Skip to content

A single twin tower from beer-cans

What the truth is about 9/11 and the demolition of the twin towers remains to be discovered. Certainly the official explanation does not hold water. You only have to read Richard Gage on the crush-down crush-up theory of Bazant to know what bunkum it is.“Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.”

Scaling the twin towers down and relying on layman’s terms the ‘big force’ needed would be something like the power-driving necessary to crush an aluminium beer-can. It would in fact  need more since structural steel is stronger than aluminium. But because Newton applied his third law – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – across the range of materials, beer-cans make for a reasonable analogy. They are not perfectly analogous, for example, in a beer-can there is no inner core, there are no floors, doors or windows, but we can learn something from this very simple experiment.

To model the twin towers using beer-cans it is necessary to know the thickness of the aluminium. As I cut up beer-cans to make packing shim for my centre lathe I can tell you the thickness is 0.1mm (0.004″). The following are rough workings but good enough to demonstrate the scaling principle.

Circumference of beer-can = 8.15 inches = 0.68 ft
Perimeter of twin tower = 787.2 feet
Scaling is 1158 : 1

Thickness of beer can = 0.1mm = 4 thou.

Therefore for scaling up the beer-can walls to what they would measure at twin tower dimensions.

1158 x 0.004 = 4.632 inches

The thickness of the box columns in the twin towers were at their weakest 1/4 inch by 14 inch square. They also had spandrels welded across them of about 1/4 inch. These box pillars were spaced some 3 feet apart and welded together in strips of three across spandrels which I estimate themselves are five feet deep, ten feet wide and 1/4 inch thick. The inner core was even more rigid.

Scale models are used to test the viability of something being built. Engineers know that scaling up, and down works, as it should. That’s why they do it.

http://www.modelmakers-uk.co.uk/industrial-models

The structure of beer-cans is much less sturdy than the twin towers. When I did the above rough calculation to scale beer-cans to twin tower dimensions it surprised me to learn that it would take less than two and a half beer-cans to reach above twin towers proportions (about the same as you see in the photo). They look fatter but that is because they are cylindrical/

Anybody who still believes the nonsense that the top of the twin towers could cause a crush-down effect should stamp on a beer-can. Yes, it can be crushed down. But the amount of kinetic energy needed is huge. Also it does not always crush down evenly. It could not be done for example by dropping an empty, or even a full beer-can (believe me don’t waste the beer) so why anybody thinks it could happen to the twin towers is beyond me. Yet that is what those asking you to believe the crush down theory or the progressive collapse theory want you to believe.

Thankfully I never bought into that bunkum. But then I am a toolmaker. As Jonathan Cole quoting Feynman emphasised: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter how smart you are, if it does not agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

 

Advertisements

The seduction of young Thimble

“A thousand good fabrications speak much louder than a standard column inch.” That’s what ‘Call me Jake’, Rory’s boss and associate editor, told him when he first started at the Drudge Online. Look at him now a few months later! Wow! Trainee in the morning ── fully-blown reporter by the time the sun fell over the Thames.

Now that’s something to make a young pup really stand on his hind legs. He proudly changes his job-title on Twitter and Google accounts to Reporter. Wagging his tail he looks and feels very satisfied with himself.

Rory Thimble swivels on his chair. He cannot believe his luck. Little over two years ago he was pumping out and editing parochial pulp for an online student paper ─ The North Dulham Small Globe.

Today he has just come back from an expenses-paid trip to the Caribbean with ‘Call me Jake’ and another helpful hack from the Drudge.

“Did I not promise you would see the world? That’s what happens when you move into the big-time. And you have the Owners to thank for that Rory“.

Thimble thinks back to the generous invitation from the Owners and the niggling reservations he felt when approached about this working holiday. All those LGBT links of Jake’s in truth gave him some concern. Was it really a good idea for a recently-graduated neophyte to go abroad with an ageing journo? Would he still be able to hold his head up at Raven Cottage?

‘Call me Jake’ sensed something of Thimble’s worries.

“As a family man I will take care of you like my own son. We have so much to look forward to: fresh sea-breezes, sunshine, beaches, speedboats, porpoises, albatrosses, pelicans ─ and lots of other firsts you barely ever catch a glimpse of in Dulham or Dulham North.”

“It’s just that . . .”

“The Owners are putting a lot of money behind this project.”

“Will we be sharing?”

“Of course not. The Drudge is not the Daily Worker. No expenses spared here. The Owners . . . ”

“That’s one of my worries. I’m a little puzzled why the Owners get us to do so much LGBT stuff?”

“Oh, I see.” The penny drops and ‘Call me Jake’ cups his chin in his hands. “No fears there young Thimble. No fears at all. Look, I know from the pieces you wrote at Uni’ you have care for the planet, green energy and all that. Well, the Owners do too.”

“Meaning?”

“Meaning the more we promote LGBT rights and try to make this alternative lifestyle the norm, the less of a population explosion we have to deal with. It’s easy maths. And it’s much more humane than war.”

“Hmm, I see what you mean.”

“But we don’t have to conform.”

All Thimble’s university morals were gradually being turned on their head by the Hegelian associate editor. After his expenses-paid trip to the Caribbean he no longer believed in sustainable energy. As his boss pointed out windmills would be upended in the bracing “sea-breezes” with the forces of Irma and Maria. Thinking it through he realised there was no way either that tidal power could be harnessed in the girly ”sea breezes”. His boss was right. Thimble’s respect for ‘Call me Jake’ was growing daily.

He spins round in his chair again and punches the air. Dulham have just scored.

“What are you writing?” Jake is suddenly upon him. Thinking quickly Rory hits the ALT TAB keys to refresh the screen back to an article: ‘Woman with peanut allergy tries to sue President Carter”.

“Drop that” says his boss. I need you to write another exclusive about the widespread anti-Semitism which is engulfing the country.

“Another one? But you helped me write one a few weeks back Jake.”

“The Owners need more. We have to spoon-feed the masses so the elite can pick their bones clean. You and I, Rory, we are part of the elite. And there are rich pickings ahead.”

“OK. What’s the angle?”

“The rise in anti-Semitism.”

“I thought when you donned that kippa to antagonise the congregation at Finsbury Park Mosque you came to the conclusion that there was no anti-Semitism.”

“That’s not the news the Owners want to hear. So if we cannot find it, we must manufacture it. . . Anyway I’ve virtually written the piece for you.”

“Then why don’t you put your name to it if it’s ready to run?”

“It’s the court case. You know, the one against ambassador Murphy, who we stitched up. It wouldn’t look good at the moment under my name. There’s not much work. It’s virtually press-ready copy. You just need to interview somebody with first-hand experience of anti-Semitism.”

“And where will I find that somebody?”

“No worries there Thimble. . . Masonson, my lawyer who has pledged to ruin ambassador Murphy, has a girlfriend who regularly experiences anti-Semitism, in fact nearly every time she goes with her brother to disrupt Islamic meetings she comes across it. She’ll do the interview with pleasure.”

Thimble is not overly happy with this. He does not like to think an article he did not research is going to go out under his by-line. Thinking quickly he tries to wriggle out of the task.

“The readership will guess it’s not mine.”

“How do you mean?”

“People who know me know I am not really anti-Islamic.”

“That should be ‘People who knew’ you . . . You have new friends now. Remember?”

“Yes. I’m thankful for my new friends. But what if the public discovers that article I wrote about the hijab being the height of fashion regardless of what French racists say.”

“How can anyone discover that? We’ve taken it down.”

“What the one published in the North Dulham Small Globe Online?”

“Yes. It’s down. That’s the beauty of stuff you write online Thimble. You can easily remove it, vanish it into thin air just like popping a bubble as we did with that piece in the North Dulham Small Globe. Pop! I’ve just got rid of a load of potentially incriminating tweets regarding my pro-Israeli views before we take Murphy to the cleaners.”

“How can you be sure you’ll win?”

“It’s a near certainty. The Owners who own mainstream media have a large influence on the judiciary. Let’s say they are all members of the same clubs.”

Thimble has no other argument.

“You are sure nobody will find the hijab piece?”

“Absolutely certain. . . Now phone this number and speak to Ruth about the terrible anti-Semitism she has experienced.”

Things are not going well. Even if the money’s all right. When “Call me Jake” leaves Rory Thimble hits the ALT TAB keys only to find Dulham are losing 3 – 1.

END

(Disclaimer. Any likeness in this fictional story to any person living or dead is purely coincidental)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Pharma are as bad as Big Brother

My GP is all right. He plays a bit of golf. And sometimes he’s at the medical practice when I make an appointment. When I damaged a knee ligament trying to improve my golf swing he went to great lengths showing me how I should drive properly swinging from the waist. He actually stood up and showed me. And he also condoned last year’s Big Ride cycle participation on behalf of Palestine despite this ligament injury because of the direction in which the knee rotates when cycling. He was proved right on that too. All in all he may even have contributed to reducing my handicap.

To cut a long story short I should be on statins because of my high (5.8 total cholesterol level). I gave up on these (and all together about five items of medication) well over 12 months ago and God do I feel better for it.

Once a year I have to have a check up with the nurse who takes a drop of blood which is then sent off to the lab, weighs me and checks my blood pressure. The results are just back in and are virtually the same as last year. The cholesterol figure is higher than perceived medical wisdom suggests it should be. Therefore in just over a week I shall be having a telephone conversation, and my GP, because that is his job, will tell me again what best medical practice is on coronary heart disease. I again will explain how much better I feel without statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and what have you.

But this year I have the medical profession on my side in the personage of Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a Scot who believes that lowering cholesterol in the treatment of heart disease is nonsense, and, though he does not quite put it like that, Big Pharma is behind the scam because there is a lot of money in prescribing these unnecessary medications. I think I would get on well with Dr Kendrick.

As to the generally accepted causal and preventative measures regarding heart disease Dr Kendrick agrees that smoking is causal and exercise is preventative. In a nutshell these are just about the only agreements with mainstream medical opinion regarding heart disease.

““In short, I believe that almost everything we are told is good for you, is bad for you, and vice-versa. With the exception of smoking (bad) and exercise (good).””

It suits me. I have not smoked for more than forty years. I play golf at least three times a week and I am back cycling on a regular basis (about 100 miles this week).

I am going to die of course. That is a fact whether I rely on medication or not. What is also true is I am enjoying the life I still have left. I did not enjoy it so much when every day I was popping in pills that disagreed with me. Just as important for me my extended life will have nothing to do with making Big Pharma even richer. My death may have nothing to do with heart disease though I guess my heart (which is very strong) will stop beating, whatever the cause.

The important thing to note here is backed up by a biblical quotation: the love of money is the root of all evil. Big Pharma (the huge pharmaceutical companies that thrive on consensus obedience to perceived medical knowledge) love money. They also attempt to destroy anybody who makes an impact on their sales. Take for example Dr Andrew Wakefield.

Dr Wakefield’s work in discovering a connection between vaccines and autism is to me sound. You may not agree with it. The medical profession may not agree with it in general, but it is the work of one of their own, and should be given due credit. In my opinion it is excellent research. Incidentally I don’t have the ‘flu jab either. Or the shingles jab. I got shingles again last year for the first time in 60 years. If everybody was like me they would collectively save the NHS billions that could be used for making nursing and the staffing of casualty departments attractive professions. Instead, as things stand, that money goes into financing research by Big Pharma aimed at promoting its own latest big earners in a never-ending cycle of greed.

Hat-tip to Drs Kendrick and Wakefield, and all the others who stand up against those who pay the medical pipers: that is the big pharmaceutical companies.

Roller Diner at the Soho Theatre

Playwright Stephen Jackson’s Roller Diner, winner of the coveted Verity Bargate Award, brings a welcome taste of Brummie humour to the capital with this engaging musical comedy. When an attractive foreign waitress, Marika (Lucy McCormick), turns up unexpectedly at Eddie Costello’s period cafe the stage is set for emotional intrigues which run the full gamut of cardinal sins.

Coming from an east European country where thousands of hungry girls are trained to cater for an Englishman’s every need, Marika’s measured advances set lovelorn and neglected Eddie (Joe Dixon) at odds with his daughter Chantal (Lucie Shorthouse), who is head waitress. Further emotional tension is created when Marika practices her talents on chef PJ (Ricky Oakley) who also happens to be Chantal’s boyfriend. Completing the staff and clientele are more mature waitress Jean (Rina Fatania) and Eddie’s long-time buddy and diner customer Roger (David Thaxton) who double their range of acting skills by playing mysterious eastern-European characters.

The Roller Diner itself is as run down as its proprietor. Based on the American model where customers are served by waitresses wearing roller skates the audience is briefly propelled into the Rock ‘n’ Roll fifties with incidental jukebox music and quickly brought back to the present with an up-to-date immigration-based plot. Set and costume designer (Anthony Lamble) well captures the ageing and ageless nature of Eddie’s Diner. The skates are off.

To single out individuals for special praise is not possible. There are no weak links. The acting is, as it should be, first-class across the board and boards, the accents (including Brummie) were spot on doing justice to the script as well as the actors’ careers. One suspects there must be many a seven-a-side manager looking for talent who play so well as a team!

Prepare to be well-entertained with this slick, sharply-scripted, fast-moving theatrical play of emotions brought to full fruition by Artistic Director Steve Marmion. You can waste your money on expensively-budgeted over-hyped Oscar-winning film musicals, like La La Land, or make your way over to the Soho Theatre and immerse yourself in some real live and witty entertainment. Furthermore you do not have to suspend belief in the storyline or the singing. If you can still get a ticket I suggest you get one right away. You will really enjoy this production.

Steve Jackson outside the Soho Theatre

Playwright Stephen Jackson creator of Roller Diner outside the Soho Theatre

Structural steel and 9/11

My thesis was about Midland novelist Robert Bage who was also a paper-mill owner. His eldest son Charles was a wine-merchant, surveyor and later a pioneer in structural iron. He designed the oldest iron-structured building in England which still stands today and is a listed building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditherington_Flax_Mill

His father was a supporter of equal-rights, education for the poor, an end to the dowry system, an end to duelling, an end to slavery. He also took maths lessons and was close to people of the Lunar Society: Matthew Boulton, Erasmus Darwin (very close) and the Midlands’ enlightenment in general. Charles Bage, a qualified surveyor, was aware of the dangers from fire which was quite commonplace at eighteenth century mills, especially paper mills, where a careless person could bring down the whole mill. Charles Bage has his place in the history of iron-framed buildings and communicated with Thomas Telford and William Strutt (who consulted Bage).

As a time-served toolmaker myself I know a little about the properties of metals although I am not a civil engineer. Nevertheless I think I know what would be architecturally sound and what would not, and whether a building is rigidly constructed or not. The twin towers and Building 7, which all collapsed on 11th September 2001, were rigidly constructed and very strong buildings. My contention has long been that they could not have fallen in a top-down collapse, one storey impacting on another in almost freefall, without the lower structures having been compromised.

I noticed during construction that the prefabricated floor sections (before concrete was poured onto them) were stacked on top of one another. Then they were raised by cranes that were standing on the floors of the inner core.

Each of the towers had supported the weight of these upper floors for 28 years without any problem. The undamaged structure below was just as rigid as it ever had been. The arrest was inevitable when the top of each tower failed. The only question to my mind is: when the arrest would have taken place.

Steel-framed buildings are structurally stronger than wood or reinforced concrete. Welded and bolted together they are very, very strong. You can of course bring down a steel-framed building with explosives. The easiest way is to topple it because it would be extremely unlikely to fall directly down due to its rigidity. It has never happened unless you believe it happened on 9/11. Here is the demolition of a steel-framed building.

Notice how the weaker materials have been removed at the base so they do not impede the demolition and it falls in the direction the demolition experts hope. If you stop the Pet Polymer building demolition at 1:20 just before the video ends it shows the aftermath of the demolition and may give you a clue as to why experts expected to see more steel debris in the 9/11 aftermath. The bridge disaster at Tacoma Narrows is another example of the properties of structural steel. It does not give way easily.

Ditherington-Flax-Mill1

Inside Ditherington Flax Mill (courtesy: GooseyGoo)

Something very strange happened at the World Trade Centre on that fateful day. It is why almost 3,000 architects and engineers are calling for a proper investigation. Charles Bage’s iron-framed building at Ditherington still stands after more than 200 years. Steel is stronger than iron.

Do these hymns belong in a Christian service?

Today the recessional hymn, after the first Sunday service in Lent, turned out to be totally incongruous to Christian faith. It has almost no connection to Christian teaching with only one token verse tagged on at the end to make it appear Christian when it is actually Zionist. It begins:

Jerusalem the golden,
With milk and honey blest,
Beneath your contemplation
Sink heart and voice oppressed.
I know not, oh, I know not
What social joys lie there.
What radiancy of glory,
What bliss beyond compare.

It pays homage to the apartheid city of Jerusalem. This was the city from where Jesus was put to death on the cross outside of the city walls. Today thousands of Palestinians have been murdered in a genocide of mammoth proportion perpetrated by Israel. Jerusalem today is the city from where Palestinians have had their land and property stolen and their lives made unbearable.

As well as the unknown “social joys” of the first verse there is further tribute to the “. . . shout of those who triumph, the song of those who feast.” In reminding fellow-Christians that Lent has just started, a time of abstinence and fasting, this seems particularly out of place. How such hymns get on to our hymn-sheets is beyond my comprehension. But it does not stand alone.

It is said the Devil has all the best tunes. While that is only partly true it cannot be gainsaid that “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is a rip-roaring tune. Here Whitney Houston waves the flag. It was allegedly written to support the Unionists in the American Civil War. Again it has a token Christian verse encouraging Christians to fight against and kill, or be killed by, fellow Americans. Quite clearly this has no place in Christianity and its title tells us why. Jesus is not on the side of any army. His message is one of peace and one of blessing the peacemakers. Nevertheless songs like this keep making their way into Christian services.

Another ‘hymn’ that disturbs me has a great tune too – Jerusalem. This gets touted out in church quite regularly and is another Zionist contribution that asks if a new Jerusalem can be built on England’s green and pleasant land. Although written by William Blake there is no excuse for bringing me a “bow of burning gold”, “arrows of desire”, “spear” or a “chariot of fire”. I realise it is based somewhat on Revelation and thus as symbolic as the story of the Garden of Eden. Nevertheless the nearest it gets in a series of unanswered questions to mentioning the name of Jesus is in the couplet:

“And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?”

Nationalism, and the glorification of war and warriors never seem to be very far away from the lyrics of these rousing ‘hymns’. We see them ever more present in “I vow to thee my country” and who better to raise the heart and spirit than in putting lyrics to stirring music from “The Planets” by Gustav Holst. Soldiers and other sufferers of war are asked to be so patriotic that the “final sacrifice” is not too big a price to pay. This hymn does try to redeem itself in the final verse which describes another country “where all the paths are peace.” But here again there is no direct mention of Jesus.

So do these hymns belong in a Christian service?

Crates and Cranes (9/11)

crane

Photocredit: commons.wikimedia.org

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.

CRANES

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.

CRATES

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.

http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/Watch-Stacking-beer-crates-into-towers-and-climbing-them-is-a-thing-now/368680.htm

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”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwc49cZKunQ

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.