OK Mate, sorry I have not returned the leads yet. I do however find it almost 'spooky' how every-time a major news event occurs there is always a news team to report it, whatever the reason.
This was of course a major news item, worthy of international coverage, yet the collapse of building seven was not even mentioned, I believe only once in the news and not at all in the 'official 911' report.
What interests me here, more than even who did it , is how did they do it, simply from the physics.
Not the politics, or who was to blame, no, simply the physics of what is involved in bringing down three of the most 'security protected' buildings in one day. Steel framed buildings do not collapse from fire, or a direct hit, they never have before or after, so what occurred that day to change the laws of physics.
Sorry but beginning to sound like my cable comments. One basic law is the conservation of energy, the amount of energy required to destroy a building is far more than the energy contained in a plane full of fuel, another law, energy can not be created or destroyed. So where did the massive energy input come from to bring down three massively over engineered buildings in a matter of hours.
That is my conundrum, not who did it, or why, but simply HOW, because flying a plane into a building that was designed to take a direct hit is not a tenable reason.
John we are on the same side of the fence here, I'm no scientist (as you know) and even to me, the building "collapses" defy science and logic and as you say, building 7 was not even hit by a plane but it still "collapsed" as well. Many people I've spoken to on this subject weren't even aware that 3 buildings "collapsed" on that day.
I think everyone has a duty to those souls that perished to research and question what happened on 911 and why - Google "911 download" or "911 truth " and make your own minds up.
Thanks Mike - your right everyone needs to question the events, but to many it is easy to just put 'it out of sight and out of mind' than face the realities of what happened. Have recently read on BBC news:
Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.
Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.
A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.
If you would like to see a young guys interpretation, view the film 'Loose Change', it is viewable on the web or purchasable on DVD. Apparently it has been seen by 100,000,000 people, not a bad start for a new film maker!!!
I've seen Loose Change and a number of other films/documentaries focusing on various aspects of questioning what occured on that day and why. From a kind of hi-fi perspective, you may be interested to look at the video that matches sound waves created against timeline before the towers "collapsed". Other docs I've seen include for example, the 1st Bush election, corrupt or what? and this from the worlds "premier" democratic power? it was Bush Snr that first used the phrase "a new world order" - have a think on that.
The USA defense industry is just massive, and without war the impact on the USA economy would again be massive - and just how many wars/conflicts have USA been involved in since WW2?
Are we talking seismograph sound here, ie the explosions that went off moments before collapse, or something else that I have missed?
And yes I have read loads about the 'new world order', and if I read correctly does that not suggest one nation controlling the whole world.
Maybe I am still naive about world matters but it strikes me that different cultures are so fundamentally different that they could never work together under the same rules and laws. After all half the world reads from right to left, now that must come from a different mind set to the west, others read from top to bottom.
Unfortunately the USA is an arrogant country, whereas they should be grateful for the natural resources they have, but no, they always want more - then proceed to nick it from any country that has it - the reasons offered are just excuses, pretty much the Wild West culture.
Hello John,Wotslice,ok once more,the reason the twin towers collapsed is a case of Ballistics,the aircraft travelling at say 620 kph plus the weight of say 150 tons loaded[people,luggage,fuel etc]so its weight times velocity squared,frankly i,m amazed they stood for as long as they did......end of.The U.S are the big kid on the block[at the moment]and they want everything their own way,as most bullies do,but like bullies,you hit em and they back off,and get somone else to do their dirty work for them,ring any bells????..............Dave
John, yes the one about the "pre-collapse" explosions filmed from the other side of the river plus of course the eywitness accounts of said explosions which were (amazingly) completely ignored by the officiial invetsigation and reports.
Dave have to disagree with you here, the towers were desgined to take aircraft impact. The official reason for the "collapses" was not the areoplane plane impacts, but the melting of the steel structure caused by fire - which defies science. Even if your theory is correct, how do you explain the collapse and destruction of building 7 as this had no areoplane crash into it. Aslo, how you explain how the twin towers were pulverised and turned to dust? why didint the floors collapse and stack on top of each other if the buildings simply collapsed?
Have a look at some of the downloads of films questioning the official report they raise some serious issues with accuracy of the official report.
Now David you seem to misunderstand the physics of what happened on that fateful day, as you well know my interest is simply in the physics, the, is it possible, and I have to say that the official report, and your surmise are just not physically possible. This is not 'my opinion', not what I 'read into the event' no, simply the physics of how could it happen.
Once one listens to the eye witness accounts, one looks at the 'pulverising' of concrete, look at the speed of collapse, free fall speed. Now for any object to fall at free-fall speed it has to have no impediment below it, hence the lower floors were already taken out, then add two and two, there is really only one conclusion.
I won't go into the many 'how did that happen' scenarios, but for one. If the collapse was caused by ballistics blah blah, then what bought down tower seven at five in the afternoon?
As for the ring any bells???? comment, I fail to understand. Really do take the time, look at the evidence, view the videos, listen to the people who were there at the time, the people who saw events unfold in real time. Of course the official line will be different, because the officials orchestrated the event in the first place. I know that this is an unbelievable scenario to understand, but no other explanation is possible. It is also impossible to imagine that a few terrorists could have gained the authority, or the power, or the time to set many explosives over many weeks that were required to bring down three of the most 'over engineed' buildings in history.
Please read up on the history of 'high rise' buildings, many have been hit by planes, many have had serious fires burning for twenty plus hours, but none have ever collapsed, before, since, or at any time in history.
Now we are approaching the 'interconnects' scenario, where a company claims to have 'side stepped' physics and produced a substantially better product whilst using the same basic materials.
Sorry Dave but physics is physics and it doesn't change because some one wants it to, a bit like the speed of light, a constant, unchangeable. I would like to say 'have a chat with Einstian about that but it's a bit too late now.
Physics are not 'debatable', not a subject of 'opinion' but the universal laws of the universe, you, I, or anyone cannot change them.
Sorry to come across as a bit 'hard hitting' but I believe your conclusions are not researched, not thought out and certainly not feasible.
I do not consider it true that the twin towers and building seven were blown up by the US Government but it was caused by the planes that flew into them and building seven was caused by pleasure through the tunnels that connected them to the twin towers, Strange how when someone does not agree with those who love conspiracy’s we are called mad and cause anger in those who consider it is a conspiracy, I believe that we are all entitled to our opinion. The next thing is going to be said is that 7/7 was a British Government plot to justify our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lighten up people and get a life instead of wasting all this time on the subject. Gerald in one of my sane moments.
Gerald, it is clear that you have not done your homework, otherwise it would be clear that two planes do not bring down three buildings. It is also clear that you have no understanding of physics or of the underlying laws of the universe.
If this is what you say in a 'sane moment' then I hate to think what you may believe the rest of the time.
OK we all believe what we want to, same as cables and Hi-Fi but that does not alter the laws of nature, these are not down to belief, these are real and unchangeable, these are 'the bottom line', not subjective, not debatable but constants.
What happened that day defies all the laws, not my opinion but simply physics.
John, do you really believe that we will ever get the truth about 9/11 the US Government will never tell us and the people who think it was a conspiracy will keep saying it was so we are at an impasse, if we do find out the truth there is nothing we can do about it so why bother just get back to talking some sense about hi fi and making measurements on amps and other equipment, without using the ears which are very imprecise things and cant be calibrated therefore cant be relied upon to tell the difference between one item and another. Regards Gerald PS these new pills are having a very good effect on my mind.
As to a general theory about weakened steel etc. Last year I coined an expression, the 'baked bean tin test (BBTT) and this was an experiment that I actually did.
Empty the contents of a baked bean tin, then put the can on the gas stove at full power, leave for an hour, and see what happens.
Now natural gas burns at a higher temperature than aviation fuel, and BB cans are hardly architectural steel, so what happened - wait for this - nothing, the can did not weaken, it certainly did not melt.
Now temperature is like voltage, put a hundred PP3 batteries in parallel and we still only have 9 Volts, put a hundred raging fires together that all burn at 1000 degrees F and we still only have 1000 degrees.
A physics point here, temperatures do not add up, they are effectively in parallel, have ten fires next to each other burning at 1000 degrees, the resultant temperature is still only 1000 degrees.
Imagine taking a butane torch that would solder copper pipes, then getting ten of them, they will still not melt steel, no we need a higher temperature gas like acetylene to melt steel.
I believe this is a crucial point in our understanding of events, jet fuel does not burn at temperatures that can even weaken steel, let alone melt it.
So Mr Mellor what actually collapsed these buildings, ballisticks, fire, temperature, please tell me. Oh and please explaine the demise of building seven that was not even hit, and whilst your at it maybe explaine why all the other towers were brought down within a week, I mean 3,4,5, and 6, when it takes so much time to wire dets, set explosives etc.
When you say: Quote I believe this is a crucial point in our understanding of events, jet fuel does not burn at temperatures that can even weaken steel, let alone melt it.
What happens to the structures of the metals in the girders/ bolts/ welds?, having worked along side metallurgists for 22 years and was responsible for the testing to destruction of most materials in the auto industry, fact ? you do not need to melt metal for it to fail in strength, by the process of heating you change the micro structures of steel, these then cool and temper the structure, there by making the steel brittle, and cause fractures, especially the welds, which held thousands of tons of metal/concrete plus all other office equipment, this plus the initial damage caused by the plane, may have been cause for collapse, of the upper section that was exposed to the heat, but that still leaves a puzzle on how and why did the structure below collapse? was it the sudden shock and wight of the upper building,??? Who knows, this debate will never be totaly resolved? . ....??????????...........Carl.
I know what you mean Carl...anyone who's ever watched a blacksmith at work knows that metal remains malleable at lower-than-melting point temperatures and loses a bit of tensile strength....
....but then there's the question of the "molten metal" (we assume it was steel)....where did that come from...and what caused it...?
Could this be lead,???? to solve this conundrum, one would have to examine all the data, and facts, this leaves us still with one big ? This like Diana's story, will never be truly solved ?.
As I said in the 'baked bean tin test' we hardly see weakening, so back to events, if the fires did cause weakening then that would only happen to the floors that had fires, if the rest of the building ie the lower levels did not get weakened then the overall weight would still be the same and those lower floors would still support it.
What I find fascinating about this discussion is the similarity it has with Hi-Fi, though I do take this far more seriously.
To Carl, the fact that a section of building collapses onto another does not increase it's weight, the shock effect may do more damage than weight alone, but never enough to collapse the whole thing in thirteen seconds.
Take the time and view The Janitor my name, but one guy there at the scene, doing his best, not an opinion, only his expireance.
John...
PS noticed a reply from Carl whilst I was writing mine - yes I really do believe the truth will show - and I believe it could discredit the USA big-time, unlike the Diana story, this involved 2800 odd deaths, so many more are interested to find the truth. Also those numbers are only of the day, if we then count the further deaths caused by the ensuing war then just think how many are interested, this is a global issue. When I read that more than half of the American population do not believe the official story, then I do believe the truth will show.
Will have to re:run video again to digest his account of tragedy, but on first view his story can be interpreted any way you want it ? but before i get a rebuff, i will digest further this and other stories !!!!!! ..........Carl.!!
Carl/Bill, but how do you explain that the concrete was pulversied, not broken into slabs, but pulverised. The molten metal acording to more knowledable people than me is an outcome of using thermite (powerful dynamite) on steel (as well as turning concrete to dust)
No-one's explained how building 7 collapsed yet - to me this looks like a classic pre-planned demolition job as the building imploded collapsed on its own footprint, plus the owner of the site (Larry someone) is on record as saying the building was "pulled" which is another term for a controlled demolition. Apparently he doubled the insurance on the site and had only owned it 6 months or so before 911. Plus I've read that the towers were cash cows and they were by no means fully occupied.
