On The Trail Of The [Cutouts] Who [Set Up] The 9/11 [Patsies]

I'm currently working on a series about 9/11. The first 4 parts are posted on my "main blog" at these links:

Part 1: 28 Pages
Part 2: No Vortex
Part 3: The Lawsuit
Part 4: The Cutouts

I will inform you as further installments become available. As always, your comments are welcome below.

Comments

Looking forward to more,

Looking forward to more, WP.

As it is actually used, "national security" refers to the survival and continuing tenure in office of those who use the term to justify their actions. More broadly, it also refers to the survival and continuing (or increasing!) wealth, status and privilege of those who currently enjoy such things.

Absolutely! "National" because it's their country, after all. And "Security" because they can't get enough of it to assuage their sense of vulnerability to the "masses" whom they are stealing from.

Part 2

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

force at impact

Time in terms of days or weeks after 12 or more years is neither here nor there, WP smiling Besides, this profound insight was worth waiting for!

I have never paid a great deal of attention to the details of the various arguments over the WTC Demolition including and especially the planes/no planes theories. The fact that the US govt was obviously lying together with the fact that the buildings came down at freefall speed was enough for me.

But this is brilliant. And you're not the only one embarrased. Let me tell you why. When I was reading about the aluminium can I'm thinking, "But, force is mass x velocity so the impact is influenced by speed of the can". I pride myself in understanding force and being able to visualize it. But as soon as I began to think of this I realised my mistake all these years. I had assumed the 'planes' had their speed working for them and adding to the impact force.

But impact force is the combination of the relative speeds of both objects. So the impact force and the results would be the same if the Tower was travelling at hundreds of MPH towards a stationary plane. In this scenario I could see very easily what would happen - a plane reduced to the size of a soda can, if that!

This point of yours, combined with your other points, WP, make it a slam dunk that there is absolutely no way there were any planes flying into the WTC Towers that day and coming out the other side.

One can also see more clearly why the teevee stations were so insistent in replaying the video of the 'impact' ad nauseum. It wasn't just to traumatize people, it was to embed a totally ficticious 'reality' in their minds.

Thanks, James

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! Wink

Part 3

Part 3 of the series is now online. Here's the link: Part 3: The Lawsuit

Part 4

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

Cutouts - sacrificial links

I don't imagine that being a 'cutout' is a long term career-path move. I wonder how many of them are still alive?

absolutely not!

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

best wishes to all

Hi Winter, James, McJ, Joe and everyone else
Had to take a moment this morning to stop by and wish you a merry christmas and all the best for the coming new year
It feels as if it has been a long haul this year. I don't know if you all have felt the same?
But without good people such as yourselves I am sure the slog would have been tougher, personally speaking
so thanks very much and the good thoughts are coming your way
Merry Xmas

thanks Penny

for stopping by and your good wishes.

Yes, it would be a lot harder by ourselves. We are fundamentally social creatures. God and/or evolution has designed us over countless generations to survive and thrive by approaching challenges collectively. Which is why the 'powers that shouldn't be' spend so much effort in isolating us from each other. And which is why they hate us co-operating and why they spend so much time and energy promoting suspicion and competition between us.

The answers for us will lie in continuing what we here and you and so many others are doing both on the 'net' and off it. That is, continuing to search for 'the answer' through what is already part of the answer - co-operation, support and encouragement of each other. Whether or not we find the 'ultimate answer' may not be the point in the end. In the meantime, the point to remember is that we thrive in this process of co-operation and encouragement and that is more than enough reason to continue to do so.

Anyway Penny, that's a long way to say, "Merry Christmas", to you and Dave smiling

thanks James

Hope you did have a good one!

"In the meantime, the point to remember is that we thrive in this process of co-operation and encouragement and that is more than enough reason to continue to do so"

very well said James smiling

McJ's picture

Best of the holiday season to

Best of the holiday season to you as well Penny and to James, Joe and Winter. I am busy with some family challenges right now and not really able to participate a lot. But I am following and reading and I agree with you Penny, the task would be much more difficult without the support of such good cyber friends. smiling

Hey McJ

What every family challenges you are having I hope they will resolves themselves in a good way?

And you will be back to participating in our education enlightenment process

at least that is the way I see it?
take care McJ

what are the eye witness

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

Good question

Thanks for asking.

The eyewitness reporting was mixed. Some people "in-the-street" claimed to have seen a plane (Kalezov says some of these were paid to start the lie, and the others were swept along in the chaos); other eyewitnesses were very sure that there had been no planes. The same is true for the initial (local) news coverage. Some live reports talked about explosions but never said anything about planes. And there were video reports that showed the buildings exploding, but with no planes in the shot. But as the day went on, the latter reports were "corrected" or quietly dropped.

I have always found it remarkable that so many people said "I didn't believe it until I saw it on TV." But until I read Kalezov, I didn't really understand why they had said that.

I will try to dig up some video links and post them. But it might take me a day or two to get back to you on this.

genuine eye-witnesses who saw & heard no plane, only explosions

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.

Part 2

The following comment arrived in my email along with a claim that it had been blocked. I did not intentionally block it although I may have accidentally deleted it (along with hundreds of spams). If I did delete the comment, it was accidental and I do apologize. Here is the comment :

KHALEZOV
I have not read his book and I have no intentions of doing so. I did however spend four or five hours watching his marathon interview 2 or 3 years back. You can find it here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo

From memory his thesis goes something like this:

Act-1
When the WTC towers were planned (late 60s early 70s? building commenced '75) the city planning authority insisted that the builders incorporate a demolition device. The architects/engineers said okay we'll use a nuke, the planners said that'll be fine and dandy just go ahead boys. Bear in mind the expected lifespan of these buildings, at least 100 years I would think. So the city planning authority are happy to have nukes mouldering away in the foundations of buildings within the financial metropolis for maybe 100 years or more. Aye right.

Act-2
A cruise missile comes from the sea towards the Pentagon and from its speed and because it comes from the sea the US defence will know its a Granit and therefore it will have a nuclear warhead. Said hardened steel missile blows a hole in the Pentagon but the nuclear warhead doesn't go off. It's inspected and in double quick time (about 30 minutes if I remember right) the US defence authorities determine that it has a viable nuclear warhead. Meanwhile more missiles hit the towers, US defence says oh jings they must be Granits too and they must have nukes just like the one we checked at the Pentagon, good thing the warheads didn't detonate here either but they might any minute we can't allow an air-burst, what we gonna do? Not to worry says the heroic mayor (or somebody) our planning dept. says there were nukes built into the foundations 25 years ago so we just press the demolition button and they'll come down nice as ninepence and not even any radiation. So they pull the towers before the warheads go off but while workers and firecrew were still inside. I don't recall Khalezov saying how the nuclear warheads were disarmed and removed from the vast pile of rubble.

Forgive me if I don't take that scenario very seriously, and if I'm misrepresenting the Khalezov thesis then please correct me, but I think that is a fair distillation of a 4-5 hour rambling interview. Perhaps he presents a different thesis in the book but on the basis of this interview I won't be reading it.

More here-
The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax -
http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm

NO-PLANES
Most of this pre-dates Khalezov but I guess the memes are the same.

LIES, 9/11 PLANNERS, AND NO-PLANERS -
http://www.takeourworldback.com/noplanes.htm

Anthony Lawson (a media pro) addresses the no-planer theory propounded by September Clues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYSGv5HNPxQ September Clues - Busted! November 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV4rvTxcMSY The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory
http://salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php

In this video the tower can be seen visibly to shake on the plane impact; as an engineer I find that quite compelling-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg 12th Comm' On 9/11 TV Fakery -
Newtons Law

Aluminium slicing through steel-
The outer walls, of course, were not 100% steel - but the steel columns made up close to 50% of the surface (under the aluminium cladding). The columns were made in sections butt-jointed together with relatively small bolts providing some shear and tensile strength (the load on the joints would be overwhelmingly compressive). The steel thickness reduced with height, down to 1/4", not the 2" armour plating the no-planers like to make out. Under a severe side impact it is not surprising that the columns buckled at the joints, the bolts failing due to excess shear and tensile loading. The planes would have been destroyed in the process - there is no reason to suppose that they entered intact.

Lawson: The plane, not UA 175, does not "slice" through the outer wall; it punches its way into the tower by shearing the bolts holding the offset steel panels with which the Towers' outer walls were constructed, obviously making a large hole in the lattice-like wall it struck, the fuselage and wings then being ripped to shreds by the 4 inch horizontal concrete flooring.

Look in the notes: for WTC PLANES THRU STEEL WTC -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

Parts 1,3 and 4 are probably up to your usual high standard but Part-2 is really making me see red and in my opinion de-values the work as a whole. I'll try to find time to go through Part-2 point by point.

There is a lot of misdirection going on and I's sad to see you and James falling for it (IMHO).

Duncan (freethinker)

~~~

[Posted by WP on behalf of the author]

admin's picture

hundreds of spams?

Hi Winter and freethinker -

Sorry to hear you had this trouble posting a comment, freethinker. Winter, were the hundreds of spams in your email box or on the site? I'd thought we had the comment spam under control, please let me know if not.

Thanks for presenting this controversial information. I've never been a firm "yes-planer" despite the past "litmus test" nature of the question. I seem to recall some eyewitnesses reporting having seen a "military-type" plane, and one woman saying derisively "that was not an American airlines plane" or something to that effect. Wish I had more time to hunt for these (heck, maybe they're linked above, I'm at work and I apologize for not watching yet).

Well happy New Year to all, here's hoping 2014 brings good things for all good people.
cheers

Sorry for the confusion

I have been deleting hundreds of spam comments per day, every day, since I started posting again. I didn't want to complain; I figured it must be part of the job ... er .. "goes with the territory" ... or something!

Happy New Year to you too and best wishes to you and your family as always.

admin's picture

mollom anti spam

Thanks Winter!
We have this software called "mollom" which is supposed to automatically detect and delete the spam comments. I don't know if you can access this page? http://winterpatriot.com/admin/reports/mollom but it seems to say that mollom is deleting thousands of spam comments per day. If you're having to delete several hundred more, perhaps there is some update that can be done or some setting to tweak... I'll see what else I can find out.

LOL more than twice

Hi again and thanks very much.

I was not able to access the page you linked. Instead I got the "access denied" page, which is apparently BY FAR our most-visited page. I couldn't help laughing at that.

I laughed a second time because whenever I delete a pile of spam, I go through the "report to mollom" routine ... but we keep getting what looks like the same kind of spam, day after day, even though I keep reporting it.

If it's catching thousands a day, what is special about the ones that get through? And -- LOL again -- isn't it {funny} that we still have to deal with stuff like this?

admin's picture

special?

may be that they just don't have links in the body of the comment, so they are allowed in? I don't know for sure but every time I check, there are no comments so you're doing a diligent job of deleting them smiling

Freethinker's points are

Freethinker's points are unconvincing, to say the least.

His inclusion of the nuclear charges is somewhat of a 'red herring' because WP's argument/case is not dependent on the nuclear issue nor on the Khalezov thesis. WP is not defending or advancing Khalesov 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.

Notwithstanding the above, lets looks at one aspect of the nuclear issue 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!).
Yet this whole industry is run (though not controlled) by university educated engineers who are all taught 'Murphy's Law' which states that if anything has the potential to go wrong then eventually it must. Fukushima.

So putting a mini nuke in the basements of the WTC Towers (if that is 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 can't comment on the Gannit missiles as I know nothing about them or the context that Freethinker aludes to. In any case, they don't seem to be pertinent to the question of "did planes hit the WTC Towers or not?" The missiles might be pertinent to Khalezov's overall thesis but, again, that is not what is under discussion.

To the videos linked-
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.

In another video, the explanation of how an aluminium plane could punch 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.

It is Engineering 101 that you never rely on bolts to take sheer (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.

But, in any case, the video shows some damaged steel columns. They are not all simply pushed out of the way. So we are still faced with the scenario of aluminum destroying steel . . . twice . . . because the aluminium plane emerges from the other side of the building intact.

Regarding the video showing the building shuddering under the impact of 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.

So, against all the possible explanations put forward by Freethinker and 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.

Hi freethinker

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.

more comments from freethinker, and a bug too

I have received more comments from freethinker and I've also been run over by what appears to be a flu bug. So the comments have been sitting in my mailbox for a while now and I apologize for the delay. I will post them as soon as I can swing it.

Part 2 -- point by point

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.

Vortices

Here is another comment from freethinker regarding the question of vortices. As I understand it, he would have posted this himself had that been possible.

~~~~

The 'missing vortex' stuff is new to me even although its been kicking
around since 2008 and I thought it would be interesting to look into it a
bit deeper. I can't say I've found anything definitive, certainly nothing
that would make me adopt the no-plane position - that would require _very_
strong evidence and it just isn't there. There's endless rhetoric from Ace
Baker though - I hadn't realised his Psy-Opera video series lasts over 5
hours. I'm wishing I stayed out of this rabbit-hole.

Anyway FWIW in case it helps to clarify things with you here's some info
and thoughts-

Wake Turbulence Avoidance - 1995 Federal Aviation Administration -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_0xr9bWlb0
Some useful but basic stuff on wake turbulence starting 3:29
The strongest turbulence is produced when the aircraft is heavy and flying
_slowly_, eg at takeoff and landing.
The vortices sink and expand with time, and might last a few minutes.

NASA Airliner Wing Vortice Tests -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ESmvyAmOs
Another fly-by of a smoke tower but this time with an intact time-line and
clock. Note it is in slo-mo. It takes about 7 seconds for the vortex to
start to develop, but unfortunately we don't know how close the tower was
to the flight-path.

New Wingtip Vortices! - DCS World 1.2.6 - Featuring A-10C -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibzFo7KpLPo
The A-10 is shown casting long thin tubular vortices. We don't know the
speed but it is likely 3-400 mph. Wing-tip vortices always start out thin
and take time to spiral outward.

Hawker Sea Fury WW2 Warbird wake turbulence wing tip smoke vortices -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMHgc2NC928
A small plane with wing tip smokers at an airshow. It takes quite a while
for the vortices to enlarge.

Krasny, R. 1987 Computation of vortex sheet roll-up in the Trefftz plane -
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~krasny/paper-jfm-87.pdf
An academic paper discussing the modelling of the coupled vortices. Fig-2
illustrated the early stages of development and confirms that they take
several seconds to develop.

Summary-
The vortices are weaker for increased speed (probably counter-intuitive?)
they take several seconds to expand significantly
they slowly fall below the aircraft
they are basically static - ie hang in the air and will move with the air

My conclusion-
It is impossible to prove or disprove Ace Baker's conjecture but it seems
unlikely with such a chaotic event that we would see neat spirals in the
smoke to indicate vortices. The smoke and air was not nearly still as in
the smoke tower videos but was highly chaotically turbulent as a result of
the explosion. Some corkscrew twisting of the smoke is visible in video
'NIST FOIA 09-42- R27 -- 42A0277 - G26D154 (WTC2 Aircraft Strike, 9-03am)'.
Was that related to left-over wing-tip vortices - who can say?

api.ning.com/files/8HjV*DXy0FjXwWZQLVcFRvQCNWaa3ZjASU-KxKaU4vimZsnHJnblGMk63Ajufc6V1q-VAV-E3X5zOJBMEFZV1GaPdNtrN3zb/911VideoCompositesRebuttal.pdf

freethinker replies to James

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.

Thanks to freethinker for the comments

I am not going to get into them point-by-point-by-point, because that gets exponentially huge. But I do want to make some further contribution to the discussion. So I will tackle a few points that I consider crucial, and in that way perhaps we can go deep rather than just wide.

Unfortunately, this will have to wait until I regain a bit more health. In the meantime I wish to encourage civilized discussion, and I hope it will be informative.

Thanks again and best wishes to all

without delving into the plane/no plane issue

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

hubby chimes in...

My husband says this- analogy

Think of the suicide bomber with his 'bomb belt" or knapsack or truck bomb, whichever
Whether he knows he is a bomber or not
He is the focal point, but, not necessarily the facilitator of the destruction
He could be unwitting. He could be completely oblivious
He could be mind controlled?

The suicide bomber is the "tool" something to be used and someone else is in control.
The planes serve in this same manner- it is the focal point, the distraction or the red herring
It is used to cause fear, justify TSA and more intrusion, but, it is not the destroyer of the two towers
It makes a good image, unforgettable and perfect for trauma based mind control

You hubby is smart

I bet you already knew that.

thanks winter

He is and yes I already knew that
but thanks smiling

something very stupid

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.

oh dear

Winter. Ouch!
It will heal
I guess your guitars will have to 'gently weep'
hehehe
(corny, I know)

Thanks Penny

Yes, Ouch.
And yes, it will heal.

dental surgery

As if I needed any more setbacks, I just had some dental surgery, which has knocked me for another loop.
I apologize for all the delays, and I still intend to continue this series as soon as possible.

best wishes
WP

admin's picture

ouch

well i hope you're feeling better!

Pulling teeth!

It's been like pulling teeth from the start to the (hopefully soon) finish for you, WP. My commiserations. Sorry for my delay in responding. I've been away from the internet for a few days. Anyway I hope it won't be too long before you are back jawboning again. (That's probably an inappropriate play on words there!) smiling

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.