(This was originally sent to some newly-prominent 9/11 researchers, at least two of whom frequently give lectures to their believers, but scrupulously avoid public appearances with anyone who questions their theories) Suggestions for the 9/11 Truth Movement:
Instead of lecturing to the enlightened few who already know that the WTC towers were rigged with explosives, thermate or both, or were hit by secret energy beams in order to collapse them, and writing articles attempting to explain it, just perform this simple and relatively inexpensive experiment, record it all on video, and post it on the Internet.
Take some roughly 14" square steel columns that look like this:
plant high explosives on them and detonate them, recording exactly how easy it was to do and what it all looked and sounded like. For simplicity, ignore the fact that almost all of these columns in a WTC tower could only have been accessed through highly-secured tenant spaces, but spray them with foam insulation (38), and put aluminum cladding (40) around three sides of them and glue drywall (39) on the fourth side before planting the explosives. Remember that everything to the left of the window glass (42) is outside and hundreds of feet in the air, so work only from the side with the drywall. (In deference to the elite "no-plane" contingent of your movement, use the same impenetrable 1/10" aluminum cladding that was on the towers, not the regular stuff) Don't put the charges on first, or reach down from the top of a sample column, since the WTC columns were obviously there long before all of the explosives were, and the latter would not have been possible. Use just enough high explosive on each to sever it, so that the loud bang and supersonic debris are at an absolute minimum, just as they were when each tower collapsed on 9/11. This is essential, since too loud a bang and too much high-speed debris might cause some hopelessly stubborn or skeptical people not to believe your theory. Now do the same thing with thermate or other incendiary. Demonstrate how easily it can be made to burn sideways through an in-place column, how predictably it can be timed, and how little evidence it leaves behind.
Then get ten yards or so of fully cured 3,500 psi concrete from old sidewalks or something and completely reduce it to fine dust in ten seconds right in front of your video recorder.
The NIST scientists and engineers feel that the energy from the collapse of a 500,000-ton, 1368' tall building will fracture concrete floors and create some dust from the concrete along with copious amounts of drywall dust, but since you truth movement researchers know that all of the concrete in the WTC towers was turned to fine dust in the collapses, and also know how it was done, pulverize your concrete samples using exactly the same methods and materials.
To reduce cost and labor and for dramatic effect, this should be done without dropping the samples from a great height, and if thermate was what did it on 9/11, use the same variety of thermate that keeps steel molten in the ground for many months afterward, not the kind that burns for a minute or two and then cools down to ambient temperature in a half hour or so. Get about 500# of steel, melt it with the thermate you're using to pulverize the concrete, and monitor it for several months, keeping a video record of the entire process and demonstrate that it's molten for the entire time. NOTE: with the current price of oil, this nearly endless source of heat energy may be in short supply.
I would start an entirely new web site for this project, and try to attract some sponsors. You could also sell $200 Conspiracy DVD sets and $22 tee shirts with "9/11 Was an Inside Job!" on them to raise some cash, as Alex Jones has been doing on his web sites for several years now. The income from them will be needed for the next part of this project, which will be considerably more expensive.
Since Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, and a few others know that a secret energy beam, or DEW, caused 160,000 tons of WTC steel to be vaporized in ten seconds or so, get a few tons of scrap steel, aim a beam at it, and make it disappear right in front of your camera or recorder. To tie this in with the events of 9/11, use a beam that only affects steel (and might also pulverize concrete), but is non-lethal to humans and doesn't generate enough heat to ignite paper.
And since it's well known that the towers collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, meaning that the top was all the way down in 10-12 seconds or even less, take this video made by Rick Siegel from across the river in Hoboken, NJ, and add a graphic to it showing the elapsed time for the entire collapse of the North Tower. This may be a little less persuasive, since the full collapse starting at 1:43 on the video is still in progress at 2:00, and airborne debris is seen falling much faster than the collapse zone, some of it hitting the ground 7 or 8 seconds ahead of it.
It's been suggested that the Iranian government protect itself and do a "service to the American public" by having towers identical to those at the WTC constructed and hit at 500 mph by airliners with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel inside, just to show how impossible the events of 9/11 were, but the cost of doing that would be prohibitive.
This is a simple, low-budget way to get the truth out, and the sounds and visual effects would be far more persuasive than words.I feel that if this project is implemented properly, there will no longer be any "debunkers" around, and you'll find that some may even apologize to you and applaud your work.
NOTE: I don't have email addresses for every researcher in the 9/11 truth movement, so please forward this to as many of them as you can. Some of them have gotten quite wealthy while spreading the truth about 9/11, and would probably be willing sources of funding for this rather modest project.
your article needs work, no wonder it was ignored.
Although you've failed so far to comment on it meaningfully, I noticed that you didn't ignore it. It wasn't intended to take the place of the 9/11 truth movement's commendable efforts already in progress, but to enable a greater number of people to appreciate and more fully understand them. These suggestions, if implemented and presented clearly, will shed light on the believability and scientific validity of some of the most important claims made by 9/11 researchers to date, and will therefore further the goals of those who are really interested in the truth about 9/11, and about NIST's NCSTAR1 in particular. I urge everyone who wants to share a more profound understanding of the events on 9/11, the stated goal and hallmark of the 9/11 truth movement, to get behind this proposed endeavor. If that includes you, then you should welcome my suggestions, but if you feel that they need more work or are lacking in some way, then please provide thoughtful, constructive criticism instead of simply dismissing them with what appears to be resentment and contempt.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments)
on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 8:25:50 PM
Clearly these were not ordinary explosives that were used on the two or even all three buildings on 9/11.
I'm much more interested in your theory on what carries the load of thirteen (North Tower) or twenty-eight (South Tower) 4500-ton upper floors after a 300,000# plane carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and going 440 mph (AA 11) or 540 mph (UA 175) rams each building, severs at least 42 columns on one side and the core, knocks SFRM off lightweight steel trusses, disables sprinkler risers, pushes combustibles to the other side and almost instantly starts raging fires there that burn uncontrolled for an hour or more, causing the unprotected trusses to sag and pull perimeter columns on that side in by as much as 4-1/2 feet, or well beyond the point where they're capable of supporting anything. Do you have another one for keeping up a building that had one side ripped wide open by heavy, flaming debris which fell hundreds of feet and started confirmed fires on at least 16 floors that burned out of control for nearly seven hours because firefighters saw that the building was unstable and didn't have water pressure? And how about one for getting just enough debris to hit that building to damage it and start it burning as a cover for blowing it up later, but not doing too little damage to hide the real reason it collapsed? Was that just dumb luck, or did they use directional explosives in just the right quantity in the higher building which fell earlier? I covered the DEW theory in my "Suggestions," and urged 9/11 researchers to validate it with a simple demonstration recorded on video, but do we now have a mini-nuke that can go off in the middle of a busy city relatively unnoticed by anyone and leave no evidence behind, or have the experiments and demonstrations I recommended in my article prompted new research into even less plausible scenarios than incendiaries and conventional explosives to explain phenomena (such as complete pulverization of concrete) that never occurred?
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 8:04:42 AM
The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
I couldn't, other than that site; when and where did he say this?
And if it's a real quote- how did/could he know; without foreknowledge- science and common sense wouldn't have given him the info- is he psychic; who told him? Where did the idea that this unprecedented event, that some damage on 2 floors and limited fires on others, would cause a collapse; let alone the complete collapse that happened- at nearly free fall speed?
and the 16 floors of fires; pics and video please- a list of "quotes" from establishment sources that confirm the OCT is no longer "credible" evidence
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim "fully engulfed". Right. Video and pics, please
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 417 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM
The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
I couldn't, other than that site; when and where did he say this?
And if it's a real quote- how did/could he know; without foreknowledge- science and common sense wouldn't have given him the info- is he psychic; who told him? Where did the idea that this unprecedented event, that some damage on 2 floors and limited fires on others, would cause a collapse; let alone the complete collapse that happened- at nearly free fall speed?
and the 16 floors of fires; pics and video please- a list of "quotes" from establishment sources that confirm the OCT is no longer "credible" evidence
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
where you'll see the Fellini quote verbatim. Why doyou find it surprising that someone close by observed that the south side of WTC 7 had a gaping hole in it from debris ejected in the North Tower collapse, and expressed concern that the building might collapse, since so many others are on record expressing exactly the same concern?
And judging from your profile, you've only looked at pictures of 7 taken from the north, where the damage can't be seen at all and the fires appear minor. Here's why more pictures and videos weren't taken from the south, but since "truth" seems to be your middle name, try some of these sources for a more balanced perspective of WTC 7:
Planes cannot fly at those speeds at that altitude, and
aluminium planes cannot "cut through 42 [steel] columns", so hold it right there. But, if you must, remember Bugs Bunny, how he used to be chased by Elmer Fudd with a gun (or was it Yosemite Sam)? He'd run through a bush and the bush would show the complete contour he had cut out, including the shape of his floppy ears. It's the speed, you see, he was going so-o-o-o fast that the normal laws of physics (about wood and floppy ears) didn't hold. Similarly with the planes. They were going so-o-o-o fast that the aluminium wings and tail upright cut a perfect contour in the steel and concrete wall. (Don't believe me? Just go to YouTube and watch Bush and Cheney's videos, broadcast by the media on 9/11.) Yes, under certain circumstances black may be white and pigs can sprout wings and fly. It's just difficult to explain to people without the imagination for fairy tales.
Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 3:41:27 PM
Planes cannot fly at those speeds at that altitude, and
aluminium planes cannot "cut through 42 [steel] columns", so hold it right there. But, if you must, remember Bugs Bunny, how he used to be chased by Elmer Fudd with a gun (or was it Yosemite Sam)? He'd run through a bush and the bush would show the complete contour he had cut out, including the shape of his floppy ears. It's the speed, you see, he was going so-o-o-o fast that the normal laws of physics (about wood and floppy ears) didn't hold. Similarly with the planes. They were going so-o-o-o fast that the aluminium wings and tail upright cut a perfect contour in the steel and concrete wall. (Don't believe me? Just go to YouTube and watch Bush and Cheney's videos, broadcast by the media on 9/11.) Yes, under certain circumstances black may be white and pigs can sprout wings and fly. It's just difficult to explain to people without the imagination for fairy tales.
Do you have another explanation for the fact that thousands of people witnessed it happen, and millions of others have seen the many different videos of UA 175 hitting the South Tower? "No planers" are at the bottom of the food chain, so don't expect too much discussion on this topic. It almost makes thermate and high explosives look plausible.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments)
on Friday, July 4, 2008 at 5:27:51 AM
Who are these thousands of people who saw the planes? You mean those few media executives that phoned in on the morning of 9/11? Obvious plants. And where are these videos that show planes flying into the buildings? If you mean the ones I tell you are cartoons, you are what in Philosophy 101 they call "begging the question".
And no, planes can't fly at that speed at that altitude. They would shake to bits. Ask any aircraft engineer, particularly the Boeing ones that are on record disputing those videos.
Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments)
on Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 9:04:56 AM
Who are these thousands of people who saw the planes? You mean those few media executives that phone in on the morning? And where are these videos that show planes flying into the buildings? If you mean the ones I tell you are cartoons, you are what in Philosophy 101 they call "begging the question". (But then, what do you expect from a college dropout.)
And no, planes can't fly at that speed at that altitude. They would shake to bits. Ask any aircraft engineer, particularly the Boeing ones that are on record disputing those videos.
No, at the bottom of the food chain are college dropouts, that fail to get even an undergraduate degree, in engineering, in your case. So, who are you to talk about engineering theory?
I generally don't waste time with "no-planers," but I'll respond to your comments on my educational background, and your questioning of who I am to talk about engineering theory. My alma mater is one of the most selective and prestigious schools in the US, and when I attended, it was also tuition free, since it had and still has the second highest per capita endowment of any university in the country. I also won a National Merit scholarship, and being accepted there is an academic achievement of its own, as you would quickly have learned if you had tried to attend. You don't have the slightest idea why I left without graduating, nor is it any of your business. What I "expect" from a college dropout is that he'll go on to start Microsoft or something, but not all of us are quite that gifted. As for who I am to talk about engineering theory, if I were foolish and arrogant enough to think that I had a better understanding of it than more than 230 civil and structural engineers, scientists, and other experts, most with doctorates, who looked at all of the evidence of an event and spent two years developing a comprehensive report on it, your question would be very understandable. Since I'm not, and you appear to be, it's much more appropriately directed to you instead of me. I suspect that your deliberately vague three-word profile holds the key. I have more than 40 years of experience in construction management, a sufficient understanding of the design of the WTC towers from NIST's NCSTAR1 and chapter 2 of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, as well as enough familiarity with the events of 9/11 to have reached the informed conclusion that the collapses occurred reasonably close to the way NIST said they did. From my military experience, I also know that the theories involving thermate or other incendiaries are absurd to the extreme, and the total lack of evidence, simple common sense and a good look at numerous building demolition videos easily rule out cutter charges or other explosives. Again, I'm not the one doubting NIST, you are, so who are you to do that? A philosopher?
As for your risible statement that "planes can't fly at that speed at that altitude," give ME proof. It's not a logical fallacy to point to the obvious fact that they did on 9/11, and that several dozen different videos of Flight 175, taken by different, unrelated people from different vantage points could not possibly have been altered to make them all show the same plane doing exactly the same thing. And if Boeing engineers are on record disputing the video evidence, then give me proof of that also. Boeing officials have publicly stated that both planes' speeds were far in excess of the maximum recommended for a 767 at that altitude, but none to my knowledge has ever claimed that the speeds themselves were impossible to achieve for a short interval without causing the planes to "shake to bits." Instead of attacking me personally with an off-topic, straw man argument over my education, apparently inspired by the fact that I have the audacity to disagree with you about something, please corroborate your own claims. I'm waiting.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments)
on Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM
with a geiger counter, isn't it? I have read that some people did that a few years ago and found elevated levels of radiation. Also, has New York/East Coast background radiation increased significantly?
Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 3:11:06 PM
I believe the truth movement needs to stay away from theories. Don't waste any more time trying to prove "how" it was done. This only leads to tin foil hat wearing smear campaigns of individuals talking about aliens and crap like that. Their sole intent is to smear the truth. Instead, I propose, just ask questions about "what, why, and who".
1> Why was Dick Cheney in charge of NORAD on 9-11? 2> What was NORAD busy doing anyway? What's the probability of that??? 3> Where's the missing security video tapes from WTC 1,2 AND 7? We should have them, after all, George Bush's brother was in charge of security over those building on 9-11. 4> Where's the videos from the airplane that hit the pentagon (notice the hundreds of cameras surrounding the Pentagon)? The ones released from the Pentagon were grainy and showed anything but an airplane. Why were there missing frames from that video? Why was the date embedded in the frames "9-12-2001"? Why did Rumsfeld slip and say a missile hit the Pentagon? 5> We were told that the fires at the WTCs were hot enought to melt steal. How is it that paper passports of the terrorists survived the hot flaming explosions? Why have 7 of the supposed "hijackers" been interviewed since 9-11 and are alive and well? 6> What about PNAC (The Plan for a New American Century)? It was authored by the current administration. Did they get their "New Pearl Harbor"? 7> Ossama Bin Laden was interviewed on 9-17-2001 by CNN. All of our military and intelligence couldn't find him yet some stupid reporter didn't seem to have any problem. Why? 8> Ussama Bin Laden is not listed on the FBI's most wanted list for connection with the attacks on 9-11. Why? 9> In every video showing the airplanes hitting the WTCs, there's a flash/explosion in front of the airplanes. What was it?
Indeed, all roads lead to Rome.
by
Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 264 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM
I believe the truth movement needs to stay away from theories. Don't waste any more time trying to prove "how" it was done. This only leads to tin foil hat wearing smear campaigns of individuals talking about aliens and crap like that. Their sole intent is to smear the truth. Instead, I propose, just ask questions about "what, why, and who".
1> Why was Dick Cheney in charge of NORAD on 9-11? 2> What was NORAD busy doing anyway? What's the probability of that??? 3> Where's the missing security video tapes from WTC 1,2 AND 7? We should have them, after all, George Bush's brother was in charge of security over those building on 9-11. 4> Where's the videos from the airplane that hit the pentagon (notice the hundreds of cameras surrounding the Pentagon)? The ones released from the Pentagon were grainy and showed anything but an airplane. Why were there missing frames from that video? Why was the date embedded in the frames "9-12-2001"? Why did Rumsfeld slip and say a missile hit the Pentagon? 5> We were told that the fires at the WTCs were hot enought to melt steal. How is it that paper passports of the terrorists survived the hot flaming explosions? Why have 7 of the supposed "hijackers" been interviewed since 9-11 and are alive and well? 6> What about PNAC (The Plan for a New American Century)? It was authored by the current administration. Did they get their "New Pearl Harbor"? 7> Ossama Bin Laden was interviewed on 9-17-2001 by CNN. All of our military and intelligence couldn't find him yet some stupid reporter didn't seem to have any problem. Why? 8> Ussama Bin Laden is not listed on the FBI's most wanted list for connection with the attacks on 9-11. Why? 9> In every video showing the airplanes hitting the WTCs, there's a flash/explosion in front of the airplanes. What was it?
Indeed, all roads lead to Rome.
You need toget information from other sources besides truther nut web sites. NORAD didn't have time to respond the attacks; it was simply too late when they finally realized what was happening. And what is the basis for your Cheney claim, and how did it affect the events of 9/11? Since you find significance in the fact that Marvin Bush at one time was on the board of the firm that handled security for the WTC, that Rumsfeld used "missile" in a sentence comparing airliners to missiles, that the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses twice mentions a "new Pearl Harbor" without wishing for one, and that a passport which provided superfluous evidence of one hijacker was found among thousands of other unburned combustible articles and documents from the planes on the pavement below the towers, you appear to be completely brainwashed by the "truth" movement. And if you were told that the WTC fires were hot enough to melt steel, you've obviously never read NIST's NCSTAR1, so who told you?
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments)
on Friday, July 4, 2008 at 7:38:51 AM
Anyone promoting nuclear explosives or space beams is by definition a disinformation expert. Ignore.
There is no evidence of abnormal radiation at wtc. It would still be there now if a nuclear device had been used. The disinfo types say a hydrogen bomb does not produce radioactive debris. This may be right, but it produces a blast of neutrons which make the environment radioactive for years.
Space beams? How could you make these take out every fourth floor and miss the ones in between? See video evidence.
There is ample evidence for a controlled explosive demolition. See this peer reviewed journal.
by
gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 157 comments)
on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM
