not truth at all. Let me brieftly explain why.
The Physics from the Physics blogger Dr Frank Greenings (here
) analyzed the amount of energy that would be
created from the Towers falling at free fall speeds. This energy however was
due to the collapse, and cannot at all have been the energy which presumably
the steel in the towers. The steel could not have been weakened from an energy
that was created after the fall of the towers, since the energy that weakened
steel would have had to be present before the falling of the towers.
But more importantly, Dr. Greenings also assumed that the 110 stories all came
down because all 44 central steel cores suddenly failed at the same time and at
all places up and down the building. He does some basic time of gravitational
fall calculations. Dr. Greenings then elaborates on what he calls the
MOMENTUM TRANSFER THEORY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE or his version of the
Pancake Theory, in which
the stacks fall on top of lower stacks and gradually accumulate energy on the
down (you can read his PDF file here.)
But how this transfer theory could have had the energy to immediately pulverize
spew dense fine particles outward in Pyroclastic flows cannot be
explained. The paper says it "sufficiently explains" the pulverization
but neglects to mention that all of the kinetic energy calculations and
momentum series regression cannot provide energy to the top of the collapse.
And how can 44 steel columns suddenly collapse equally all up and down the 417
meters of height, so that the end result was remarkably equal length sections
of sliced steel columns in a pile at the footprint of the collapse. Natural or
accidental collapses would have been irregular rather than staight-down, and
would involve much twisting and warping of the columns due to the weight
instead of clean breaks at an extreme angle to the beam. And if the steel did
indeed collapse due to weight, how come the collapse began at the very top and
traveled symmetrically downward rather then somewhere more near the center of
gravity of the building? Or how come the top of tower didn't just slump and
fall off? But instead for the first-time in the history of engineering, not
one, but three buildings were said to have collapsed when the steel failed due
to kerosine fuel based fires.
Pyroclastic flows are heavier-than-air gas-particle emulsions that travel
across the ground at velocities ranging from 10 m/sec to 300 m/sec. They can
attain temperatures of over 1000 C. They range from high density flows that
move down valleys and can move beneath water, to dilute flows that extend over
mountains and can move across water.[SOURCE]
Pyroclastic flows like what occurred in the aftermath of the towers collapse do
not occur because buildings fall down, they occur as the result of tremendous
explosive energy. They are quite different than smoke and dust clouds in
general by their velocity and density of material. In nature, a pyroclastic
flow occurs when a volcano
How could concrete and office furniture become completely pulverized into fine
particles and then horizontally projected outward in dense rapidly moving
clouds that traversed 10 plus city blocks and hovered out over the Hudson River
for nearly an hour? Had the towers simply fell down, there would have been
much larger chunks of office furniture and concrete, and therefore not enough
fine material for a pyroclastic flow to occur because most of the energy of the
fall would have gone into the motion of these larger sedimentia. And recall
that the expelled dense clouds of fine material began to occur at the very top
of the towers fall, before the weight of the building could have had an impact.
If it were this easy to crush concrete into fine dust (after falling 3 to 10
seconds in mid-air), a lot of companies have been wasting their money.
Hold a brick up above your head and drop it. Does it get pulverized into fine
dust particles when it hits the ground? Drop it from a 20 story building -- or
a 100 story building -- and it still doesn't pulverize the brick into fine dust
particles, but many various stone-sized broken pieces. The density of small
particles is not possible when most of the weight is in the form of broken
pieces. And since most of the weight is contained in larger pieces, so too
is most of the energy dissipated from the scattering of these larger pieces.
Nevertheless, the pulverization occurred in mid-air, not underneath the weight
of the building.
I don't presume to know what happened because I don't know. But I do know
the laws of Physics. If the heat inside the towers was so great that it would
weakened the steel, the windows (which have a melting point close to that of
steel : 1420 °C versus 1353 °C)
would have all exploded outward from the massive pressure minutes before the
began their collapse. But that didn't happen. A firefighter was able to radio
a call from the 82nd floor, but he would have evaporated into flames if there
have been enough contained heat to weaken the steel.
Airplane fuel burns between 1400 and 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The core of the
was also specifically designed to seal off the potential of a chimney effect.
how could steel weaken that was specified to last 6 hours at 2300 degrees
without loss of strength?Go here
to see an easy to read table of temperature. Accordingly, Plate Glass slumps
at 1500 °F and Aluminum (of the plane) melts at 1218 °F . Dr. Greenings
mentions that even at temperatures of 500 °C (1000°F), the steel could
have suffered a 20% weakness, but the breaking into sections all along the
length of the steel can be even less explained at this lower temperature, given
that the steel was heavily reinforced at each floor with horizontal cross-beams
which would have dissipated this energy. This would have prevented the
accumlation of high temperatures and stess at any one location.
of the towers is like a 110 story of vertical AND horizontal interconnected
bars into small grids. The entire building was also wrapped in a blanket of
steel. There were something on the order of 10,000 joints of this meshed steel
in the buildings. A few slices in maybe 6 floors, the added weight of a
passenger plane, and the burning of jet fuel cannot explain the collapse of the
towers because at least 50% of the steel would have had to been the exact
temperature of fires that could have at most burned at 1800 in maybe 3 to 4
floors using the most generous assumptions. There is no way the rest of the
steel could have been even close to this temperature, so why didn't the top
just slump over and fall off? The weight of the building is not enough
to "pancake" and cause the steel in the 70 floors below and the basement to
fail. If the section of 5 to 10 floors in the middle did indeed fail, the
failure of those stress points alone releases the energy of the weight which
engendered their failure.
There are other papers which push this notion of bracket creep. The added
weight of the airplanes is not different in stress load than a day of high 30
mile per hour winds, which does occur in New York City. The heat could not
have raised the temperature of all that steel to anything remotely close to 500
degrees Fahrenheit. This idea of "bracket creep" makes one think that the grid
of steel in the towers didn't exist, or that all linkages involved up or down
stress release points, when in fact, the stress release points were in all
directions, even diagonal. But never you mind, there is an integral equation
which says that one of the joints would fail, so therefore all of the 9,999
others must also fail as well. After looking at the mathematical paper which
floated this idea I came away with a surprised understanding that you can use
to model any preconceived assumption you like. Your peers can even agree about
the math being correct. But as for the original assumptions, here is where all
of the best models fail.
All of this puffery put on the website is actually quite dishonest, because as
I just point out, the debunkers are
proving by assumptions based on a false primary argument. There
are too many times when the ripostes and criticism offered is hardly credible,
really only based on opinion -- which is excusable but still not a substitute
for genuine substance and factual description.
such example (go here ) is when the site presumes to "debunk" Mr. Jones
video of the squibs
by showing a picture from SouthWest of building Number 7 AT A DIFFERENT TIME OF
DAY! You can tell by the incidence of the sun with the building that the sun
was higher in the sky. Look at the nearly 45 degree angle of the sun in the
picture on the building to the right (near the center of the pic.)
This is the pic our impenetrable debunker used. That angle of the sun is
between 2 and 3 pm in New York City at that time of
year. Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:30pm EST. That's a 2 to 3 hour
difference in time folks. Interestingly enough, it was also the time at which
that fire raged the most and then started to cool off. By the time WTC7 fell,
the fires were smaller and the smoke was less dense, which is typical of our
historical experience with fires in high-rise steel buildings.
Oh and here's the best. The Jones pic the site provided was actually one
frame from a video (watch it here and slo-mo zoom here )
which showed a sequence of puffs just before the building plummeted. And it's
the visual motion of that sequence in time that is the whole point of the
evidence. They choose one frame to criticize an entire video, how lame is
that? The debunker site makes much ado about the smoke coming
out of the side, even derisively castigating the researchers for their
to show this photo. (But look, see, there it is above, 3 hours before the
building falls in less than 10 seconds.)
A motion gif
The pic the debunker site uses
So how exactly does the photo with all the smoke
refute the video's
sequence of squibs
alongside the WTC7 building just before it fell? That building didn't sag on
the weakened corner, as you would expect, but fell completely symmetrical all
the way down. There is no way this is possible because the steel in the
farthest corner from the weakened corner would not have collapsed at the same
time since it was exposed to much less heat. One side would give maybe. All
at the same time? That is the Physics you find from leftover newspaper scraps
used by homeless cretins in place of blankets.
But alas, critical thinking comes cheap these days. Selecting one frame
from evidence that is meant to be a video, and then trying to tie that frame to
an event that occurred 3 hours earlier is apparently what the debunkers tried
to do. Notice how this frame is zoomed in so that the distortions of the
pixels could indeed seem to arise from smoke on the edge of the building. It's
hard to believe someone who would pick one frame from a video then zoom it to
distortion before linking it with a time 3 hours earlier.
Oh, and I love this bit
Puffs of smoke or simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life coming away
from the building during a violent collapse?
What would the purpose be in setting off charges in that corner of the building
anyway? A question not answered in this conspiracy story. The only purpose this
has is to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly.
Sounds like it wants to make sense, except two things. Those fires in building
7 could never have been hot enough to cause the steel to fail. The notion that
an entire building could just suddenly shake (watch the video, that's what
happens) and then plummet symmetrically to the ground in less than 10 seconds
is not "simply damaged panels hanging on for dear life." Never once has a
building ever fallen like WTC7 because of fire, despite their being plenty of
fires that were much worse and on older buildings.
And is this trickster really asking that second question? Uh, like, surprise,
surprise -- you can't bring a steel building down any other way! Okay. How
about that. If there were other ways, then why do building owners hired
controlled demolition experts to bring down steel buildings? And then this punk
follows by stating his question is not answered and says the only purpose
is "to create evidence around another fuzzy anomaly" ?
Gosh golly me, did I read that correctly. Creating evidence? Is that a
freudian slip, or why would anyone credible even put those two words together?
The sentence makes no sense at all. If an "anomaly" has been clarified
as "fuzzy" then why does evidence need to be "created" ? "Fuzzy" implies that
one doubts the veracity of whether somethings exists (namely, the truth.)
An "anomaly" by definition is something out of the ordinary. So follow me now,
if something doesn't exist that isn't out of the ordinary, your purpose is to
create evidence? Surely this is either just fuzzy reasoning surrounded by
pugnacious obscurity, or the mad hatter laughing hysterically.
This rank sidestepping amateurism doesn't debunk anything, however, much less
does it come close to ruining Mr. Jones's credibility.
Furthermore, on the same web-page, our fearless debunker has this to say about
the odd squibs:
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of
Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off
in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely we see
these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to
spurt out then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. It's
strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase it's
explosive strength with time.
So explosives don't increase it's explosive strength with time? But what if
all the explosives didn't go off at once, and were timed in a computerized
sequence -- which is what actually happens during a Controlled Demolition?
That's what the word "Controlled" means. It
is true that squibs could occur from the rush of the building going down,
but why is the concrete instantly becoming pulverized and tossed powerfully
outward as the building falls down? And it still doesn't explain the entire
collapse of the steel, which is the true anamoly (that's misuse of a word
number two.) You can reverse this backwards and
forwards as many times as necessary, but it's the same ole dead armadillo. The
explosive strength began immediately and continued all the way down.
I also don't follow the criticism of the picture which is used to indicate
the use of Thermite explosives [
here.] That picture was taken by someone who remembered when he
the picture. Your article however makes much ado about some apparent ambiguity
of when the picture was taken, when the timing of the photo is not ambiguous.
was taken during the two weeks of rescue operations. You even cede this point,
to make another ridiculous point that the picture of a wielder and a sliced
beam refutes the angle cut in the original picture.
But it's not even the same angle. The angle from Thermite is greater than 45
degrees, whereas the slice provided in your picture looks more like 30
degrees.Go to the [
debunker site here] and see for yourself.
Here is how you estimate the angle. The cut makes a right triangle, with 2
legs that meet at a right angle. If the cut is such that the two legs are
equal length, the angle of the cut is 45 degrees. Notice that the line of the
cut is pointed to a place much lower than the top of the square, indicating an
angle less than 30 degrees -- to me it looks like 2/3 rds. The pic with the
fire-fighters however appear to have a ratio of height to base 1.5 to 1 (or at
least 1.25 to 1) which indicates an angle larger than 45 degrees. In fact the
angle can be determined by using the arctangent function on the ratio. Hence,
Arctan(1.5)= 56.3 degrees
Arctan(1.25)= 51.34 degrees
Arctan(0.66)= 33.69 degrees
Why is this signifigant? If a human being slices steel, it would take longer
to make the 45plus degree cut -- because the length is longer -- in addition to
being a lot more difficult. This
is precisely why the steepness of the angle in the original picture is the mark
of a Thermite cut because the steep cut allows the steel to slide downward!
There would be no need for a human to make this difficult type of cut in order
to break apart the steel beam. It is also a waste of material. Shamefully, your
refutation misses this point,
because it is
precisely this point that makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives
And yet once again, while admiting those steep cuts were of thermite origin,
the debunkers don't realize the most damning point that the very steepness of
the cuts makes the entire argument of Thermite explosives quite plausible.
(Don't know what A Thermite reaction is? Educate yourself. Do a google
on "Thermite". You'll find an australian scientific experiment video and
plenty of info.)
How pompous and self-righteous do you have to be? A hotmail account is the
contact ? There is no address or anything linking you to anyone. Not even a
name. The only
done at this pitiful site is the debunking of its own myths that it
actually does quite
doing through its sloppy, self-flatulent articles. Notice how I provide links
to the articles that I am criticizing. Isn't it odd how the debunker site
can't seem to do the same.
Here is a good
place to go to read the articles the debunker was implicitly criticizing. This
site is a repository for a growing lot of physicists and engineers who leave
their real names and their sources from peer-sourced reviews (as opposed to one
anonymous email link.) In my opinion, there is more substance and detailed
analysis -- minus the boisting tone of the mysterious debunker site and
the smug authority of its Physics blogger assistant, Dr Frank Greenings.
Yea, I believe in the JFK single bullet theory too. And the Liberty League did
attempt to get General Smedley Butler to head
military coup against Roosevelt in 1933 either (so did that Congressional
trial where General Butler told all to a shocked American public really
occur? ) Henry Ford never funded the Nazi Party in Germany, and Prescott Bush
did not use a New York Bank to finance Germany until 1942. Nor did the Chiefs
of Staff all sign operation
in 1962 before it was presented to and rejected by President Kennedy. And
the arms for hostages deals with the Iranians, that did not happen
There is nothing theoretical about any of these matters. They are not myths.
I don't care to speculate about the implications, but I cannot in good
conscience deny what I know to be true. It is a matter of irrefutable
historical record that Men will do and have done despicable deeds in order to
achieve grand designs of power.