| | |
|
1Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971 M.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969 2Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992 23 August 2006, version 1.0 (This article has been "peer-reviewed.") Nothing doth more hurt in a state than TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Overview III. WTC Demolition IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum VI. The Pentagon VII. No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence XI. Conclusion Abstract-Foreword Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed. Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," but his work in muon-catalyzed fusion did not seem to produce any significant energy and hence proved a dead end, in contrast to the promising electrochemically-induced process.
Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office. Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization? Scholars for 9/11 Truth?and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side." Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign. The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research. Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government’s lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives. Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research. More importantly,
Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air.
Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams.
Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would be inconsequential. Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential. On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NBB, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT. The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."
Figure 4(a): Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.
Figure 4(b): Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.
Figure 4(d): Front half of a car burned with an unburned rear half.
Figure 4(f): What was this object across the street? What caused that line of burn marks on the hood of the car in the foreground? The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet Jones treats them implicitly as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially destroyed WTC 7 from the bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1 and 2 were primarily top-down, virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by a combination of conventional and unconventional devices. Jones points to conventional demolitions which leave clean-up crews with only short piles of rubble and remarks, "As observed for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2?the Twin Towers?on 9-11-01" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 16].", as if all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The perpetrators could not order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly take down one-quarter-mile tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres of interior space.
Figure 5(a): Failed demolition in South Dakota. (mov) (wmv)
Figure 5(b): Demolition gone bad: the leaning tower of South Dakota fails to collapse any further. (mov) (wmv)
Figure 5(c): Demolition starts bad: the top 300 feet of WTC 2 tilted as much as 23° before beingblown to kingdom come.
Figure 5(e): WTC 1 smoke obscures WTC 2 demolition. The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so little rubble. "It simply did not seem possible that two of the world’s tallest buildings had all but disappeared…In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building, containing nearly 10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a tangled, smoking, burning heap less than 200 feet thick."
Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small.
Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background look full height.
Figure 6(c) Where did the quarter-mile-high buildings go?
Figure 6(d) Video of WTC2's demise
Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was. Little of the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are gone. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings.
Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan suggests how much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if the government’s gravitational collapse story were true.
Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan. Note there is no dust in the air, validated by the clarity of the shadows.
Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada.
Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar.
Figure 7(c): The cauliflower top looks familiar here, too. (Mount Saint Helens) "[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the building’s sides fall inward," Jones writes, "…all of the rubble collects at the center of the building"[pdf (7/19/06) p. 19].". Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200’x200’x10.2’ high. If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block at each tower base 200’x200’x56.1’ high. Together they would total 66.3 feet tall of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris. This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200 elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems, a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc. Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer: Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not just by 19 hijackers? A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities…" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government’s unproven story without independent proof. If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard for government liars? Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos. In downgrading the importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006,"…there are stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on the time-of-fall of the Towers. We're still working on those calculations…stronger arguments are growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition than near-free-fall speed.
Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110 floors can only hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before upper floors reach them. For more, see the billiard ball example.
Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark explosions shoot up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white explosions the building has vanished while the lower part awaits termination. Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the question. Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with the WTC study by the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 14(b) and (c)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence of photoshopping? NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly doubt it because
Figure 10(a):NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted…" NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data to scientists.
Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used splicedvideotapes without identifying they were tampered with. We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis. Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory demonstrations in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues,
Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it. Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.
Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. [source]
Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C?
(a) Water at -10 to 0°C (b) Some liquid at 25°C Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature) Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a). Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures.
Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C Figure 13(d):Aluminum at ~1000°C Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C
Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr).
Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher. Thermite plays a major role in Jones’ work on the demolitions. He concludes that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its use in WTC demolitions based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11 activist Michael Berger plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of molten white-hot iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that clean up crews at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing with thermite. (wmv) (YouTube)
Figure 14(a), (b), (c): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground Zero clean up. What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others might conduct experiments to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can happen. "Such molten-metal pools never before seen…with controlled demolitions which did not use thermite, nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances," writes Jones, "Huge quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite was used to bring the buildings down" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 62]." but if proven wrong, there is little or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead to slim breakfasts down the road. Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and control the necessary thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower. Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220 floors, each with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these scenarios some thought. Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 77].". Perhaps he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and undoubtedly involved steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower structure, but the cutters were not necessarily thermite. Without proof, thermite advocates put themselves out on a limb. Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see 911eyewitness) like these: 1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns). 2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below). 3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.
Figure 15: Steel beams turn to steel dust.
Figure 16: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source.
Figure17(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. (gif) (mov) (avi) (gif)
Figure 18(a): Large sections of outer wall to the left and somewhat hidden to the right blow off the tower.
Figure 18(b): What scooped out the middle portion of the building across the street from WTC2?
Figure 19: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no expected tapering off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. Source: [911eyewitness]
7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water and huge rainstorms. 8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest something odd occurred. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up. 9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York. 10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 11. Some rescue workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins. 12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.
Figure 20(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient of a hose job.
Figure 20(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in advance?) and lots of scrubbing.
Figure 20(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it.
14. 200,000 gallon sprinkler and water supply systems were in WTC1 and WTC2, but there was no water in the ruins. 15. Many cars and trucks exploded around the WTC and caused burned out wrecks that were not hit by debris. A group of police cars on the FDR Drive had parts roasted. EM pulses may have caused electrical components to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site (see Figure 4 above). These data should excite scientific curiosity. Citing a photo of a mushroom cloud atop a tower [pdf (8/15/06) p. 18]. Jones calls it "evidence for use of explosives, like RDX, HMX, or Superthermite (nanoaluminum powder)." Massive mushrooms tops do not erupt from a building imploding from RDX. The towers were not imploded. They were exploded. They were blown to kingdom come. Normally, people look at "what" happened and then try to figure "why" or "how" it happened. There is no good reason to stick to the familiar or conventional in the belief that the perpetrators would not kill citizens with exotic devices. The stone-cold killers would use whatever was in the arsenal and would do the job best, including simplifying the cover story. Jones asks a question related to high-energy-release phenomena: "Could mini-nukes have been used on the Towers?" He explains, "Hypothesis was raised by someone (not me) [so] we do experiments to find out! (Scientific method)" [pdf (8/15/06) p. 149]. We wonder what experiments Jones did with mini-nukes on the BYU campus. Experimental method aside, it is not scientific to bypass data and set off to disprove a circumscribed hypothesis proposed by somebody (a "bad" person?). Jones claims he tested a metal slag (origin unknown) for radioactivity (what kind? what instruments?) and found nothing above background levels. Residents of New York City reportedly detected abnormal radiation on hand-held Geiger counters at the WTC site, though we cannot vouch for the veracity of these reports. While we too doubt a fission bomb was used, Jones’ assertions play no role in our assessment. Tritium would be a telltale sign that an extraordinary device was employed on the Twin Towers. Jones says he tested an air sample (origin and preservation technique unknown) and found only traces of tritium. Until independent researchers test verified samples, there is nothing here but Jones’ word and we leave it to you to decide its value. Jones takes a victory lap ("Mission Accomplished") by saying, "So the evidence is strongly against the ‘mini-nuke’ idea, which no longer be promoted [sic] unless and until the above compelling evidences [sic] can be successfully overturned" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 150]." A promising hypothesis derives from the super fine particles found by Dr. Cahill, so small that they would normally occur only if metals were heated to the boiling point, e.g., approximately 2,750° C for steel, that is, steel vaporized and re-condensed as particles. Since such temperatures were not reached, the process would be something that could extract or neutralize the bond energy of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily involves secret technology, so it is not a proven but possible explanation for the data. We encourage Professor Jones to investigate. Jones did no research that we know of on the Pentagon incident. Most 9/11 skeptics believe no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon because the gash was too small, no plane marks left on the building (airliner silhouettes of passage at the Twin Towers, not at the Pentagon even though concrete is brittle and more likely to shatter and show a plane’s imprint), no verified debris, no bodies, no blood, it is physically impossible to land a 757 at a speed of 500+ mph because of the downwash sheet, etc.
Figure 21(a): A small hole in the wall, no plane silhouette and no wreckage.If the Boeing does not fit, you must quit (the plane story).
Figure 21(c): An airliner would have to hop over the unburned cable spools before hitting the ground floor. "The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has NOT reached a consensus among the Scholars group" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 157].", says Jones. The word NOT suggests that people should suspend judgment. Maybe a big Boeing magically shrunk itself and disappeared inside the Pentagon. Voting machines, surveys and Steven E. Jones’ subjective guesses aside, facts are not determined by polls. "Several of the Scholars group argue…perhaps a B737 rather than a B757 (AA flight 77)" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 159]." went into the Pentagon," Jones persists, offering zero scientific evidence for this hunch. If the hoax of a Boeing at the Pentagon is unproven, nothing about the 9/11 hoax has been proven. "We also seek answers as to why there were no air defenses to stop the incoming jet!" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 160].". With no proof of an incoming jet, Jones assumes OGCT. Jones and the scholars should hunt the Boeing. At the heart of the 9/11 fiction, we were told that, using only boxcutters, Arabs hijacked four airliners and crashed them in designated locations? Jones sees no real problems with this story. He is hostile to the "no big boeing theory" (NBB), the theory that no Boeing 767 airliners went into either WTC tower, and no Boeing 757 airliners went into the Pentagon or the Shanksville covered strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other air vehicles flying about, including unmanned (UAV’s), or even smaller planes. Jones’ motivation is unclear, but he applies no physics to the events and fails to study the physical evidence associated with the alleged crashes. An objective scientist, for example, would review data like this silhouette of passage in WTC 1:
Figure 22(a): Silhouette of passage by invincible Boeing 767?
Figure 22(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible RoadRunner. Hmmmmmm!? No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no verified debris was knocked to the ground below the impact wall. Consider the conspicuous right wing tip mark. If the Roadrunner can fly through an Acme steel plate, a Boeing can too, right? The aluminum airliner nose crashed into the steel wall and five steel/concrete floors, remaining intact. The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower. In truth, with no direct resistance from the building and powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum would tear the wings from each suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively "sawing" through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum façade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible Americans and most American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven E. Jones in embracing the WTC airplane fiction.
Figure 23: A C-130, about half the weight of a Boeing 767, hit this 10-story apartment building at approximately the 8th floor in Tehran last December and crumpled outside, throwing debris around and spilling burning jet fuel over the impact wall and inside the building.
Figure 24: Three-pound bird goes mano a mano with aluminum plane and does heavy damage. [source] The incurious Jones passes up a treasure trove of data which defy logic and laws of physics:
"Can anyone prove that al Qaeda acted ALONE?" writes Jones, "I have not seen any such proof" (p. 124). The Government never attempted to prove its OBL fiction because it could not. OGCT is the most audacious fraud of all in a history littered with frauds like Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Kuwait baby incubator hoax, Niger yellow cake and Saddam Hussein’s WMD. Rather than research, Jones assumes premises not in evidence. He has the same amount of proof that al Qaeda conducted 9/11 as he has that No one can prove a lie, not even Steven Jones, hence government cannot prove OGCT.
Saddam Hussein did it. "Did a faction in the government know about the hijackers’ pending attacks beforehand?" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 124]." Jones asks. The professor is clueless or a disinformation agent. He refers to pre-9/11 intelligence warnings that are disinformation, thereby echoing the blood libel that 9/11 was done by Arab hijackers. Jones defends the 9/11 Commission’s conventional air defense "breakdown" story. It is nonsense to make such statements backing the OGCT without looking at or conducting scientific research on these issues. When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars’ (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted? In NFL broadcasts, the first-and-ten line is inserted in real time, as are billboards at NBA and MLB games, even customized by region. At the Winter Olympics, TV trickery inserted the flag of each speed skater’s nation under the ice and then switched it in real time as the skaters switched lanes. Truly remarkable. Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11. If so, then the videos are fake. But he answers, "many, many witnesses." Even if we granted many, many for the sake of argument, so what? One day in the past, many, many witnesses saw the earth was flat and five years ago many, many saw the psy-op on TV, including those who allegedly saw an airliner hit a tower from the street below or a skyscraper. Jones lays it on extra thick about eyewitnesses because once the videos are exposed for the fakery they are, that is what he and the government have left as proof. To sketch in a refutation of eyewitness accounts, first, most people in the "canyons" of lower Manhattan could not see a plane if it smacked into a tower at 500+ mph, and many said so. A plane at 500 mph would cover a 60’-wide street and its sidewalks within a tenth of second. Second, many witnesses heard no jet and most of the video sound tracks record no jet liner booming at incredibly high speed and low altitude. South tower penetration is silent in videos. Third, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and fungible.[archived version] Fourth, people lie (the perps hired actors, along with a script for complicit media). Fifth, physical evidence ranks number one with prosecutors and scientists while eyewitness testimony ranks lower, certainly no higher than second. A physics professor should exhibit more interest in physical evidence than hearsay inadmissible in court.
Figure 25(a): Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not on a street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter.
Figure 25(c): Landing gear on a dust-free street corner near shiny new scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman pillar visible. The tire and brakes look different too. Note the failure surface of the shaft. It's sharp, not appearing to have bounced around on the pavement. It also appears to be a torsion failure. How can an explosion cause that?
Figure 25(e): This piece also has an affinity for canopy-covered scaffolding. Scrutiny of alleged eyewitness testimony, however, may not be entirely worthless. As far as we can tell, there is a dearth of testimony from disinterested witnesses affirming airliner flights into the WTC towers. Consider the first plane that allegedly flew into the North Tower: many thousands of people in Central Park plus northbound drivers, passengers and pedestrians along First, Second and Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc., would have seen a low-flying AA Boeing 767 thundering south/southwest down the island of Manhattan. At high speed it would have been incredibly noisy, extraordinary and scary. It would have echoed down the canyons. The direction or source may not have been obvious at first. At 400+ mph the jetliner would have taken approximately one minute to fly less than seven miles from just north of Central Park into the North Tower, plenty of time for witnesses to see and track a plane go by but not hit the tower. Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses could have confirmed a Boeing 767 flying overhead if the official story were true but I’ve not seen such interviews. The internet lacks credible "street interviews" and the controlled media did not go there. That is a telling fact. The witnesses offered are usually media people, "anonymous" or those who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all. From a legal, adversarial point of view, most WTC "eyewitness" testimony in favor of large airliners is highly vulnerable. Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That’s a whole new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard Holmgren" variety would crush them. In a traumatic event, people switch into survival mode and their powers of observation become impaired, highly selective, and they are much more susceptible to media manipulation. One telephone caller to Bryant Gumbel of CBS said he just saw beams shoot out from the WTC building followed by "Wait a minute, the radio just reported it was plane parts that flew out of the building, so, I just saw plane parts fly out of the building." Radio is powerful enough but people are most susceptible to visual[pdf] manipulation.[archived version] CNN, otherwise known as the Complicit News Network, was the lead sled dog that day, quickly set up the party line within minutes. Here is the key to CNN coverage that day: at 8:54 a.m. Sean Murtagh, CNN’s vice president of finance and administration, "witnessed the crash from his nearby office" and tells [CNN Anchor Carol ]"Lin via an on-air phone call that the plane that hit the north tower was a ‘large commercial passenger jet.’" Uh huh. "My office faces south toward…the…what,…where the trade center used to be and… probably caught the last 5-6 seconds of flight of the first plane flying straight into the north tower. Impact, fireball and when it hit, it was like, you got like a thud in your stomach, like did I just see what I just saw?" Sure, sure. There is a credible eyewitness statement, right? Wrong. Here's what is wrong: first, CNN offices then were at 5 Penn Plaza on W. 33d street, almost three miles north of WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That’s not "nearby" by our lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st floor sounds good but it’s not a good vantage point because the plane would fly by in a flash, too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would take over 20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not "the last 5-6 seconds of flight" claimed. Murtagh’s timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely effective, Murtagh is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report from one of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North Tower. They did not even have enough respect for the audience to interview a hired actor on the street, instead putting the lie "in plain view" by broadcasting it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a lousy actor, with a flat, disinterested delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly into the North Tower could possibly muster. Ok, let's continue for a bit. Some truth leaks out in early media coverage of a disaster because the controlled media is not entirely controlled down to the reporter level. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is immediately overturned by the first unidentified female witness who insisted the North Tower hit came from inside, and then the second, Jeanne Yurman, who reported a sonic boom. Neither witness confirms Murtagh's report of a large airliner. Jones should conduct a thorough analysis of the witness testimony before pushing this tower of babel to prove a large airliner crashed into a tower. In any event, witness testimony contrary to the laws of physics is worse than useless. Perhaps our critique will lead him to conduct psychological experiments at BYU. To our knowledge, Jones passes over the Pennsylvania hoax, the Todd Beamer "Let’s Roll" fraud, the absurd "crash site" in Shanksville, PA. We wonder why. Perhaps we should applaud professor Jones for his silence on this issue because he has conducted no scientific investigation. Perhaps the perpetrators did such an embarrassing job and the story is so weak that he found no way to defend it. Yet Jones’ silence speaks loudly to us because it is so easy to prove OGCT a lie in Pennsylvania. The professor might want to start his search with Hunt the Boeing II.
Figure 26(a): Smoking hole near Shanksville, PA free of plane debris, bodies, luggage, etc. A local resident observed, "It’s the only place it could have gone down and be sure no one would be hurt." Translation: it was the only place where there could be no witnesses. According to media reports, no local resident claimed to see a plane crash. IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence Jones goes to great pains to praise the scientific method. We could be unkind and term this refrain sanctimonious but it serves the useful purpose of hoisting Jones on his own petard. We need only cite data for high-energy releases at WTC and no evidence for Boeing crashes to see that Jones fails by his own standard. Jones fails to look carefully at the "what," that is, the data and then apply physical principles to analyze "how." Instead, he dismisses serious hypotheses with prima facie evidence on their behalf. Perhaps Professor Jones’ most disturbing offense is failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commission’s methods, much of Jones’ so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is a closed loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by outsiders. It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same discipline. Given Professor Jones’ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones’ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (I’m a victim, I’m courageous), crowd—pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies. Does anyone really care what a physicist says about Nephi, the U.S. Constitution, pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, Able Danger, or an alleged insider sell-off of Raytheon pre-9/11? He even gets his economics wrong here because a pre-9/11 "buy-off" of Raytheon would profit insiders as defense contractors’ share prices would soar with the forthcoming "war on terror." Excusable error for a physicist perhaps but bad physics and use of his authority to pronounce in fields where he has no expertise are not excusable. All would be forgiven if he offered insights or revealed hidden truths, but he does not. As 911eyewitness creator Rick Siegel said in mocking Jones and his thermite diversion to explain missing towers, "Of course it was WMD, why else [call in] an educated nuclear physicist promoting solar cookers?" Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot" glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions). The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11?that of physicist Steven E. Jones?predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled back.
By Jim Marrs [Shirley Hoofard: Author’s interview February, 2005] Felipe David working for Aramark Corp. tending vending machines in a basement of the North Tower recalled, “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below; dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself ‘God, please give me strength.’ When I went in, I told them it was an explosion,” David, with his skin hanging in tatters may have been the person helped to safety by William Rodriguez.
Skin dripping off the body was mentioned by several 9/11 victims. Gamma ray radiation can cause a person to just feel heat, then pain and then the skin will be damaged. The skin may be vaporized, charred or left hanging. Shirley Hoofard was a 38-year-old Red Cross worker in the Dallas area on 9/11. Hoofard was ordered to New York to begin working with victims and their families. She also was ordered not to reveal any information to the media or the public. “It was very difficult to deal with,” she recalled. “The only way I got through it was to shut down. I didn’t think or feel. I just did what I did. By the middle of January [2002] I said ‘I have to go home.’” But she could not get out of her mind what some of the victims told her. “Several victims told me they saw people engulfed in a fireball and disintegrating. One man said he was at work when he heard a loud noise and at the far end of the cubicles he saw a man running toward him with a fireball coming after him. The running man just exploded, flying into pieces…I heard stories like that from people from both towers….I don’t know the physics but at what temperature does a human vaporize?” P.S. from Zen:Check this out–a further corroborative explanation perhaps?: The US Government’s usage of atomic bombs at the WTC, by Ed Ward MDSources:Declassified August 1958: Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work.”Declassified January 1967, The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity.” Declassified March 1976, The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices.
The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has used 3rd or possibly 4th generation hydrogen bombs domestically and internationally. The evidence for international usage is not quite as strong as the domestic usage, but when domestic usage is considered the international usage seems inescapable.
The process of exclusion based on the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings – a relatively pure hydrogen bomb. Just some of the facts are: widespread cancer in the responders, molten steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and pulverized concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only sliver fragments of victims on roof tops. EMP – Electro Magnetic Pulse effects on communications, hundreds of eyewitness testimony of ancillary explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of debris (large ‘missiles’ up to 1,600 feet – small ‘missiles’ up to 0.5 miles), demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of demolition. Audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage, shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet, vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water. Removal of wreckage without investigation, only remnants of fire in one tower minutes after the plane collision, unprecedented history of 3 skyscrapers collapsing secondary to fire, early miscalculation stating WTC building 7 ‘pulled’, towers fall at demolition or free fall speed, foreknowledge of WTC 7 immediate collapse, slow-motion video evidence of plane appendage with smoke and explosion immediately prior to impact of both planes. Unprecedented NORAD non response to variant flights, FEMA drill scheduled for same day, military ‘exercise’ of exactly what was taking place to prevent NORAD response, most of NORAD protection planes sent far away in another ‘exercise’ to prevent response, prevention of examination of wreckage by those assigned to investigate, seismic evidence of a mini yield nuclear explosion. Cheney takes over NORAD response command, Cheney prevents NORAD response, WTC towers designed for 757 collision and fire, 911 used falsely for previously planned war, government fabrication of ‘evidence’ correlation for starting war, hundreds of people found themselves trapped by locked doors and missing escape routes above and below the impact zone, and not all inclusively, but finally, Bush brands anyone noting any of these facts a terrorist. The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive, there are at least 4 classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s and myeloma, as well there are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers including brain cancer, and breast cancer, for most of these there are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of ‘irregular cycles’ (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems. RADIATION. In response to this myriad of disease, a statement of environmental mercury has been claimed. That claim is not verified in testing of air and particle debris samples by private citizens and organizations. It is possible the mercury quotes are from the federal source of science, the United States Geological Survey’s analysis of the WTC dust debris. The USGS’s leached analysis did show mercury at the 3rd lowest concentration of metals at the mean value (mv) of 0.011 parts per Billion (ppB). The most abundant element concentration in the leaching tests was Strontium at 1,000 ppB (1 ppM) – 100,000 times more than the mercury value. It appears that the leaching of the sample was only partial and inadequate as the reader will see from the spectrometry values. Why would only mercury be quoted when there were so many other more dangerous elements at higher concentrations than mercury? While the regular elements like Copper – mv 136 ppM, Silver – mv 1.66 ppM, and Vanadium – mv 31 ppM, some of the other significant elements were: Barium – mv 533 ppM, Strontium – mv 727 ppM, Cerium – mv 91 ppM, Yttrium – mv 57 ppM, Lanthanum – mv 46 ppM, Molybdenum – mv 11 ppM, Thorium – mv 9 ppM, Uranium – mv 3 ppM, Beryllium – mv 3 ppM, and Cesium – mv 0.6 ppM – partial listing. For readers that are not familiar with most of these elements, here is a link to their relevance. There is also a claim of environmental benzene that ‘permeated’ the area in jet fuel as the cause of all of these problems. Once again, we have the quoting of the miraculous jet fuel that burns up in a massive fireball in the first few minutes, then like Christ’s feeding the multitudes, still causes a massive fire inside that reaches the temperatures of a Hades that weakens massive fire proofed steel beams and trusses, then resurrects itself on the permeated ground to cause cancer in one hour of limited exposure. In less than 1 hour, the first WTC building had collapsed and covered Manhattan, in at least 1/3 of a Million Tons of particulate debris. Unless the jet fuel makes a final appearance and is again resurrected by NIST in it’s 3rd miracle, benzene is buried under 1/3 of a million tons of particulate debris after 56 minutes of exposure. Benzene is also a component of gasoline. The assertion that cancer was the result of 56 minutes of exposure to minimal amounts of benzene is ludicrous. If that was true, everyone in the US would be suffering from cancers. As the 3rd WTC building falls, Manhattan is covered in two Billion pounds of pulverized and aerosolized building. Two billion pounds seemed like an extremely large amount of particulate matter from buildings whose total weight has been quoted at around 3 billion pounds. Debris removal has been quoted at 1.2 billion pounds. Based on these rough numbers 2/3rds of the building was indeed turned to dust or vaporized. Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” “One could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction.” Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964
Take a look at a collapsed 10 story building in Pakistan. Note the height and size of the collapsed building’s remnants compared to the other 10 story buildings. The debris pile is about 30 feet, approximately 1/3 of the height of the erect building. This ratio is consistent with a collapsed building’s rubble height. Note the almost complete lack of fine particles. The 47 story WTC 7′s building debris should have contained at least five times (approximately 15 stories) the amount of the Pakistan debris as WTC 7 was also built significantly stronger materials. Yet, WTC 7 remains are casually noted in the government propaganda article as a 2 story debris pile. Look at the Pakistan debris ‘collapsed’ picture again, then imagine that debris with 4 more piles on top of it and finally try to imagine the awesome power it would take to break it into 53 micron or smaller dust particles.
The only estimates of the two 100 story WTC building debris piles are ‘several stories’. In the very few area photographs of the debris piles published, the amount of debris in the range of several stories is minimal at best. There is also quoting of debris 6 stories high, however, if the reader looks at the rare pictures, the only debris of that height are portions of outer beam skeleton towering significantly higher than the general debris. Not one official measurement of the debris piles is noted. The building residue height is deceiving on 2 levels. First, all of the buildings had craters of a depth of ‘several stories’. Secondly, since the craters were in tiered sub-level flooring, the area of the bottoms of the craters would be significantly smaller than the area covered at ground level. Connie reminded me of an interview with Ondrovic, published back in October 2001 (and which I’d read circa ‘04). When I expressed an interest to reread it, she dug up a copy and sent it to me (see attached). Ms Ondrovic’s account is truly ‘bizarre’, and a testament to the fact that there were forces at play on 9/11 that modern technology — indeed, mainstream science — simply cannot explain. Please read the attached PDF doc carefully. It’s one a helluva wake-up call. As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames. She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight: “I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.” And she’s got a lot more to say. Then there’s this other chap Connie knows (“a famous author”) who’d interviewed another woman who had witnessed “people engulfed in some sort of fireball and disintegrating.” Connie just dug up the following note from this person to her, and is checking to see if I may get in touch with him directly. “I interviewed a Red Cross worker in Dallas whose name escapes me at the moment but I have her report in my files. She told me she was sent to NYC by the Red Cross to help survivors of the WTC. She said the thing that most stuck out in her mind after interviewing dozens of people was the number that told her of looking back and seeing people engulfed in some sort of fireball and disintegrating. Obviously, a collapsing building cannot produce such an effect. But a mini-nuke shaped charge placed in the basement to blow out the central core columns could. A small nuclear device could also explain the pyroplasmic cloud seen above the WTC, the disintegration and warping of heavy steel beams and the pulverization of so much concrete, not to mention the blood cell cancer now suffered by some of the first responders.” |
WTC Cliff Notes October 23 Click on images to enlarge (in new window) July 8, 2011 Interactive. (drag image with mouse) "To acquire knowledge, one must study; - - Marilyn Vos Savant, Writer
Please use this page in conjunction with any interview or discussion which is taking place on a radio show or "podcast" Related Links 9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt, the "Cheeto" * The tiny index link at the top of each section returns you to the index. A. Destruction of WTC1 Video 1: Video 2: High Definition Clip of WTC Turning to Dust on 9/11 (Slow Motion) WTC 911 Is this a structural collapse? 2 of several Video 6. URL (1:29) (no sound) Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair and do not reach the intersection below. leschwartz Notice how large pieces of steel are turning to dust in midair, yet small pieces of aluminum cladding from the building's exterior are not...
Figure 3. There was a 500,000-ton building here just a few minutes ago. "Where'd it go?"(Looking south, Vesey & West Streets.)(9/11/01) Source: ["Twilight Zone"] Figure 4. Why don't we see much more than paper here? (Looking west, Vesey & West Streets.)(9/11/01) Source: ["Sea of paper"] Shortcuts/Index
A. Destruction of WTC1 (Videos)
B. Principal data that must be explained
C. Debris
D. Holes
E. Other arguments against CCD-BiB
F. Rate of Destruction (BBE)
G. Bathtub & Seismic Impact
H. Dustification
I. Lather
J. Toasted Cars
K. Windows and Marble
L. Fuzzballs
M. Street Scrubbing
N. Dirt
O. Rustification
P. Fires
Q. Paper
R. Lack of High Heat
S. Toilets
T. Testimony of Exploding Scott Paks
U. Fuming
V. Fuzzyblobs
W. Rolled-up Carpet
X. Tissuepaper Beams and Tortilla Chips
Y. Hutchison Effect
Z. Weather
AA. Electrical and Magnetometer
AB. Sillystring
AC. xxxxxx
AD. XXX
AE. Things to consider: B. Some of the principal data that must be explained:
Click on images to enlarge (in new window) C. Debris
Figure 5. Hey, Where did the building go? There was a 500,000-ton building here just a few minutes ago. Where is it? At the corner of West and Vesey, looking south toward the WTC complex. WTC1 was just destroyed and the people are cautiously emerging from their hiding places and slowly approaching the site with puzzled looks on their faces. "Where'd it go?" Figure 6. Gone with the Wind- after WTC1 was destroyed.
Figure 7. WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the "rubble pile" remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was take before noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance. The Verizon Building is at a distance on the left. Figure 8. This is a view from West Street, looking east across the remains of WTC1. FEMA entered this photo on 9/13/01, which is the earliest date for any posts for the 9/11 event. Other photos they have for 9/13/01 show much more people and equipment present. So, it is believed that this photo was taken on 9/11/01, but entered into their files on 9/13..
Figure 9. Figure 10. WTC7 Lathering up Figure 11. Why is there dirt evenly spread over the walking area? This was the WTC plaza level that was covered with cement blocks. Where did all this dirt come from? The sound of an empty parking garage. (mp3) Figure 12. First rescuers under the WTC remains, "someone down there-there-there..." Click on images to enlarge (in new window) D. Holes
Figure 13. Some debris has been cleared, but the pulverized dust is still emerging. If most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 was pulverized, then how much steel was really shipped as scrap to China? Does anyone have these figures or the receipts? (dirt4) (9/23/01) source: USGS/NOAA ["Satellite View"]
Figure 14. This shows the vertical cut-outs in the center of WTC6. To the left of WTC6 are the remains of WTC1. Note the fairly consistent diameter of the holes. The holes are essentially empty: little debris visible inside the holes. (dirt4) Figure 15. Inside the 8-story WTC6 hole. (dirt4)
Figure 16. Notice how straight the vertical holes were that cut down through WTC6.While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes. (dirt4) Figure 17. A view over the dome of WFC2 shows the damage to WTC6 in the center of the photo. To the left is the remains of WTC7. To the right is the remaining north wall of WTC1 which leans toward WTC6. (dirt4) These photos highlight the depth of the hole in WTC6. Where did the top 100 floors of the north wall go? They did not fall on WTC6 or WTC7 because there are no steel wheatchex there. Some of the core of WTC1 remains, but where is the rest of the core? The amount of steel on the ground barely covers the ground.
Figure 18. GZ workers descend into the subbasements below WTC2. While there is extensive damage, there is little building debris at the bottom of the hole. There is no sign of molten metal. A worker in the distance walks along a massive core column. (dirt4) Figure 19. The adjacent figure is located in zone 2, above. Overhanging debris was removed before ladder was lowered into the hole. The sound of an empty parking garage. (mp3) source video (no longer available) Figure 20. First rescuers under the WTC remains, "someone down there-there-there..." ["Echo (audio)"] Click on images to enlarge (in new window) E. Some other arguments against CCD-BiB Conventional Controlled Demolition with Bombs in the Building (CCD - BiB). Figure 21. source
Figure 22. source Controlled Demolition
Figure 23. (CCD - BiB). source Figure 24. Remaining debris from "CCD - BiB". There are chunks and the debris is recognizable. source Gravity Collapse
Figure 25. Pakistan earthquake.
Figure 26. There was no significant damage to the bathtub on 9/11. This picture looks west-northwest, from the center of the WTC 1 footprint. (dirt4) source: ["Bathtub"] Click on images to enlarge (in new window) F. Rate of Destruction (BBE)
Figure 27. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance. Figure 28. Minimum time for the collapse, if nine of every ten floors have been demolished prior to the "collapse."
Figure 29. Minimum time for the collapse, if every floor collapsed like dominos. Figure 30. Minimum Time for all Billiard Balls to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.
(mp3) First rescuers under the WTC remains, "someone down there-there-there..." Figure 31. Before (west) Figure 33. Seven stories below ground stayed intact. (north) Figure 34. The sound of an emptyparking garage. Click on images to enlarge (in new window) G. Bathtub & Seismic Impact
Figure 35. Figure 36. PATH Train cars were not crushed and were lifted from the bathtub February 22, 2002.
actual WTC1 actual WTC7 Kingdome (a) MR = 2.3 (as recorded) (b) MR = 0.6 (as recorded) (c) MR = 2.3 (as recorded) Figure 37.
seismic height of WTC1 seismic height of WTC7 Kingdome (a) MR = 2.3 (as recorded) (b) MR = 0.6 (as recorded) (c) MR = 2.3 (as recorded) Figure 38.
WTC1 WTC7 Kingdome 3.4% of orig. 0.31% of orig. Kingdome (a) MR = 2.3 (b) MR = 0.6 (c) MR = 2.3 (a) MR = 2.3 (b) MR = 0.6 (c) MR = 2.3 Figure 39.
seismic ht. of WTC1 seismic ht. of seismic ht. of (a) MR = 2.3 (b) MR = 0.6 (c) MR = 2.3 Figure 41. Click on images to enlarge (in new window) H. Dustification
Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Black fumes go west, white fumes go south. Video 3:
Figure 45. "Shaving cream"/"Alkaseltzer" Video 4:
Figure 48. A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. (gif)Source: (terrorize.dk) Click on images to enlarge (in new window) I. Lather
Figure 50. Immediately after WTC2 was destroyed, WTC1 was lathered up. With the distraction of WTC2 going poof, perhaps they were hoping folks wouldn't notice? Figure 51. WTC7 Lathering up, along with WTC1. WTC1 is still standing, so "debris from the collapse of WTC1" cannot explain why there is "smoke" pouring out of WTC7. The two people on the far corner appear to be stopping traffic, which is consistent with what would be seen immediately after the destruction of WTC2. Figure 52. Figure 53. WTC7 Lathering up
Figure 54. WTC1 is blowing "smoke rings" Click on images to enlarge (in new window) J. Toasted Cars
Figure 55. Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.
Figure 56. Car 2723 was toasted inside and out... and rusted.
Figure 58. This toasted interior of car 2723 was consumed except for the fire extinguisher. How does a car rust that fast on the inside? If it had been on fire, shouldn't we see a blackened-burned appearance? Instead, we see a tremendous amount of rust on the inside of the car. Why is that? Figure 59. Burned out cars and bus along West Broadway. Consistently, they seem to have missing door handles. The gas tanks don't appear to explode. Click on images to enlarge (in new window) K. Windows and Marble WFC1 Windows WFC2 Windows
Figure 60. The windows have round holes in them. They are double-paned windows, but the two windows do not show the same damage. In some cases, the inner window is intact while the majority of the outer window is missing. The marble-facade around the doorway is completely missing. The remaining building facade does not appear damaged. Figure 61. Round holes in WFC2 LibertyPlaza - Century21 Windows Millenium Hotel Windows
Figure 63. The window in the next figure is located in the center of the building, just above the two "whitish" rows of windows. Figure 64. Round holes through glass, looking out of the Century-21 Bldg., over the remains of WTC4 and WTC5, with WFC2 in the distance, viewed through the farl-left window.
Figure 66. Figure 67. Barclay Street Windows (behind WTC7) Notice the odd breakage pattern in the Barkley-street building on the left. This is right behind WTC7. These are double-paned windows and some have only one of the panes broken. (I have referred to this building as the "white stairstep building")
Figure 68. I Bankers Trust Windows Notice the holes in the windows of Bankers Trust
Figure 71.
Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. (9/21/01) source: Round holes instead of shattering?
Figure 77. (after 9/11/01) source: Click on images to enlarge (in new window) L. Fuzzballs
Figure 79. The air has cleared after the destruction of WTC1. This area would be first to clear as it is upwind of the WTC. The fire in the toasted lot has increased in strength, consistent with it having just been started.
Figure 80. Whoops! I guess that's molten metal under the sidewalks? Click on images to enlarge (in new window) M. Street Scrubbing
Figure 85. Cleaning streets begin on the afternoon of 9/11/01? This photo looks like it was taking in the early morning of 9/12/01. Why was street cleaning more important than survivor rescuing? After all, the street cleaners would be blocking the thoroughfare.
Figure 89. "My goodness! What a clean demolition site! That ground almost looks clean enough to eat off of. That's amazing, considering they're just cleaning up the trash to cart away. (But apparently they need to be sure to get every bit of it!)" [This is my caption from 2005.] (10/3/01) Source: by Anonymous Photographer Click on images to enlarge (in new window) N. Dirt
Figure 90. Check out this new load of dirt!It looks like potting soil. What possible explanations you can think of? Landscaping? They appear to have dumped fresh dirt on top of the fuming dust in the "front yard" of WFC2. (A week later, they appear to scoop it up and haul it back out, as shown below for WFC1.) Trucks in closeup Trucks out
Figure 93. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt. Figure 94. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt. Figure 95. This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 96. Figure A-9. Con Edison transformer #7 (or #5) uncovered from debris pile of WTC 7; photo taken midOctober, 2001. Click on images to enlarge (in new window) O. Rustification
Figure 97. Upper-left quadrant of original photo. Figure 99. More rust Figure 100. “Office fires can't do that” (92 k)
Figure 101. Why is this one car rusted and the other is not? Figure 102. Car 2723 was toasted inside and out... and then rusted. Figure 103. This toasted interior of car 2723 was consumed except for the fire extinguisher. How does a car rust that fast on the inside? If it had been on fire, shouldn't we see a blackened-burned appearance? Instead, we see a tremendous amount of rust on the inside of the car. Why is that?
Figure 104. This is Bankers Trust being taken apart. (01/07) Source: ["Furry Rust"] Figure 105. (01/?/07) Source: Click on images to enlarge (in new window) P. Fires
Figure 107. EVO.jpg Click on images to enlarge (in new window) Q. Paper
Figure 111. The paper under the car does not appear to be burning, yet the "dust" between the mail truck and the car does appear to be burning. (JJ2) Figure 112. A toasted mail truck faces westward, parked behind the Postal building on the north side of Barclay Street. City Hall Park can be seen in the distance, across Church street. This damage does not appear to have been caused by a "normal" fire. There is no obvious sign of burned paper. The appearance of the back wheel area of the mail truck looks as if something radiated outward from the wheel. It is very unlikely this mail truck was hit by debris, unless this debris did not follow the laws of physics and made several right-angle turns along its path to the mail truck. Curiously, the mail truck parked behind it looks OK. (JJ2, ) Figure 113. Why isn't the paper on fire? (JJ2) Figure 114. Vehicles burn, but the paper doesn't appear to catch fire. (JJ2) Click on images to enlarge (in new window) R. Lack of High Heat
Figure 115. This is a view north, across Pine Street, which is parallel to Liberty Street and a block or two south of Liberty Street. Figure 116. Thermal map excerpt taken September 16, 2001. Zone F was supposedly the largest hot spot. Figure 118. The basement: of WTC2 Video 5: Thermite on a frozen lake Figure 119. URL (1:20) We ignited about a pound of thermite on a frozen lake, releasing enough energy to melt through three inches of solid ice. This movie features additional camera angles courtesy of Marc and Melissa. On 9/11, if there had been molten metal, there should have been a steam explosion with all of this water.
Figure 110. This is a view from the southern "shore" after a water-main broke. Note the "steam" appearance along the "northern shore" that cannot be the result of "hot water" because there are live people wading along that shore. (see next figure) (9/11/01) Source: Figure 111. There's a person wading out into it. He doesn't look like a boiled chicken.
Figure 112. Steam? If this were steam, these workers would have been cooked. If this were as hot as a grill, these people would become something that looked more like a grilled-cheese sandwich. The hoses to their torches would melt and ignite the fuel. (dirt4) Figure 113. But, is this photo really what it seems? Note the exposed hydraulics. Figure 114. Temperature/viscosity diagram for ISO viscosity grades.
Figure 115. Cotton Candy - mold. Click on images to enlarge (in new window) S. Toilets Where were the toilets from the buildings? There should have been nearly 10,000 toilet fixtures in the "rubble pile." (But there wasn't a "rubble pile," either!) commercial toilet commercial toilet comm. toilet
Figure 118. Commercial toiletsource: website: Figure 119. Commercial toilet Figure 120. Required minimum number of fixtures per occupants: Number of toilets expected 25,000 each tower The WTC towers were over 1/4 mile tall. Because of the enormous head as well as the problem of line siphoning, water is pumped in stages to intermediate tanks, then pumped from the intermediate tank to higher floors. Therefore, there were many water tanks in the TWC building as well as pumping systems. Turbo toilet Turbo toilet
Figure 121. Turbo toilet Click on images to enlarge (in new window) T. Testimony of Exploding Scott Paks A. ..."There was a Deputy Chief's rig on fire that was extended to 113's rig. There was a big ambulance, like a rescue company truck, but it wasn't a rescue company truck. It was a huge ambulance. It must have had Scott bottles or oxygen bottles on it. These were going off. You would hear the air go SSS boom and they were exploding. So we stretched a line and tried to put that out. He could only use booster water." WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, FIREFIGHTER PATRICK SULLIVAN INTERVIEW, p. 8 A. ..."I remember getting a drink of water out of their cooler there, and then we just started to put out the car fires, and the rigs were going, ambulances. I mean, there must have been 50 of these things burning heavily. The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were all blowing up left and right." WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, FIREFIGHTER TODD HEANEY INTERVIEW, p. 13.
Figure 123. SCOTT air-pak (photo lightened) Q. At this point was your vehicle lost? WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE, EMT RENE DAVILA INTERVIEW, pp. 27-28 Click on images to enlarge (in new window) U. Fuming
Figure 124. No longer "venting," the pile is now just "fuming." Most of WTC3 disappeared during the destruction of WTC1. The pedestrian walkway over the West Side Highway was connected to something that is no longer there. The remains of WTC2 can be seen near the center of the photo and the remains of WTC1 are partly visible in the lower right corner. (9/27/01 entered) Source Figure 125. Wet dirt is fuming. later fuming
Figure 126. An enlargement from the left side of the Figure above, lightened. (dirt3) Figure 127. An enlargement from the left side of the second Figure above, lightened. (dirt3) Figure 128. June 2006, looking north in the big bathtub. The new WTC7 is in the distance, on the right. (dirt3) Figure 129. September 2006 (cotton candy) Where did that dirt come from? (dirt3) Click on images to enlarge (in new window) V. Fuzzyblobs
Figure 130. "The slot." This looks like a "slot" is down the middle of West Street which is probably a ramp to an underground parking garage. There are several "fuzzyblobs" of blue-gray haze which appears to be a harmful material. An firefighter near the right side of the photo is holding his nose, showing us that he senses and unusual odor. The fuzzyblob behind the yellow cooler drapes down over the concrete wall. The firefighter rubs his eyes while leaning on the wall, just in front of the cooler. Another firefighter runs toward the cooler (or away from what is behind him) with urgency. There is a firefighter slumped over, down on the left side of the slot and he doesn't look very good. The firefighter closest to him looks concerned as he approaches. Just behind the concerned firefighter is another fuzzyblob. What is this material? A fellow wearing a blue hard hat (and sleeveless shirt) stands down on the right side of the slot and looks over at the slumped-over firefighter with concern. Nothing about this scene is familiar to these firefighters. That is, a lot of strange things are happening, here. And why are the trees missing their leaves? Figure 131. wtc-16_1_small.jpg (dirt5) Click on images to enlarge (in new window) W. Rolled-up Carpet Appearance
Figure 132. The bundle of "wheatchex" on the floor looks like a rolled-up carpet. (JJ4)
Figure 135. Wheatchex Click on images to enlarge (in new window) X. Tissuepaper Beams and Tortilla Chips
Figure 138. The bundle of "wheatchex" on the floor looks like a rolled-up carpet. (JJ4) Click on images to enlarge (in new window) Y. Hutchison Effect:
Figure 141. How did this car get upside down? Figure 142. Note, the fence still stands.
Figure 143. Why are the leaves still on the trees? (JJ1)
Figure 144. Hurricane Andrew 1992
Figure 147. The paper still has its color, indicating this filing cabinet did not shrivel due to conventional heat. (JJ4) Click on picture for video (source). Figure 148. Fused block of WTC debris referred to as "the Meteorite." (JJ4) Figure 149. Note the print on these compressed pieces of paper. (JJ4)
Figure 151. Penny in aluminum, Hutchison Effect sample (JJ)
Figure 155. Hutchison Effect sample (extruded aluminum bar)
Figure 158. Hutchison Effect sample (extruded aluminum bar) (JJ4) (2/18/08) Photo by J. Wood
Figure 160. AluminumHE sample. (JJ4) Hutchison Effect sample of aluminum that appears to have delaminated and splintered open. This sample seems to have something in common with the two photos to the right. (This image has been rotated from the original.)
Figure 163. Hutchison Effect sample of aluminum that appears to have delaminated. (JJ4) (1983-2006?) Source: Figure 164. Police vehicle damaged on 9/11/01. Note the peeling effect on the door.
Figure 165. Video of the Hutchison Effect. (JJ2) Figure 166. Location: just south of WTC3. (JJ2)
Figure 167. Red Bull can affected by the Hutchison Effect. Picture+625.jpg ( JJ1)
Figure 169. Hutchison Effect sample. Solid copper
Figure 171. Hutchison Effect sample. Molybdenum (JJ4) Figure 173. This is a photo from Bankers Trust, which was directly across the street from WTC2. The FEMA report: (Fig6-10.) states there were no fires in this building. Why is this beam shriveled up? Note the holes in the beam, yet the white paint above that shriveled part is still good. (DEW6,JJ4) (?/?/?) Source (pdf): (archived)
Figure 174. In buckling a beam deforms into (a) a half sine wave, p , or (b) a full sine wave, or 2 p . The "apparently random" deformation in (c) as well as the "swiss cheese holes" are not associated with buckling.FEMA6-10_ccc.jpg
Figure 176. source Figure 177. North face of WFC2 shows an unusual distortion in the image. (JJ6)
Figure 179. source Click on images to enlarge (in new window) Z. Weather
Figure 180. Black fumes go west, white fumes go south. (erin6) Source: space imaging ["Fuming Dogleg"] Figure 181. This photo of Hurricane Erin was taken mid-morning on 9/11/01. The eye has an unusual appearance (erin1, erin2) (9/11/01) Source: ["Eye-worms"]
Figure 182. Figure 183. Figure 184. nhc Was this a controlled environment?
Figure 185. (erin1) source Figure 186. (erin2) source: website: Figure 187. Track of Hurricane Erin. (erin1, erin2)(9/01-17/01) Source: Click on images to enlarge (in new window) AA. Electrical and Magnetometer
Figure 188. source: Figure 189. source: Figure 190. source: Consider the field effects that existed before the lightning arc connected across the potential between the cloud and the ground. Then consider superimposing other types of fields onto this one. Video 2:
Figure 191. Field effects Figure 192. URL (0:57) Evidence of field effects. This tornado grows from the ground up.
Figure 193. (erin10) magnetometer data source: Figure 194. (erin10) H3,
Figure 195. JFK Airport data: Humidity, Dew Point, Pressure, (erin10) Figure 196. Z3, (erin10) Figure 197. source1 Figure 200. source1
JFK Airport, NY rain thunder Figure 199. (erin1) Figure 201. ()source2, source3 Figure 202. (erin1, erin10) Source: website: Click on images to enlarge (in new window) AB. Sillystring and Donuts The phenomenon shown in this image is a reminder of "silly string," an entertaining gimic for parties. It's like string in a spray can.
Figure 203. A backyard Tesla Coil is used for a light show.(JJ6)
Figure 205. Mt. St. Helens, Frame2 Figure 206. Mt. St. Helens, Frame3 Figure 207. "Silly string" on the south face of WTC1 (dirt5) Figure 208. (JJ6) Figure 209. Figures from NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft ()source:
Figure 210. (dirt1) source Figure 211. (JJ6) source |
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
No comments:
Post a Comment