of the well informed masses.

Page 38 from 72. from Graeme MacQueen's thesis :

10. NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 23, 24. The paper in question is referred to (p. 24) as:
Kim, W. X., “Analysis of Seismogram Data Recorded on September 11, 2001 during the World Trade Center, New York City Disaster, Final Technical Report to the Building and
Fire Research Laboratory,” Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, January 31, 2005.

I assumed the author of the report was LDEO’s Won-Young Kim so I wrote to Dr. Kim, asking him if I could have a copy of the report. He replied that he did not have a copy but suggested I ask NIST for one. NIST has not responded to my query.

This is of course ridiculous behavior for any scientist ! And especially from NIST.
You get a grant from NIST to write a sequel of your 12/11/2001 publication, and you do not keep copies for yourself ?
That can only mean one thing :
"They" forbid you under oath to keep, publish or disclose that research result, Mr Won-Young !

That paper should be the main investigation for a FOIA request.
It is long overdue, I asked for it in 2006 already, after NIST took it off their websites, after they became aware of my writings at the now defunct Study Of 911 website from Thichheaded (still a member of this forum). Bsbray10, wecomeinpeace and LaBTop were then, in 2005/6 some of the main writers at that forum.
I still have a lot of pages saved from there, and the WayBackMachine will hopefully have some of it saved still too.

But a lot of effort has gone into deleting these kind of defunct pages from the Internet history. It's always a great sign that you were onto something really annoying for the perpetra(i)tors, when your musings are deleted even from this kind of repositories.

Page 40 of 72 :

18. As of the writing of this article the Firefighter video can be found on the Studyof911.com website:
www.studyof911.com...

There are two main versions of this video available, both found on this website. One has a clearer picture, and it is this one I have used for establishing DTE and taking images and measurements. (But see also the next note.)

This video is said to have been “filmed from West Street between 1 World Financial Center and the Banker's Trust Building.” I have tentatively adopted this estimate, although I do not know the date and author of the article in which this estimate is made (“Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center - Twin Tower Collapses”).

Currently, the article can be found at:
www.mediumrecords.com...

19. The version of the Firefighter video with the poorer quality image has a superior soundtrack. By this I mean that this soundtrack fits much better than the other one with witness reports of the sounds of the collapse. I accept this soundtrack as the more authentic of the two.

These references of Graeme MacQueen indicate that he indeed read the Studyof911.com website.

At that, already years defunct, site's pages I posted my full thesis of the real manner the WTC 7 collapse had to be interpreted, according to my find of the time stamped Nicolas Cianca photograph of the first visual sign that the roof of the east penthouse began to dent.
And then implementing that time stamp to the LDEO timestamps on their WTC 7 collapse seismogram.

Graeme, you did an excellent job on the WTC 2 and 1 collapse timestamps by comparing the seismic and video/photo repositories to each other.

If you feel the need, I would really like to see you to use my work on WTC 7's collapse, in the same, meticulous manner as you showed us with your work on WTC 2 and 1 collapses.
You may use without any restrictions all of my posted work at Studyof911.com and here at ATS to construe YOUR thesis for the WTC 7 collapse in the same excellent manner as you showed us for the Twin Towers.

Because I have the impression that I did not manage to perform a clear and logical job on my thesis, it can be written and explained much better using your style.
The whole WTC 7 collapse seismogram can be explained to the readers much better by you, I am sure.

I am getting much too old to spend any more energy on it, I have the feeling I will not succeed in explaining it even more logically, while I am convinced you will do a much better job than I did.
It will be an excellent addition to your WTC masterpiece.
And will at last complement it, to explain all three collapses the way it really needs to be done, not the NIST way..
Thanks, in advance.

reply to post by LaBTop


Nice thread. S&F for effort.

The only problem i have with the approach, as fascinating and detail oriented as it may be, although the correlation and synchronization between the video record and the seismic record may constitute probative value in support of the CD hypothesis &/or the negation of the "gravity or pancake collapse" theory, is that it's not necessary to prove what type of explosives or method was used to prove, in incontrovertible and unequivocal terms that the buildings could only have come down (exploded is a better term) the way they did, in the recorded time that they did so, that indeed explosives were used, with the high precision engineered CD initiating at around the impact areas of each building to create a suspension of disbelief as to the causal mechanism (plane impacts and fires).

In terms of the CD/pancaking collapse hypotheses, there are already about 20 nails, or more, in the coffin of the official story theory/hypothesis.

By overdoing it, as with the work of Jeff Prager and Judy Wood ie: mini nukes and DEW, we're then engaged in a process that i call "feeding the honey pot" where the honey pot could be consider what would otherwise be in the realm of the "impossible" outside the OS narrative, into and out of which would emerge (by the anticipation of the operation itself) "conspiracy theories" even though the OS is at heart also a conspiracy theory, just the "official one" which includes the hijackers scenario, compliments of patsy hijackers from Saudi Arabia (even though half the people or more at one time thought they must have come from Iraq as directed by Saddam Hussein), representing what amounts to a type of hijacking of Occam's Razor as the simplest and apparently the most consistent explanatory hypothesis capable of encompassing all apparent and available information and phenomenon.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately, the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Here's an example

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:

“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

In every case where what might seem to be "impossible", if the official story is not immediately and thereafter in the words of Philip Zelikow "transcedantly" adopted (as a legacy or a public myth), as the public's exclusively held view (for the most part) towards it's immediate past and as that view is shared with the "relevant political community" - could be considered a "honey pot" if not designed to capture and emit incredible or "outrageous conspiracy theories" (Bush, at the United Nations), to allow for them as a possibility in the design of the operation itself.

Planes flew too fast for commercial airliners, pilots could not have piloted them successfully to their targets, buildings erupting and exploding (from around the impact areas) in mid air amid the nearly complete pulverization of all building material including the buildings content of office furniture, computers, printers, and human beings - rendered as a whole within the context of the OS narrative, doesn't matter, doesn't even matter if it adheres to the laws of physics, plainly. All it relies upon is knee-jerk human perception, and the standard reaction/response, one that we all had, almost to a one, taking it's "unimaginable" (Zelikow, pre-9/11, about the twin towers as the source of a catatrophic, catalyzing "Pearl Harbor" type event) horror at face value to the effect of - planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked!

Hear me out on this idea, involving the nature of "the honey pot" and the psy-op itself, and what many people, seemingly yourself included have dedicated much of their lives to as far as researching the event (and there's a LOT there to investigate and analyze) and then sharing their research with others.

First of all, the entire EVENT, rendered in it's entirety is of itself a "honey pot" but only if the official story is untrue, then it's considered to be "what happened".

As a designed operation, otoh, and as a global psy-op, it's the mother of honey pots in so far as it traps the mind and heart of the observer by it's narrative, so what's designed to "stick" to the OS narrative in the mind of it's observers or experiencers is "what happened" and everything outside of that get's stuck in the honey pot of the domain of "conspiracy theories" which by their nature, according to years of hammering away at this one by the MSM - must be considered CRAZY, and unbelievable, or not credible where the person labelled a "conspiracy theorist" is well a nutjob, someone holed up somewhere with paranoid delusions the likes of Ted Kazinsky the Unibomer.

However, in terms of observation and perceptual awareness, not who were not so "stung" by the trap that they fell into by totally believing and accepting the official story as "what happened", it's only the slightest shift or movement in perception and understanding, recognition and awareness to actually SEE the overall honey pot for what it really is and represents.

In other words the events of 9/11 can be very easily seen under the lens of simple observational awareness as the REAL honey pot that it is and represents as a global psy-op, provided that the alternative explanatory hypothesis is credible, and believable.

I think this very aspect might be able to explain the apparent obsession and for some a type of insanity in regards to their 9/11 research, and sharing whereby instead of simply presenting the simplest and most straightforward proof and evidence in this case that the buildings could only have been destroyed by explosives, they are compelled to try to get their signature on some particular aspect within the context of the overall movement of this info where their curiosity has compelled them to go to the ends of the earth to try to understand, with the utmost precision precisely what took place without realizing that they are in the honey pot itself, feeding it, and feeding information out of it for the consummation of the public and even on a longer term basis, the historical record itself, not matter what CNN and Wikepedia says about it.

With that said - do you honestly think that the best approach, instead of revealing the overall 9/11 honey pot as rendered by the operation itself and bringing about a sudden epiphany and paradigm shift in the awareness of those with whom you are sharing the information and knowledge, is to go completely overboard and then dish out of the domain of what is already impossible, in the context of the OS..

...Mini Nukes, DEWs, no planes, holograms, pentagon flyovers (with adaptive camouflage - hey a Boeing WAS there and yet did NOT hit the Pentagon wall..), no plane wreckage at Shanksville, but only a burning plane shaped mark or hole in the ground. Honey pots, some of which are not true and completely unnecessary as an explanatory hypothesis, some of which might even be true (Boeing 757 didn't hit Pentagon wall), cell phone calls could not be made from altitude at high speed, although that's an interesting one, because it goes to the OS narrative itself, directly, which then tried to alter itself to hide that element because it really isn't possible when the record is taken as a whole.

Judy Wood may be brilliant, maybe, but she's also too vain (perhaps not being the most beautiful woman, as a compensation) to see what she's doing in feeding the honey pot of "9/11 conspiracy theories", as is Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear, among others.

Jeff Prager might be brilliant, and probably is, and it's awefully hard to explain pulverization or dustification as well as the super high and longgggg term sustained temps in the pit of destruction by means of purely conventional explosives involved in CD, but..

..is that the kind of thing that we want to be leading with and then thinking that we are at the bleading edge of 9/11 research, when all we need to do is to bring the true nature of the REAL honey pot to light, which is the one they gave us, the one that cannot be believed on the face of it.

Sorry for rambling but this idea is rather hard to "get" at first, I guess i'll have to create a thread about it, but it sure won't be here at ATS I can tell you that right now. You don't describe the honey pot to another honey pot, or the amount of ridicule will exceed the capacity to maintain a decorum of Civility.

It would be like trying to tell Judy Wood that's she's into researching and talking about DEW at the WTC, just to look pretty, she wouldn't understand, or like trying to tell Jim Fetzer that without the Zapruder Film we wouldn't know that the CIA blew JFK's head off, from the front and may therefore be considered authentic, or John Lear that a highly modified military variant with higher powered engines can really fly at 510 knots near Sea Level, but he surely knows that already and is therefore feeding the honey pot intentionally, as is Morgan Reynolds probably as well, friend of Judy Woods...

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


-- The only problem i have with the approach, -snip- is that it's not necessary to prove what type of explosives or method was used --

My introduction of the thermobaric weapon subject, was in reaction of the constant hammering by opponents out of the OS camp, on the "HOW" question.
I have researched long and hard into all standard demolition techniques, and as the video material shows, the manner of 911 destruction was certainly not standard, especially not the "petal flowering effect".

The only method fitting ALL recorded effects was the use of thermobaric charges, be it cutting TB-charges to cut columns at specific intervals, or "blooming" TB-charges, meant to "pump up" whole floor spaces at once.
TB's do not leave traces behind for investigators, it's all instant gaseous expansion (20,000+ meters per second velocity) which leaves nothing behind at ground debris levels. Standard HE, high explosives have a max velocity of about 9,000 m/s max.

-- In terms of the CD/pancaking collapse hypotheses, there are already about 20 nails, or more, in the coffin of the official story theory/hypothesis. --

One of the first NIST reports already firmly abandoned the FEMA and 911 Commission their pancake theories.

-- By overdoing it, as with the work of Jeff Prager and Judy Wood ie: mini nukes and DEW, we're then engaged in a process that i call "feeding the honey pot" where the honey pot could be considered what would otherwise be in the realm of the "impossible" outside the OS narrative, --

Jeff Prager's work is impressive, but he has not payed attention to the VERY small amount of radiation material (grams) needed to explain his USGS readings conclusion. He introduced his conclusions as if there was enough material found in the USGS analysis to explain his mini nuke thesis, which is not true, there is a minimum threshold of fissionable material needed to construct a working mini nuke, which is not reached by far by the real quantity of fissionable material found in those USGS dust analyses. It is however explainable by any kind of medical materials in the building and on persons, or /and the emergency lighting systems.
Mrs Wood, I refrain from further comments, I made enough of them already.

Your identification of the whole event of 911 also as a honey-pot in itself, is not realistic.
It's only the introduction, one by one, of the seemingly insane thesis that got their extended life periods by inviting their proponents to certain "911 Truth" conventions over a span of several years, until their momentum was lost, and the invitees were not valuable enough anymore to extend the life of those faulty reasonings anymore, for influential operatives of those honey-pots.
And of course after enough convincing arguments were posted by enough disbelievers of those honey-pots, from BOTH sides of the OS fence.

-- Planes flew too fast for commercial airliners, pilots could not have piloted them successfully to their targets --

The few seconds periods the planes exceeded their advised flight conditions were too small to cause so much damage that they halted to function properly. Whether the planes flew remotely steered, or actual pilots were steering them, is still an open question in my mind, while I am leaning to the remote software-utilized side of the equation. Those maneuvers were too smooth.

-- First of all, the entire EVENT, rendered in it's entirety is of itself a "honey pot" but only if the official story is untrue, then it's considered to be "what happened". --

-- In other words the events of 9/11 can be very easily seen under the lens of simple observational awareness as the REAL honey pot that it is and represents as a global psy-op, provided that the alternative explanatory hypothesis is credible, and believable. --

These are both contradictorily statements. Please explain better.

-- instead of simply presenting the simplest and most straightforward proof and evidence in this case that the buildings could only have been destroyed by explosives --


I thought I did a good job of exactly doing that, so the rest of your sentences, well, you have lost me on that.

-- is to go completely overboard and then dish out of the domain of what is already impossible, in the context of the OS.. --

I introduced the leftover candidates, the pro and contra arguments regarding the events of 911. And try to get a consensus which arguments were now to be excluded as unbelievable. There are not many left at this time.
Mini Nukes, DEWs, no planes, holograms, pentagon flyover are unbelievable.
Video fakery by main stream media is still on the table, but only for a consistent period of 13 seconds or so, for every official video. Time to let software sift out unwanted material, such as explosion sounds.
Thermobaric charges, or Thermite charges are the best explanations for what happened, eventually all combined with HE cutter charges.


-- it's awfully hard to explain pulverization or dustification as well as the super high and longgggg term sustained temps in the pit of destruction by means of purely conventional explosives involved in CD --

I don't think so, ANYMORE ! When you have witnessed the methods of making carbonized wood for wood stoves in Asia and Africa, like me, you do understand that immensely compressed, 100th of floor material into 9 cellars of WTC buildings, composed of all imaginable ignitable materials form the ideal pit alike a carbonizing pit in the jungles of Asia and Africa.
With just enough oxygen addition from the broken Pathway train tunnels underneath those buildings, and other surface to bottom pathways inside the compressed rubble heaps, to explain as the ONLY logical manner of slow combustion, those long lasting underground fires.

-- ..is that the kind of thing that we want to be leading with and then thinking that we are at the bleeding edge of 9/11 research, when all we need to do is to bring the true nature of the REAL honey pot to light, which is the one they gave us, the one that cannot be believed on the face of it. --

Ehh, you forgot to mention the true nature of the real honey pot.
If you simply mean the whole 911 event, I believe only what I saw with my own eyes, NOT the EXPLANATION by the officials.
And I think that goes for all my fellow 91 researchers, and that's what we are OBLIGED to keep doing, exposing the OFFICIAL LIES by offering sound evidence of the real manner it all happened.

-- You don't describe the honey pot to another honey pot, or the amount of ridicule will exceed the capacity to maintain a decorum of Civility. --

I can follow that kind of reasoning, but you forget one important thing.
Even if ATS were a honey-pot by nature, I don't care, since I can control by external statistical means, that hundreds of thousands of people all over the globe DO READ these forums. And then, the whole goal of an intentional honey-pot would be nullified.
I think you are gliding off into a dark pit of paranoia. "THEY" cannot control EVERYTHING, by far YET.

-- It would be like trying to tell -snip- John Lear that a highly modified military variant with higher powered engines can really fly at 510 knots near Sea Level, --

A commercial pilot (he wrote being such) very recently explained in this or the other conspiracy forum, why a commercial airliner CAN fly in dense air at ground level. I'll try to find his post, or perhaps he jumps in here to explain it further.

As I said above, it can be done in a time frame of about 10 seconds at maximum attainable airspeed, however strong fluttering will occur and will cause the plane to quickly fall apart, if maintained for a longer period.
There was evidence in the last seconds of the FDR's available, of this kind of fluttering of extended plane pieces. But only when flying in a STRAIGHT line of flight at that maximum throttle and speed. The moment when a plane starts to turn, it will literally explode at that speed at that height in that dense air.
In a straight line however, it can maintain a lot longer the consistency of its airframe.

Best Regards, LT/.

NAM, I agree wholeheartedly, "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" made by Massimo Mazzucco, a professional film maker and member of www.luogocomune.net , is BY FAR the best ever made 911 documentary, comparing truthers' and debunkers/skeptics' viewpoints, and countering any mistakes :

www.youtube.com...


Just view the other two parts after you completed this first part.
This film is also the most up to date version of 911 truth, regarding the latests finds of all researchers combined.

I only miss a few of my evidences from the huge list I compiled from mine and from multiple others found evidences. Who knows, will they be included in a sequel perhaps?

I will view it a third time now, and will try to record eventual mistakes I find in it, so they can be corrected, if there are any to be found.

NAM, I read your post in that page 11 you refer to in your 911 Pearl Harbor film signature bottom link. Good thinking. Good explanation.

I wondered thereafter, why nobody even took the time to let spooky24's posts in that same page, sink in.
It shows a special kind of extensive interest in many totally different subjects, with a deep understanding of how society nowadays works.
His/her English language typos are about as much as mine, so do not judge her/him on that alone, she/he deserves much more attention than given now.

To me, it's refreshing thinking, worth a star for nearly every post (gave GoodOlDave a star too, for his post on group-thinking)

I know, I am a true 911-historian, while I think she/he is the opposite for a great part. That does not make us enemies.


This I REALLY need to say :

Many of our OS believer opponents handed us undeniable evidence that the for so many years repeatedly parroted "carved in stone facts" were not factual at all.

And since I started to admit they were right about those specific subjects, based on logic and real facts, my "groupies" have left me in hordes.
Other well known ATS 911 researchers have seen exactly the same happening to them.
This herd-behavior should be a stiff warning for all involved :

You must learn to let honesty in your quest for 911-true-history, overcome group-thinking.

Our opposition should take that advice also at heart.
It will add a refreshing new debating style in this forum, and hopefully also spread to all other forums.

Let's start a better, friendlier debating style, from all involved.
The snarly, offensive and plain insulting should at last end, let RESPECT be the norm from now on.

Regards to everyone, LT/
[

reply to post by LaBTop


Hi LaBTop,

thanks for your replies.

Re: South tower plane - see my thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was 90 knots over it flight envelop Vd, and 150 knots over it's Vmo, for a sustained period of well over a minute during the remainder of it's dive, reaching up to 520 knots (Vd is 420 KCAS) - then, after leveling out for it's final approach it accelerated to retain it's near sea level airspeed, in sea level air density, of 510 knots through to impact.

You were mistaken about it exceeding it's max operating speed Vmo or if you knew, the Vd design dive limit for only 10 seconds, that's false and not historically accurate.

During it's final turn to hit the building through multiple floors and angled slightly through the corner of the building - it reached 2.5-3 G's, again at 90 knots beyond Vd, after having accelerated during level flight near sea level.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I just re-read my Watergate thread's last 4 pages, where Proud Bird, an experienced B757 pilot, tutored me on bank angles and airspeed, so yes, I stand corrected on my 10 seconds max remark. I simply forgot that conversation, unforgivable.

He really added a lot of pilot experience to that discussion.
I really regret to see him seemingly banned, he acted as a genuine gentleman (~ beside his name now).

NewAgeMan
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Hi LaBTop,

thanks for your replies.

Re: South tower plane - see my thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was 90 knots over it flight envelop Vd, and 150 knots over it's Vmo, for a sustained period of well over a minute during the remainder of it's dive, reaching up to 520 knots (Vd is 420 KCAS) - then, after leveling out for it's final approach it accelerated to retain it's near sea level airspeed, in sea level air density, of 510 knots through to impact.

You were mistaken about it exceeding it's max operating speed Vmo or if you knew, the Vd design dive limit for only 10 seconds, that's false and not historically accurate.

During it's final turn to hit the building through multiple floors and angled slightly through the corner of the building - it reached 2.5-3 G's, again at 90 knots beyond Vd, after having accelerated during level flight near sea level.

You should have asked yourself one important question : was the autopilot engaged?


You should ask yourself another, more important question about AA77 :

Is it possible at all, to pull off such a flight maneuver at those speeds so smoothly, WITHOUT AUTOPILOT ASSIST !

Watch in the NTSB animation, the 3 AP's, they were disengaged far before that plane entered that huge smooth full turn circle !
In fact, the left A/P was switched off at 1:13:14 / 1:30:00 , and NONE of the three A/P's were ever switched on again untill impact.


www.youtube.com...


Any real pilot will tell you it is IMPOSSIBLE to pull off that stunt without setting the AP.

Every single one of pilots with thousands of flight hours in those planes ended up in a Dutch-roll when trying to perform that same stunt, MANUALLY, at exactly the same speeds in the full turn (from 290 to 270 to 280 to at last 300 KTS) in a 757 flight simulator.

NAM ! :

Back to my "about 10 seconds" remark regarding fluttering etc.
Did you notice that those speeds near the Pentagon in the last few seconds ONLY, ARE the speeds at which catastrophic airframe failure, or loss of flight stability, become imminent and are to be expected by a human planner/plotter of the black-op 911?

Vno = 360 kts for a Boeing 767-200ER (WTC planes) Offered by NAM, based on ?
Vno 460 to 490 for a Boeing 767-200ER (WTC planes) Offered by Bill "Overlord", based on a (take notice) Japanese computer flight simulator chart found at its PDF page 5.
Vno ? for a Boeing 757 (Pentagon plane)

Which human anticipation is not a FACT, but again, a strong additional indication that 911 was a black operation.
But no more than that, however, ONLY if seen as just one single observation!
All these kind of observations nowadays pile up to such an impressive heap, that you can't ignore it anymore, be you a debunker, neutral or truth-seeker reader.

And that is what seemed to have happened in your thread about the impossibility of certain planes to fly beyond a certain speed.
The readers got fed up with the repetition of details, and became irritated.
Which lead to opposition, which certainly wasn't what you expected in the first place.

I realize already for years, that I have met the same reaction from "my brothers in arms" here in this forum and at this site and other sites.
Probably caused by the PLANNED indoctrination per mainstream media, that inevitably resulted in a public with no patience.

Make your point by linking to the one post you deem the most important, and really interested readers will pick up that post, and thereafter will read the whole thread.

Have faith in your BROTHERS.

I tried to help you understand just how useless page after page of this same old stuff that hasn't changed much in the last 12 years is. I'll make one more attempt.

You are charging someone(in all those pages I have yet be blessed with who) with a capital crime. The American judicial system requires proof that-there is enough evidence to allow those charges-Grand Jury-and that the evidence is made available for a defense of the charges=discovery.

A grand jury is composed of citizens and an appointed chairperson. The arresting officer, or his or her representative, must convince the panel that they have enough evidence to warrant an indictment.

However that evidence presented is extremely limited. Only facts that can be presented in a verbal account are allowed. Opinion in any way, shape or form are not allowed. All you can present is what someone saw-or what someone heard-their opinion about what they saw or heard is not allowed. Nor are utube video, graphs, conjecture, supposition, critical opinion, examinations(they are considered opinion) or any thing else that is debatable. You can not debate to a grand jury.

Now that I have established the protocol I can tell you that in the 23 pages posted in this seemingly endless duplication of the same thing in this thread I can't find one single thing that could be presented before a Grand Jury-nothing absolutely nothing.

You see that takes real evidence-like a receipt for the purchase of explosives-an eye witness that saw the explosives planted-residue evidence of explosive-FOUND IN THE CRIME SCENE-that can be presented at discovery. Phone calls of persons discussing the conspiracy- testimony from informants about what they witnessed-medical evidence of explosive wounds on persons-plans of the towers and places to plant explosives-real things not opinion.

You say over and over that you have absolute evidence that explosives brought down the towers. The thing is the American system of Justice thankfully could care less about your opinion.

You can keep rehashing this same dribble over and over until hell freezes over-but no one is ever going to care because you just don't understand the law and how it is applied in America.

reply to post by LaBTop

LaBTop
NAM ! :

Back to my "about 10 seconds" remark regarding fluttering etc.
Did you notice that those speeds near the Pentagon in the last few seconds ONLY, ARE the speeds at which catastrophic airframe failure, or loss of flight stability, become imminent and are to be expected by a human planner/plotter of the black-op 911?

Vno = 360 kts for a Boeing 767-200ER (WTC planes) Offered by NAM, based on ?
Vno 460 to 490 for a Boeing 767-200ER (WTC planes) Offered by Bill "Overlord", based on a (take notice) Japanese computer flight simulator chart found at its PDF page 5.
Vno ? for a Boeing 757 (Pentagon plane)

See my reply to you here for the relevant data.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no Vno on a Boeing commercial airliner, which was swapped years ago for Vmo/Mmo (low vs. high altitude) whereby 360 knots/.86M is the max operating speed, the .86mach part of the split, for an floor altitude of 23,000 ft where the air is much thinner than near sea level.

The figure offered by S.O. from the "Flying Tigers" MS2000 flight sim manual, which was given as a source to somehow trump the TCDS or the FAA Type Certification Data Sheet containing the Vd/Md flight envelope limitation of 420KCAS/.91M from Boeing established first by wind tunnel and then flight flutter testing, gave a false impression, because not only was it a reference NOT the Vno or Vmo/Mmo, but a reference to the max cruising speed for an altitude of about 35,000 ft.

It wasn't that people got fed up, but that they simply could not accept the data as presented, which was entirely valid and most certainly was not a hoax of any kind.

As far as what you're referencing, it's the Vmo of 360 knots, which is the beginning of the outer flight envelope, which terminates at Vd of 420 knots.

Flight control at that speed, for a G-force turn, as you've pointed out is next to impossible.

As far as i know, it would not be in the least possible for an AP (autopilot) to navigate a maneuver like that, which also applies to the south tower plane - proving that whoever was controlling the plane, whether on board or remotely, was hand flying the plane during it's final approach and maneuvering to target.

Regards,

NAM