James Lewis Wrote:Jack, I have one question...do you believe that a "DEW" brought the towers down, or was it something else?

Jack White Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:Jack, I'm sorry that I misspoke. I was referring to Larry Silverstein, the man who owned the lease on the WTC property, and who made over $900 million in insurance payments after its destruction. Again, I'm sorry I misspoke...brain cramp, I guess

Jack White Wrote:Just who is this "Goldstein"? Never heard of him in connection
to 911.

Jack

I knew that, of course. I was just needling in the interest of accuracy.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:In my own opinion, I have studied the entire case very carefully over the last many years. I feel the main destructive demolition force was via the use of computer timed and carefully pre-planted nano-thermate [or some similar substance]. That said, there are many features of the events and evidence that can't be explained by an exothermic explosive alone; and I do believe it very likely that in tandem some kind[s] of DEW might have been used and this needs more study. Just as there was enormous resistance to 'no plane' at the Pentagon [and that is now more or less gaining acceptance]; Just as there was great resistance to explosive planned demolition - and that is now becoming quite widely accepted; there is enormous resistance to any talk of DEW or other exotic weapons. They all need to be researched, if they seem to explain the events and evidence....and then either accepted or discarded. Many think that Wood is totally insane, more so that she uses whimsical names for strange features after the event. I do not find her at all strange. She is thinking out of the box..but the 'box' was the official cock and bullshit story - that almost everyone now rejects....or soon will. So many parts of the official story fall apart with a little study....correction...all parts of it fall apart.

Jack White Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:Jack, I have one question...do you believe that a "DEW" brought the towers down, or was it something else?

Jack White Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:Jack, I'm sorry that I misspoke. I was referring to Larry Silverstein, the man who owned the lease on the WTC property, and who made over $900 million in insurance payments after its destruction. Again, I'm sorry I misspoke...brain cramp, I guess

I knew that, of course. I was just needling in the interest of accuracy.

DEW offers the best explanation. However, whatever it was
is likely a sophisticated covert technology of the Pentagon's
arsenal, whatever it is named.

Or it could have been a combination of weapons for fail-safe
capability. Something like planted explosives set off by DEW
weapons.

Jack

James Lewis Wrote:Peter, the way I see it, it's like Sherlock Holmes said...detective work is about eliminating the the impossible...when you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the truth.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:In my own opinion, I have studied the entire case very carefully over the last many years. I feel the main destructive demolition force was via the use of computer timed and carefully pre-planted nano-thermate [or some similar substance]. That said, there are many features of the events and evidence that can't be explained by an exothermic explosive alone; and I do believe it very likely that in tandem some kind[s] of DEW might have been used and this needs more study. Just as there was enormous resistance to 'no plane' at the Pentagon [and that is now more or less gaining acceptance]; Just as there was great resistance to explosive planned demolition - and that is now becoming quite widely accepted; there is enormous resistance to any talk of DEW or other exotic weapons. They all need to be researched, if they seem to explain the events and evidence....and then either accepted or discarded. Many think that Wood is totally insane, more so that she uses whimsical names for strange features after the event. I do not find her at all strange. She is thinking out of the box..but the 'box' was the official cock and bullshit story - that almost everyone now rejects....or soon will. So many parts of the official story fall apart with a little study....correction...all parts of it fall apart.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:James's methodological maxim (derived from Sherlock Holmes, of course), is quite right. New interviews I am currently doing with Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high-school physics, chemistry, and math teacher, are shedding new light on how to differentiate between Judy's theory of the case and alternative explanations.

Before I say more, I want to add that Chuck has also done exceptional work to explain why collapse theories, such as Jeffrey Orling's, cannot be correct. Let me add a few comments about that first, where I will mention some of the posters Chuck uses to illustrate and explain his points at http://abbrv.co.uk.avB

(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in comparison with every other, which is grossly false. The steel diminished in its thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top. As poster #28 displays, for Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.4%.

(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.

(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows. Assume you had a stack of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?

With regard to Judy's work, what Chuck is doing is going through the 43 assertions that constitute the summing up of the evidence that has to be explained, which are found on pages 480-484 of her book, and offering alternative explanations that, as he maintains, appear to offer simpler explanations of data she is misinterpreting.

(a) The first poster (as they are arranged today), shows that what Judy calls her "sillystrings" seem to actually be pieces of steel that are burning from thermite, which leave trails as they fall. The existence of chemical reactions like these, by the way, also puts the quietus to collapse theories based upon mechanical explanations.

(b) There is a crucial test of Judy's theory in the analysis of the dust samples that have been shown to include tiny iron spheres since, if Judy's right and it was done using DEWs, which turned the steel into dust, then those samples should include steel powder. If there is now steel powder in dust samples, her theory is wrong.

© The fuming that Judy so often cites may be more easily explainable as residue from the use of thermite, which cannot be extinguished by water because it has its own oxygen supply (Al2O3). If Chuck is right, a huge quantity of thermite appears to have been used with some source of explosive energy, quite possibly mini-nukes.

(d) Similarly, what Judy offers as examples of other-than-by-DEW-explainable effects, such as the "fuzzballs" and the "toasted cars", appear to be effects of fuming from residual thermite and of tiny thermite particles hitting parts of the vehicles that are not fire retardant, as posters #9 and #9a explain, not to mention clothing that caught fire.

We have now had three two-hour programs that focus on WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, which are being archived on "The Real Deal", the most recent of which will be broadcast tonight (5-7 PM/CT) over revereradio.net. (Just click on the name of the program playing and you should immediately access the show.)

Judy has maintained that WTC-7 and the Twin Towers were demolished using the same techniques, which is contradicted by the fact that all the floors of WTC-7 fell together and left a stack of pancakes about 12% the height of the original, while for the towers, their floors remained stationary and there were no pancake stacks.

What may be common between all three, however, is the extensive use of themite to prep the buildings for demolition--which may explain the massive fuming coming from one side of WTC-7--as well as the peculiar effects that Judy has noted, where mini-nukes can be arranged to bring about many patterns of effects.

Chuck's studies are convincing me that we may be close to figuring out how it was done by combining (i) Judy's compilation of the damage that has to be explained, (ii) the evidence of the use of thermite as an incendiary combined with (iii) some source of explosive energy, which I now think may have involved the use of mini-nukes.

The archives for "The Real Deal" may be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

James Lewis Wrote:Peter, the way I see it, it's like Sherlock Holmes said...detective work is about eliminating the the impossible...when you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the truth.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:In my own opinion, I have studied the entire case very carefully over the last many years. I feel the main destructive demolition force was via the use of computer timed and carefully pre-planted nano-thermate [or some similar substance]. That said, there are many features of the events and evidence that can't be explained by an exothermic explosive alone; and I do believe it very likely that in tandem some kind[s] of DEW might have been used and this needs more study. Just as there was enormous resistance to 'no plane' at the Pentagon [and that is now more or less gaining acceptance]; Just as there was great resistance to explosive planned demolition - and that is now becoming quite widely accepted; there is enormous resistance to any talk of DEW or other exotic weapons. They all need to be researched, if they seem to explain the events and evidence....and then either accepted or discarded. Many think that Wood is totally insane, more so that she uses whimsical names for strange features after the event. I do not find her at all strange. She is thinking out of the box..but the 'box' was the official cock and bullshit story - that almost everyone now rejects....or soon will. So many parts of the official story fall apart with a little study....correction...all parts of it fall apart.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in comparison with every other, which is grossly false. The steel diminished in its thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top. As poster #28 displays, for Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.4%.

(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.

(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows. Assume you had a stack of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?

Jack White Wrote:This is a quite common effect analogous to the lift of an
airplane wing, which has LIFT because of low pressure on the bottom of the wing.
When the westerly wind blew past Building 7, it created a low pressure (vacuum
effect) on the east side of the building, which SUCKED the smoke and dust
toward the building. That both Chuck and Judy are unaware of this casts some
doubt on their theories.

Jack

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in comparison with every other, which is grossly false. The steel diminished in its thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top. As poster #28 displays, for Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.4%.

(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.

(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows. Assume you had a stack of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?

Jim you show amazing denseness in not understanding what I have described as the structure of the twin towers. There were basically two types of floors throught the 104 floors above the 6 story lobby.

Tenant floor which were assembled from pre fabricated units with truss supports. These were composite construction with 4" np stone aggregate lightweight concrete. There were 88 main trusses and 6 cross trusses assembled on site linking the assemblies. All the trusses were supported on angle truss seats. The angles truss seats were welded to the spandrels of the facade and a channel on the core side which was in turn connected to the perimeter core columns witj beam stub outlookers of increasing length as you ascend up the tower... at the top they were 32" long. There were 96 of these floors and they were essentially identical.

Then there were the 8 mechanical floors. These had thicker slabs, heavier concrete and instead of truss supports the slabs were supported with steel beams. There were also additional 16 columns about 8 foot in from the facade on the mechanical floors.

The core columns stepped in thickness from the bottom to the top because the lower column supported the 3 floors attached to it, plus all those above.

When the building came down the columns were no destroyed by the fall mass. The floors were. The columns however were not able to stand without the bracing which for the facade was the floor trusses. The core bracing also was largely, though not completely destroyed by the falling debris. Most of the core survived the collapse of the floors to as tall as floor 77. Most of those core columns buckled from Euler buckling - too tall and too thin without adequate bracing a column becomes unstable and will buckle from its own weight. Please read up on Young's modulus and Euler Buckling. Perhaps Chuck can explain them to you and why they apply. Several of the core columns survived for about 20 or more seconds before they too buckled. These have been call "the Spire". Both towers had surviving core columns to as high as 70+ stories.

The floor collapse was inevitable once a sufficient mass came down upon an undamaged floor to overcome its design parameters. A collapsed floor is NOT a pancake but a floor which has shattered apart like a dropped plate or pane of glass... its mass becomes dissociated and falls... the mass does not disappear, though some is turned to dust and is carried aloft. The vast majority of the mass becomes KE energy and enough to destroy each floor successively. All of the tenant floor being of equal design, if one will fail, all below it will in sequence. The mechanical floors were stronger and would require a greater mass to crush them. But it's unlikely that floor 76 (mech floor) could support the mass of the 34 floors above - NOT THE COLUMNS ON FLOOR 76, but the floor system. The floor systems failed - not the columns.

There is no such moment created applied to the columns by even the asymmetrical random failure of the floors. The collapse of the floors was driven by gravity and that was straight down. The columns were unaffected and would therefore not tilt.... no lateral force was applied and no moment developed.

The top section of WTC 2 DID tilt just before the initiation of the global collapse. This was a result of asymmetrical column failure. But this also caused severe overloading of the remaining columns which DID buckle and bend like a pretzel. Once they buckled there was no longer and axial load transfer, the top was dropping and in so doing destroying itself at the bottom and the top floors of the lower section. This mutual destruction created that threshold mass which kicked off the collapse of the floors from 78 down to the ground as in WTC1.

There was have been engineered intervention to kick off the destruction of wtc 1 and perhaps to destroy the columns asymmetrically in tower 2. We don't KNOW THE CAUSE. Fires DOES weaken steel, but it seems unlikely that it would weaken it enough to kick off the collapse of the floors... truss seat and truss failures.

I am doing some calculations at this date and the safety factor for the core columns seems to be about 1.5. For example CC501 was A36 steel at 36,000 psi at floor one was rated for load of about 21,000,000 pounds at floor 50 it was rated for 8.5 million pounds. I'll have the actual loading of the column shortly, but the column itself weighed 1,262,990 pounds and the loads were approximately 12,000,000 pounds.

What I propose is what happens when you drop (or rest) something too heavy (or overlaod) a floor - it collapses. QED.