Winter Patriot Community Blog

Thanks, James. I haven't been able to make things happen as quickly as I would like, but I am still grinding away.

Part 2 is up now, and here's the link: No Vortex

Fictitious reality, indeed!

I have never known what to make of the planes/no-planes debate (if you can call it that) but I have tried to keep an open mind. As usual, that turned out to be a good move. You never know what you might come across.

In upcoming installments, I hope to be able to add more information on both fronts (WTC and Saudi Arabia) and possibly begin to make sense of it all ... possibly!

Part 4 of the series is now online. Here's the link: Part 4: The Cutouts

It's not the sort of job I would apply for, if I were you.

what are the eye witness statements not the camera statements re planes hitting the towers?

I apologize for the delay, and I hope you have had a good holiday.

The following is from Dimitri Kalezov, 9/11thology, p. 275

[quote]
After reviewing all available contemporary 9/11 footage, I noticed that almost all of the earlier witnesses ... neither saw, nor heard any “planes”, but saw and heard only the explosions. I took a few statements of such genuine witnesses ... and uploaded these videos to YouTube. You can watch these videos and make your own conclusions. Here are the links:

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YarBxlIzUk
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y68DfCMQS7c
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPiQf53TSr4
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LXJwI-7xY
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA8xD9CFu40
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-Xa7rn7K4
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VpWQ88Y9WM
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2lWZY869I
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c8eT99_BAs
[end quote]

Kalezov can be frustrating to read because his English is not the best (and he tends to include parenthetical tangents everywhere (even on the parenthetical tangents)).

But I agree with what he says [tries to say], you can watch these videos and make [draw] your own conclusions.

I have added the numbers [1] through [10] to facilitate further discussion, if any.

~~~

I remember seeing some other footage which I can't find at the moment, but I will post links if I ever do find it.

And thanks for your comment. I am amazed it took such a roundabout route.

As for Dimitri Kalezov, I don't buy everything he says and I agree with you that he rambles too much. But he makes some points that I cannot dispute.

One of these has to do with the lack of turbulence in the air around the WTC. I do not see how a big plane -- or even a small plane -- could crash into the South Tower at 590 MPH without causing enough turbulence to disrupt the smoke drifting up from the North Tower.

I also don't understand how a plane could slam into the steel and concrete and produce the effects we saw. I understand that a big Boeing is very heavy and this one was allegedly going very fast. But it's still essentially a hollow tube, and it would certainly have suffered heavy damage on impact. So I don't understand how it could crash into a steel structure of any kind, and just keep on going, without breaking up or even slowing down, let alone for the nose cone to appear intact coming out the far side of the building.

As you wrote,

"The planes would have been destroyed in the process - there is no reason to suppose that they entered intact."

I agree. The planes would have been destroyed in the process. But the official story includes the "fact" that the plane entered the building "intact" and then there is video that shows the nose cone exiting the far wall of the tower and looking just the same as before the collision.

As I've been saying, I find this very persuasive, and damning. But as I have also been saying, my mind is not closed on this or any other issue. So if you think you can explain these things to me, you are more than welcome to try.

This comment from freethinker tackles Part 2 of the series point by point.

<<[2] Some of the "live video" supposedly depicting an airplane approaching
and crashing into the South Tower has been shown to be fabricated (and the
same can be said of some of the later video). Kalezov credits Ace Baker for
his analysis, which proves beyond any doubt that the video is bogus. [For
one example, see this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds]>>

I have watched this video before and wasn't impressed and don't feel like
watching the whole thing again, but if you think there was a 'killer point'
buried in all the spin I'll try and address it. Ace Baker is very good at
telling you what to see but I see little real evidence here - it's all
'reverse-engineering' to get you to accept his conclusions. I find Anthony
Lawson's video analysis more compelling. Conclusion should follow fact.

< of the event.>>

I don't know what bogus video you are referring to but it is certainly
logically possible for a real event to have a bogus video (in order to
further a narrative).

<<[3] A turbofan engine spins at up to 30,000 RPM,>>

superfluous technical data to give a false impression of credibility - the
figure of 30,000rpm was plucked out of thin air. It is inconceivable for a
100" diameter jet engine to rotate at that speed. The PW4000 jet engine as
used in the 767 has 2 rotating assembles: the large low pressure part has a
maximum speed of 4000 rpm, the smaller high pressure part 10000 rpm. But it
is irrelevent in any case.

<< creating a powerful vortex. So a twin-engine plane with turbofan engines
leaves a double vortex in its wake.>>

More non-sequitur - so a 4 engine plane would have 4 vortices? The engines
may well produce vortices but the major vortex generators on any plane are
the wings. All aircraft shed large coupled vortices from their wingtips
when they are flying.

<< But the fireball from the South Tower, which we all saw many times, and
which was allegedly caused by an airplane hitting the tower at 590 MPH,
showed no disturbance in the air.
As we could clearly see, the fireball just hung there.>>

No, as we can clearly see from videos the fireball did not just hang there
it rapidly expanded and rose upwards. See for example-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvaWxCGgHw

A closer but occluded view here from 15:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFoPegdHhE0
The fireball clearly did NOT just hang there!

<< It didn't swirl or twist at all.>>

Most of the fireball vids I've seen are on the opposite side of the tower
from the plane impact. Any vortices left behind from a moving plane would
be fairly static and dissipate by expanding - they would not move quickly
from one side of the building to the other.

Here is good long shot showing a side view-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfURuxJwums
the plane is well below the level of the smoke from the first so there are
no vortices to see before the strike. After the strike the fireball is
substantially away from the entry line (and vortices). The fireball quickly
expands, rises and becomes chaotic. It looks real enough to me.

<< The smoke from the burning North Tower was not affected in any way by
the approach of the plane that supposedly hit the South Tower. So the air
around both towers must have been quite still at the time. And therefore no
turbofan-driven airplane could have been flying in the vicinity, in the
seconds before the explosion. [See this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM] >>

A lot of misdirection going on there - telling you what to see.
What I see from that video-
* lighthearted music - its all a joke, right?
* the fireball expands and rises - doesn't look as rapid as in other
videos; is it slowed-down?
* a truck gets blown over by the wash from a parked jet with its engines
RUNNING - so what? non sequitur
* a plane flys by a burning tower and we see the effects of the wing-tip
vortices - the plane was moving, not crashed, notice how long it takes for
the vortices to develop and notice the cut -> broken timeline, and notice
that the vortex does not move (from one side of the tower to the other)
* a single engine prop-driven plane drops a napalm bomb and a twin vortex
develops - might be CGI, but it looks realistic; any _moving_ plane will
develop twin vortices, I think we've got that. It takes a while for the
vortices to show themselves.

<>

tapering to 1/4" at the top

<< and aluminum cannot cut steel.>>

False and a non-sequitur.
Non-sequitur because the beams were not cut but the joints were broken.
Very different.
False - Do you doubt that lead, even without a FMJ, can puncture steel
(depending on many variables)? Water is often used to cut steel. So a soft
material can pierce a harder material.

<<[4] The twin towers were built mostly of steel and concrete. Their frames
were like cages; each face was a grid made of steel box girders with walls
two inches thick. The vertical members of this grid were spaced only three
feet apart. So for an airplane, which is essentially a hollow aluminum
tube, to have burst into the building on impact, it would have had to cut
through dozens of these girders, instantly and simultaneously.>>

I've already pointed out that the columns were broken at the joints, not
cut. This official report although deficient is useful here-
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm
But even in the absence of the column breakages what would we expect when a
soft flimsy aircraft is in high-speed collision with a robust steel grid?
Assuming the grid maintained integrity (which it did not) I would expect
the aircraft to in effect be extruded through the voids in the grid. The
aircraft (or most of it: the tail might lack momentum to push through the
voids) would still enter the building but of course it would not do so
intact. Any reference to the planes going in intact is more misdirection.
One thing that would be quite impossible is for both the aircraft and steel
structure to maintain integrity and for the planes to simply bounce off the
towers like something out of a cartoon - yet some 'truthers' seem to expect
that and any other outcome can only be the result of fakery. I may have
stumbled upon a basic problem here - many learn physics not from school but
from TV cartoons.

< building "intact!">>

Who says it was intact (apart from some nutty nose-in-out no-planers)? I
think A.Lawson covered the nose-in nose-out myth quite well in the links on
my first message. In the highest quality video he could find what comes out
is quite different from what goes in.

<< And that's not possible, because in any collision between a softer
material and a harder one, the softer material suffers most, if not all, of
the damage.>>

Yes - at last a crumb of truth.

<< Or, as Kalezov puts it,
aluminum projectiles can not penetrate steel targets even in theory>>

Here we go again, False

< pop. Now throw the can at the door of a car, and observe how the can reacts
on impact. Throw it as hard as you want; shoot it with a hockey stick; hit
it with a baseball bat; fire it out of a cannon if you like; and pay
attention to the results. In particular, does the can [a] bounce off the
car door and land on the ground, somewhat deformed? Or does it [b]
penetrate the car door and wind up inside the car? If you said [b], then
commercial airplanes could possibly have pierced the frames of the World
Trade Center towers. Otherwise not.>>

Thought experiments are no substitute for real science. I can see a few
fallacies here-
* the can analogy is not good - yes aircraft have a thin alloy skin but
that is built over a very strong framework, plus much insulation and
another internal skin.
* the question of scaling within a viscous medium is not addressed. This is
a very technical issue but is a well understood subject in fluid mechanics.
Some details here- http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/reynolds.html To
simplify: to the big heavy aircraft the air seems to be quite 'thin' or low
viscosity but to the small light tin can the air is thick and viscous.
That's why you can't throw a flimsy alloy can hard enough to do any damage
- the air slows it down quickly. We know this intuitively so the idea of
throwing an empty can through a car door is preposterous. A mouse and a man
are both mammals but one will survive a fall from a high building and the
other won't. It's a question of scaling.
Be wary of thought experiments, especially if they come from some guy
called Einstein.

<>
I'd like to swear but I'm on my best behaviour.

< pixels on a screen and nothing more. This could be why so many of the
people who supposedly hijacked those planes were still alive after the
fact; maybe they were not killed in the collisions because there were no
collisions. Maybe their role was not to hijack any planes, nor to destroy
any buildings, but simply to take the blame.>>

The planes were only window dressing whatever way you look at it. The
(real!) planes (likely drones) did not cause the collapse of the towers.
The only function the No-Planes meme has is to discredit those foolish
enough to fall for a snake-oil salesman like Khalezov. I'm sorry if that's
a bit harsh Winter but I don't think it would help to sugar coat it.

< reasoning may cause you considerable discomfort. That's not your fault.
You've been hearing lies about 9/11 ever since it happened. But if you fire
enough pop cans at your car, you may find the situation somewhat easier to
accept.

This line of reasoning is uncomfortable for me because it is so obvious! Of
course aluminum cannot cut steel. It never has; it never will; and I should
have been able to figure this out, twelve years ago, all by myself and
without any help from Dimitri Kalezov.>>

I'm sorry you've been led astray. Of course the 'hijackers' were patsies.
The simple reliable solution then is for the PTB to use drones. 9-11 was an
important event, it wasn't just some random date, it wasn't just because
they thought it was getting time for some action; it was at least a century
marking ceremony and (IMO) more likely a millennial or age (~2000yrs)
marking ceremony. Ponder why they had parties for the masses a year early
in 2000 when by custom and practice it should have been in 2001. The event
was 'well engineered' and that means using well proven methods and
technology; not real pilots who could take fright, not hijackers who might
fail or be badly trained, not video trickery that might be subject to some
glitch or bad timing in the system, not magical dustifying space weapons
never before seen, not holograms, not UFOs. The best way, for that special
event, to get something that looks like a plane crashing into a tower is to
crash a plane into a tower. Drone technology was well proven in 2001.

Here is a comment from freethinker in reply to James earlier in the thread. As I've been saying, he would have posted this himself had he been able to do so.

~~~~

< because WP's argument/case is not dependent on the nuclear issue nor on the
Khalezov thesis. WP is not defending or advancing Khalezov as such but
picking up on some of his reasoning on some issues. The focus should be on
the issues, facts and the logic under discussion.>>

I think the credibility of Khalezov is central to Part-2.

< that Freethinker raises. The implication that no one would be stupid enough
to put nuclear charges in the WTC buildings from the design stage is a neat
rhetorical device but does not hold up against the stupidity of the whole
nuclear industry or the way we know 'power' operates in our societies. Try
convincing anyone from Mars that the human race is stupid enough to create
insanely toxic waste that lasts for 1000's of generations when there's no
way to detoxify it and no way of knowing whether future generations will be
able to safeguard it (and somehow claim this is going to be cheaper!).>>

Quite so,

< indeed what happened) would not raise an eyebrow in the upper echelons of
US powerbrokers and would be entirely in keeping with their idiotic
thinking. And there'd be plenty of engineers, bureaucrats and politicians
to go along with them. So the argument that they wouldn't be stupid enough
to put nukes in the basement when they were built is uncinvincing to say
the least.>>

I think building nuclear power stations with all the perceived science,
engineering and bureaucracy that entails is one thing and planting nuclear
bombs within a financial capital to be used many decades hence is quite
another. Do you suppose that the Empire State or Chrysler Buildings, or any
other skyscraper also have nukes mouldering in their bowels? Note that it
is a mainstay of Khalezov's thesis that the nukes are built-in and not just
shipped-in as required, since according to him the nukes were already in
place on 9-11 ready to be used at a moments notice and without
fore-knowledge of the event.
It is preposterous.

< Anthony Lawson's arguments consist of a list of "what's more probable"
scenarios. All very well in a discussion but are in no way proof or
justification enough (imnho) to go to the trouble of making a 'debunking'
video for youtube. He does not convincingly explain away the plane
projecting from the other side of the building with its profile intact.>>

Well I find it convincing.
The Nose-In / Nose-Out stuff is covered in the September Clues busted video
at around 11:30. On the best quality video available the profile of what
comes out is quite different from the nose going in. Lawson covers it in
much more detail in this report-
api.ning.com/files/8HjV*DXy0FjXwWZQLVcFRvQCNWaa3ZjASU-KxKaU4vimZsnHJnblGMk63Ajufc6V1q-VAV-E3X5zOJBMEFZV1GaPdNtrN3zb/911VideoCompositesRebuttal.pdf

< through the steel curtain wall (but not out the other side) looks plausible
enough to start with. The wall is sensibly put together in sections like a
vertical steel version of a 'Flemish bond' as is seen in common brickwork.
What doesn't make sense is that these sections are merely bolted together
without any other means of resisting sheer (horizontal) forces apart from
the bolts.>>

Doesn't make sense, really?

< (sideways) forces. And you never rely on them to provide positive location
or alignment (though this happens in practice sometimes, of course). Bolts
are engineered to take forces along their length, not across it. Bolts also
require clearance through the holes and so are imprecise as far as
alignment goes. Something else is required. Perhaps spigots or brackets to
provide alignment and take the sideways sheer forces. So 'something is
wrong with that picture'. Particularly when we know the building was
designed to withstand this very scenario of a plane striking it
horizontally and placing these bolts in sheer.>>

UTTER RUBBISH! It is a very common practice to use bolts in shear. The
briefest of web searches with the words 'bolt shear joint' would have
informed you of that. For example-
http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM13/BGSCM004/BGSCM00402.htm
I'll concede that for precision engineering location by dowels is preferred.
"Something wrong with that picture" - there is no dispute as to how the
towers were constructed. You might find this FEMA report of interest-
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm
and
WTC Tower Structural Design Explained -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI
WTC Steel at Keasbey scrapyard - K18 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpBs-qMLGRc - note that much of the steel is
quite thin

< not all simply pushed out of the way. So we are still faced with the
scenario of aluminum destroying steel>>

The word 'destroy' is rather emotive don't you think? The steel was
deformed, broken or torn but not cut. 100+ tons of aircraft travelling at
500+mph has a lot of energy. I don't suppose water can cut steel or lead
bullets can perforate steel either, by your logic.

<< . . . twice . . . because the aluminium plane emerges from the other
side of the building intact.>>

Does it really? Who says?

< the plane, I can think of two other explanations. One is that the video was
doctored to show the upper floors moving. Or, two, the explosive force was
shaped to emulate a plane hitting the tower i.e. it was engineered to
direct the force of the explosion horizontally and as consequence (perhaps
unintentionally) moved the building just as it is depicted in the video.>>

That's a bit of a stretch. I'll stick with Occam's razor.

< by the authors of the videos he links to, we have the impossible spectacle
of the aluminium plane emerging unscathed from the opposite side of the
building and the equally impossible complete lack of air turbulance that
would have been present with an aircraft. Modern jets have to displace
absolutely enormous amounts of air to bear their weight aloft and achieve
flight. In all the videos, there is no evidence of this massive
displacement of air.>>

I don't for an instant accept that the aircraft came out of the building
intact.
The issue of the vortices is less clear cut. I've written to Winter about
that separately. I believe Ace Baker is exagerating the significance of
this. From what I've been able to find out the vortices are much weaker for
fast level flight than for take-offs and landings where most of the testing
is done.

This is the way I see that whole scenario...
If anyone thinks it's worth reading that is?
I find it to be a distraction or what is a red herring.

Planes or no planes?
Since I find they to have no relevance to the collapse of WTC building 1 or 2.... I don't know if it is worth really spending time on.

NO plane hit Building 7 and it collapsed completely

And planes did not bring down building one or two

Both buildings were brought down in another manner..
Making planes or no planes a non issue in the destruction of the towers.

That's how I see it.

What the planes were necessary for was to create the illusion or belief that they were what brought buildings 1 and 2 down.
So they were part of the psy-op, yes.
But the planes had zero to do with collapse

Since no plane hit building 7... building 7 gets ignored
Building 7 has always been the smoking gun.
In my opinion, for what ever it is worth

I bet you already knew that.

I did something very stupid the other day [oh no!]
I hit my thumb with a hatchet, and now guess what?
Typing is all of a sudden kind of difficult, and very awkward.

I'm sure it will heal, but it will certainly slow down my blogging.
And the guitars I supposedly play are going to be bored for a while.
But I can't complain.

Although it's a bit gross, the injury is not very serious.
There was no damage to any bones or tendons.
It definitely could have been a lot worse!
So I was very lucky [and very stupid].

I'll be back.