20-07-2011, 02:17 AM
Yes... nano thermite has been oversold. Harrit told me that he questimates there could have been 4 tons used throughout all the side and that has a large margin of error considering the small sample space of only 4 collection locations. I don't believe he (they) show how they even arrived at this number.
Wood has been shown to be a lousy observer - she justs gets many of her observations dead wrong and discredits herself as she builds a case based on these flawed observations and resorts to rather bizarre science... to explain her faulty observations. She's into garbage in equals garbage out. Her energy calculations were shown to be completely wrong. So much for her academic credentials.
Gage himself has never done any research and like MOST of the truthg community and the scientists that lead it... hasn't much understanding of the structure of the twin towers beyond the most cartoon-like conception. He told me that the destruction of the twins looked like explosions and he knew this "intuitively"... I kid you not. So much for "forensic analysis". He didn't know what beam stub outlookers were and where they were used in the Twin towers and why they were crucial to understanding some aspects of their collapse. Gage cites other "researchers" who provide him with a bunch of fall evidence and mis-representions of the observations and Judy Wood in the garbage in equals garbage out club. Whether he's well intentioned or swimming in water over his depth or a tool of someone(s) feeding him his PR presentation, he's clearly not interesting in research because his "Blueprint for Truth" has been proven to be large not evidence of anything related to the collapse of the Twin towers. It's very slick and impressive and a wonderful dog and pony show that many are hood winked by.
The towers did collapse... that is there was a progressive destruction of the floors from top to bottom which became an avalanche of enormous mass grinding all the friable materials to grain sizes particles and fine dust... with lots of it carried aloft by the air AFTER the collapse hit ground and large hot billowing clouds propagated away from all three collapsed buildings... as happens when massive structure with lots of concrete are know to do. The speed of the floor destruction was NOT an accelerating one but one which reached 65+ mph and remained at that terminal velocity. Observation shows heavier debris "free" falling way ahead of the collapse or destruction front. The actual speed of collapse can be determined from the collapse duration (somewhat in dispute) and the floor at which the "free falling" debris of the canopy eclipses the camera's view of the collapse. The canopy races ahead to the ground at close to free fall acceleration and the slower collapse is not seen after that moment.
Scientists have explained almost all the observations of the collapse of the twin towers which did not required energy inputs such as DEW, nanothermite, RDX, mini nukes etc. with basic science, physics and engineering. They have no determined what got the collapse going at this date, but the cause could be engineered and likely was not the plane strikes or the ensuing fires. Some else seems to have destroyed the structure at the top which created the crushing destructive mass which took out all the floors sequentially. The progressively destroyed floors caused the facade to peel off and left the core with most of its bracing gone and without it the core became instable and its extremely tall columns buckled into the 36' segments they were composed of in a phenomena that engineers refer to as self bucking or Euler buckling named after the physicists who study the relationship between length and cross section of columns.
It now appears that the most well promoted destruction theories about the twin towers rely MORE on logic and less on actual observations, though they phrase..."if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... then it is a duck." is substituted for real data derived from the observations. This is how most non technically educated people view the world and are helped by Hollywood to form their conception of how things work. And very educated people can be non technically educated and are essentially naive observers when it comes to technical matters. A PhD in the philosophy of science may have a hard time doing weather forecasting or reading a weather map, or a PhD in chemistry may not be versed in structural engineering. But almost all of us understand how logic works and logic can produce a false results with sound logic applied to false arguments or premises. And so it is with many 911 "researchers" who apply flawless logic and the use of analogy and simply fail to build their case on the data derived from the observations.
A case in point is the often heard statement that never before has a building collapsed from fires. While this MAY be true, this is not in itself a proof that a building could NOT collapse from fire. And if it could.. something which needs to be looked at carefully, then why couldn't it happen 3 times if three towers were seeing unfought fires an hour, and hour and a half and 7 hours? I am NOT claiming that fire caused the collapse, but demonstrating the false logic commonly used to reach a conclusion which is not based on the data from observations. It should be noted that no building close to the size of any of those towers collapsed under ANY circumstances. So we have no precedence for what this would look like and scaling cannot be applied to structural issues in many cases. Gravity doesn't scale and time doesn't scale and virtually all of the forces which hold materials together don't scale either. So you can't build a table top to-scale model of the twins and expect to learn about how the real towers will "perform" under "stress".
Almost every researcher's theories shows basic flaws in understanding the structure and failure to use real data from the destruction or understanding of science. Another misread observation is from the hollow towers theorists who point to a photo taken in the early morning when the towers were being built. They claim the light passing through the towers is proof that they had no floors and were hollow. But they fail to consider any of the optical effects of slit diffraction, light bending, refraction and dispersion by dust in the atmosphere which creates "mirages" and optical illusions. Fooled by your lying eyes and poor education in optics.
The whole forensic matter is complicated by the political and the notion that whomever the perps were, they're going to be causing as much confusion and leaving as much chafe on their trail. And since the official story is laced with falsehoods it clearly is a cover up. But whose tracks are being covered? The assumption is that it is some inside the government or someone who can control the government from outside. All interesting speculation and not based on the data from 9/11. Once that is collected and understood, the next step is to look for who could have done what the data tells us actually happened... and who put all the false leads out there?
This is not easy and in ten years of "research" we've had many false leads. 911 truth is not based on false theories, but it has been populated by those who promote them.
Wood has been shown to be a lousy observer - she justs gets many of her observations dead wrong and discredits herself as she builds a case based on these flawed observations and resorts to rather bizarre science... to explain her faulty observations. She's into garbage in equals garbage out. Her energy calculations were shown to be completely wrong. So much for her academic credentials.
Gage himself has never done any research and like MOST of the truthg community and the scientists that lead it... hasn't much understanding of the structure of the twin towers beyond the most cartoon-like conception. He told me that the destruction of the twins looked like explosions and he knew this "intuitively"... I kid you not. So much for "forensic analysis". He didn't know what beam stub outlookers were and where they were used in the Twin towers and why they were crucial to understanding some aspects of their collapse. Gage cites other "researchers" who provide him with a bunch of fall evidence and mis-representions of the observations and Judy Wood in the garbage in equals garbage out club. Whether he's well intentioned or swimming in water over his depth or a tool of someone(s) feeding him his PR presentation, he's clearly not interesting in research because his "Blueprint for Truth" has been proven to be large not evidence of anything related to the collapse of the Twin towers. It's very slick and impressive and a wonderful dog and pony show that many are hood winked by.
The towers did collapse... that is there was a progressive destruction of the floors from top to bottom which became an avalanche of enormous mass grinding all the friable materials to grain sizes particles and fine dust... with lots of it carried aloft by the air AFTER the collapse hit ground and large hot billowing clouds propagated away from all three collapsed buildings... as happens when massive structure with lots of concrete are know to do. The speed of the floor destruction was NOT an accelerating one but one which reached 65+ mph and remained at that terminal velocity. Observation shows heavier debris "free" falling way ahead of the collapse or destruction front. The actual speed of collapse can be determined from the collapse duration (somewhat in dispute) and the floor at which the "free falling" debris of the canopy eclipses the camera's view of the collapse. The canopy races ahead to the ground at close to free fall acceleration and the slower collapse is not seen after that moment.
Scientists have explained almost all the observations of the collapse of the twin towers which did not required energy inputs such as DEW, nanothermite, RDX, mini nukes etc. with basic science, physics and engineering. They have no determined what got the collapse going at this date, but the cause could be engineered and likely was not the plane strikes or the ensuing fires. Some else seems to have destroyed the structure at the top which created the crushing destructive mass which took out all the floors sequentially. The progressively destroyed floors caused the facade to peel off and left the core with most of its bracing gone and without it the core became instable and its extremely tall columns buckled into the 36' segments they were composed of in a phenomena that engineers refer to as self bucking or Euler buckling named after the physicists who study the relationship between length and cross section of columns.
It now appears that the most well promoted destruction theories about the twin towers rely MORE on logic and less on actual observations, though they phrase..."if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... then it is a duck." is substituted for real data derived from the observations. This is how most non technically educated people view the world and are helped by Hollywood to form their conception of how things work. And very educated people can be non technically educated and are essentially naive observers when it comes to technical matters. A PhD in the philosophy of science may have a hard time doing weather forecasting or reading a weather map, or a PhD in chemistry may not be versed in structural engineering. But almost all of us understand how logic works and logic can produce a false results with sound logic applied to false arguments or premises. And so it is with many 911 "researchers" who apply flawless logic and the use of analogy and simply fail to build their case on the data derived from the observations.
A case in point is the often heard statement that never before has a building collapsed from fires. While this MAY be true, this is not in itself a proof that a building could NOT collapse from fire. And if it could.. something which needs to be looked at carefully, then why couldn't it happen 3 times if three towers were seeing unfought fires an hour, and hour and a half and 7 hours? I am NOT claiming that fire caused the collapse, but demonstrating the false logic commonly used to reach a conclusion which is not based on the data from observations. It should be noted that no building close to the size of any of those towers collapsed under ANY circumstances. So we have no precedence for what this would look like and scaling cannot be applied to structural issues in many cases. Gravity doesn't scale and time doesn't scale and virtually all of the forces which hold materials together don't scale either. So you can't build a table top to-scale model of the twins and expect to learn about how the real towers will "perform" under "stress".
Almost every researcher's theories shows basic flaws in understanding the structure and failure to use real data from the destruction or understanding of science. Another misread observation is from the hollow towers theorists who point to a photo taken in the early morning when the towers were being built. They claim the light passing through the towers is proof that they had no floors and were hollow. But they fail to consider any of the optical effects of slit diffraction, light bending, refraction and dispersion by dust in the atmosphere which creates "mirages" and optical illusions. Fooled by your lying eyes and poor education in optics.
The whole forensic matter is complicated by the political and the notion that whomever the perps were, they're going to be causing as much confusion and leaving as much chafe on their trail. And since the official story is laced with falsehoods it clearly is a cover up. But whose tracks are being covered? The assumption is that it is some inside the government or someone who can control the government from outside. All interesting speculation and not based on the data from 9/11. Once that is collected and understood, the next step is to look for who could have done what the data tells us actually happened... and who put all the false leads out there?
This is not easy and in ten years of "research" we've had many false leads. 911 truth is not based on false theories, but it has been populated by those who promote them.