I am attempting here to demonstrate simply why the Twin Towers and Building 7 could not have fallen in on themselves as they appeared to do without some kind of controlled demolition. The tragedy of that fateful day in September 2001 will never be forgotten and the families of victims should learn the truth so they can deal with their grief. There is a very good paper by Richard Gage which explains in engineering terms why the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) version of events is not just suspect, but totally flawed. Here I try and explain using lay-engineering examples of why the twin towers could not have come down as they did using construction cranes and beer crates as examples.
There is a very good reason for making cranes out of steel. It is the same reason that the twin towers were made out of even stronger structural steel. Strength of materials matters in the construction industry. Sometimes cranes, much more often than buildings, fail. It is not usually the steel that fails. High winds can be responsible. So can the fact that they often have no foundations and have to be moved from place to place. I have watched dozens of videos of crane failures. Do you know what? Not one of them has collapsed in the way the twin towers did. This is a recent and fatal crane disaster not far from where the twin towers stood.
All crane failures I have seen have their steel structures very much intact afterwards. There are multiple reasons for failure, for example, lack of equilibrium or trying to hoist too heavy a weight. There are three big differences between the twin towers and a crane. The structural steel was much sturdier in the towers, its integral strength was vertical and its base was built on very strong foundations. There is no way any downward pressure from the floors above would destroy the structural steel beneath. You can understand that by what happens to much flimsier cranes.
They build stacking crates, milk and beer, usually out of plastic. They do not build skyscraper towers out of crate plastic though composites are used on some buildings. When you stack crates one on top of another they are quite strong because all the weight is borne in a vertical direction, one crate resting on top of another. I suspect that if the crates were full they could be stacked higher because of this vertical strength and the extra stability from the extra weight.
The vertical strength of buildings is always overdesigned to take much more load than it would ever be likely to experience. The pancake idea is absolute nonsense to an engineer. Take a look at this tower made out of beer crates.
It will give you some idea of the downward strength of crate on crate. And yet again Newton’s immutable third law can be seen. My estimate is that the crates at about 18 stacked together would be a similar height proportionally to the twin towers (give or take). What you should imagine is instead of somebody climbing on top of them that a person is hoisted above the tower who then drops a crate a crate’s height above the tower. If it landed square it would not push the other crates into the ground. If it landed awkwardly and the tower collapsed it would collapse lopsidedly like the cranes. You can fill it full of beer bottles if you like, full beer bottles even. You would never get it to collapse like either of the twin towers. Any engineer would tell you that. But if you doubt it try it for yourself.
Of course there is a big difference between beer crates and a solid structure, especially a steel structure, especially a steel structure which is bolted and riveted together, especially a steel structure which is anchored soundly at the base, with even stronger girders and wider support towards the base. The twin towers could not have fallen in the way they did without their structure having been compromised lower down. It is an engineering impossibility.
This video shows the construction of the twin towers. “Five years to construct, 15 seconds to demolish”.
The strength of these constructions is unquestionable. Hope this gets through all the nonsense of the official version of how the towers fell. Thanks for reading.
When we marched through London to Hyde Park in an effort to prevent Tony Blair’s War in Iraq we were totally ignored. Blair had no interest in the electorate. He just wanted to destabilise Iraq and see western companies installed to steal the oilfields. Clare Short summed his attitude up by saying that he never took notice of comments in cabinet. He just gave diktats. In essence Blair was an elected dictator.
Photo credit: Al Jazeera
Nothing has changed. Today it is Theresa May ignoring the electorate. Having just returned from a visit to Trump, in which she bent over to meet his every wish, she is ignoring a petition to parliament to prevent Trump coming to the UK on a state visit. Downing Street through a spokesperson has stated to the BBC:
“The invitation has been issued and accepted. . . To scrap the visit would undo everything following Mrs May’s visit. America is a huge and important ally we have to think long term.”
If anyone needed further proof that the United Kingdom was merely a colony of the United States it is now very clear for all to see. The petition, growing by the second, reached a million signatures in less than two days. Elected dictators can ignore such petitions and the will of the people.
Another petition which has doubly exceeded the target for which it is considered for parliamentary debate is one against the ‘Snoopers Charter‘ which allows the secret services to gather yet more information on all UK citizens. This just demonstrates how little respect the government has for the electorate: absolutely none. Parliamentary debate has been rejected on the grounds that it was fully debated before being issued and “underwent unprecedented scrutiny”. Unprecedented scrutiny just means that the scrutiny, which was minimal, was unique to this unique bill and only scrutinised by a few hand-picked servants of the crown who have no interest in people’s privacy. You can read the so-called debates here.
Earlier today I was reading a short piece by Luciana Bohne in which she states that the Obama administration brought about regime-change in Ukraine. I know this is true, not just because Obama has admitted it, but because I saw the video of a Ukrainian parliamentarian Oleg Tsaryov say that Geoffrey Pyatt was organising this coup from the American Embassy in Kiev through a private organisation “Techcamp” three months before the coup took place.
What caught my eye was a comment which included a video link from BBC Russian correspondent Olga Ivshina in which she interviewed residents in the area where passenger plane MH17 exploded. This is a screenshot of the link.
When I clicked on it the following message appeared:
I had seen this report at the time the BBC first broadcast it. However it was removed from later News reports. Caches of the report exist and I am indebted to a colleague who supplied me with this one.
Nevertheless the BBC, I believe, has some explaining to do. I have sent a freedom of information request to give the BBC the opportunity to respond to some pertinent questions. My request entitled MH17 Catastrophe reads:
“Can I respectfully ask under FOI why any link to the report by BBC Russian correspondent Olga Ivshina tells me that it is not available in my country due to copyright law. I live in the UK where the BBC has its headquarters.
The report by Olga Ivshina who was in the Donetsk region includes interviews with eye-witnesses who saw another plane alongside MH17 and reported that the passenger plane broke up in mid-air.
My requests therefore are:
Why is the BBC suppressing this report by a BBC foreign correspondent?
Is there an agenda regarding the shooting down of MH17 which prohibits reports that do not fit the agenda?
In this era when Fake News is getting so much media attention is the BBC, by sin of omission, putting a deliberate slant on news concerning MH17?
Has the BBC sent this report to the Joint Investigation Team?
I would appreciate answers to these questions.
Emma Stone is up for an Oscar for Best Actress as an award for her lacklustre performance in La La Land. She may well win it. It is the world we live in ― a world of lies and deceit.
Another nominee for an Oscar is a short documentary called White Helmets which follows the work of a paramilitary group purporting to be a first responder unit in the US-funded war in Syria. The director’s angle is focused on the first-responder aspect of this group, which itself was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace. It actually won the Right Livelihood Award.
Director, Orlando von Einsiedel, was nowhere near the shooting of film footage in Aleppo but safely on the border of Syria and Turkey. The White Helmets are US/UK-funded and set up by ex-military Sandhurst officer James Le Mesurier. Their reputation for impartial news is very low yet it has got many stories out broadcast on mainstream media later found to have been fake including the rescue of mannequins and the rescue of the same child on several occasions.
Those with power bestow honour on those who perform on their behalf. At the end of his term of office Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama awarded his sleazy vice president, Jo Biden, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Between them this pair and their staffers turned Ukraine into a failed state with an ongoing civil-war for which there appears to be no end. To rub salt in the Donbas people’s wounds Jo Biden’s junkie son, Hunter, is director of Burisma Holdings which plans to frack the life out of Ukraine’s countryside. Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy for Cocaine abuse the same year he became director of Burisma Holdings.
When the Nobel Peace Prize goes to people like Obama, Sadat and Begin it diminishes the value of the award. Perhaps all awards and medals should be scrapped. Except sometimes the recipient is worthy of decoration.
In a few hours Donald Trump will be inaugurated 45th President of the United States. He has made some outlandish statements regarding immigrants and women without even mentioning environmental issu…
In a few hours Donald Trump will be inaugurated 45th President of the United States. He has made some outlandish statements regarding immigrants and women without even mentioning environmental issues. In his favour he has promised to take on the big pharmaceutical companies, improve relations with Russia and withdraw from supporting war in foreign lands. The purpose he says is to concentrate on internal US affairs creating small business opportunities to make the US great again. We have all heard superlative pre-election rhetoric from politicians and the broken promises that follow.
Trump though is not a politician. He is a businessman in the construction industry. A politician would never make totally adverse comments about women’s issues or any other issues perceived by most to be politically incorrect and therefore a vote-loser. That is one reason I believe him to be an honest man. He is misguided on some issues and fair on others. When the awful event that brought about endless war against Islamic countries which had oil and other resources he was there in New York, and interviewed on state radio. Here is the interview he gave where he says there was no way the twin towers could have been brought down by aircraft alone broadcast on the very day they fell to earth.
I am a mechanical engineer and on this issue I know Trump was right. The bringing down of the twin towers and building 7 at the world trade centre changed the face of the world. It enabled George W. Bush to initialise the ongoing ‘war on terror’ as it was labelled then. Trump could see that those buildings could not have been brought down by aircraft alone. Today a growing number of architects and engineers agree. More than 2,750 well-qualified individuals do not believe that planes brought down the buildings. This number grows almost daily. It may be that the only way a proper inquiry into 9/11 can happen is when Trump becomes president. Sadly it might not be top of his priorities
Lots of protests have been arranged against Trump’s presidency and people need to ask themselves why. Good Americans usually accept it if an opposition politician wins over their approved choice. Why has that changed with Trump? George Soros has put big money into these protests. Soros and other mega-oligarchs do not want change. You watch at the inauguration the mainstream media will be focusing on support for protestors against Trump. Bear in mind that this is exactly the same thing that happened on Kiev’s Maidan.
The coverage of Maidan Square protests is a prime example of how our media manipulate thought. Protests on Maidan were broadcast almost nightly right up to February 2014 when the coup d’état took place. Interestingly after the coup, when Poroshenko, their man, was in charge, a terrible civil-war took place which has claimed the lives of more than 10,000 Ukrainians. This has hardly been touched upon by prime-time news in the BBC. It is disgusting that protests which were largely peaceful had so much coverage while the ensuing civil-war which is still going on and has claimed so many lives has been neglected beyond belief. Think about it.
Thanks to funding from individuals, foundations and organisations, including NATO, the Poroshenko puppet government was responsible for the first civil-war in Ukraine for more than 90 years and the death toll has been worse even than in Palestine over the last few years. To establish Poroshenko a legitimately elected government was deposed due to protests which got prime-time BBC and NBC coverage. There has not been a civil-war in America for more than 150 years. Yet the world manipulators would rather have a civil-war than see an elected president come to power who they cannot control. Others can see what is happening too. Professor Michel Chossudovsky can see that, like Ukraine, this is another attempt at a colour revolution.
The election of Trump is one of the most unique events in modern history. It gives a chance to return power to the people, rather than the secret services and their big-banking manipulators. Today the same oligarchs who own the media and support destabilising wars and bombings in Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Yemen and other countries where human life is given no consideration want the left, you and me, to protest on their behalf against Trump. I am not going to join these protests. Neither should you.
On Friday we went to see one of the worst musicals that can ever have hit the screen since Mama Mia ‘starring’ Meryl Streep. Mama Mia did not just fail because of Streep’s singing. The plot was weak due to the script having been contrived around Abba’s songs, which on their own are good easy listening.
La La Land (based on Hollywood) ‘stars’ Emma Stone. When you can’t sing and you do a musical if you previously had any credibility as an actress you’re going to lose it. Plots to both these films were weak and Ryan Gosling was left to try and save La La Land on his own – too much of a task though I thought he was very credible as a pianist. The dancing, in failed imitation of Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers is almost as bad as Stone’s singing. It is an incongruity of genres, none of them nearly pulled off, not even the supposed tributes to Jazz and Hollywood.
It starts with a big traffic-jam with the cast one by one getting out of their cars, singing a line or two each with those capable, I counted two, dancing and tumbling over the cars. It was poorly imitative of Grease or Saturday Night Fever but that was not where the film-script was heading. It was heading into the realms of traditional jazz but did not get there either. The relationship between Mia (Emma Stone) and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is as incongruous as the multiple genre attempts in a typical rags to riches plot.
In Gosling’s favour at least you see him playing the piano which was about the most impressive part of the night’s entertainment. Most actors are obscured by the piano with secondary shots of someone else’s hands tickling the keys.
Stone was as mediocre as the character she played. It was however her voice that let it down. I won’t spoil it because it might be someone’s cup of tea. Not mine though. Of her songs there was one she made a fair stab at but by then there was little sympathy left for her and I did wonder just how many takes that must have taken and indeed whether it was dubbed considering previous songs.
Not content with having thrown her career down the pan she has come out as an anti-Trump supporter and further ruined what was left of her credibility in this appallingly galling attempt at the classic “I will survive”. It has taken many more thumbs down than thumbs up but it should give you some idea of what to expect from La La Land.
I am not blowing the trumpet for Donald Trump who bothers me on so many levels. I fear for the environment. I do not like the idea of him building a wall unless it is to keep the US military in the US. On the positive side his policy as stated before he takes office is to try and improve relations with Russia and that cannot be a bad thing. Also he was one of the first to see that the twin towers could not have been brought down without explosives. All engineers, real engineers, know that that was impossible. So I do believe he should be given a chance to bring a proper inquiry into what happened that took us into all the wars in the Middle East.
As to La La Land – save your money.