Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

9/11: 'How did the Twin Towers collapse?' Directed Energy Weapons?

Expand Messages
  • Monart Pon
    How did the Twin Towers collapse? A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists themselves; why? - is provided by Judy Wood and Morgan
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 12, 2010
      "How did the Twin Towers collapse?"



      "A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists themselves; why? - is provided by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, the former having a PhD in Materials Engineering Science. Rather than relying on her scholarship, the two researchers have provided visual image of a part of the Twin Towers that clearly disintegrates - rather than fall - before the eyes of the camera. Over a sequence of seconds, you see the structure disintegrate - turn into dust - before your eyes. "

      Twin Towers disintegrating in front of the camera



      http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/77/2/
    • Jordan Hazen
      ... Here s a short paper summarizing the reasons why :
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 21, 2010
        On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 07:44:41PM -0700, Monart Pon wrote:
        > "How did the Twin Towers collapse?"
        >
        > "A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists
        > themselves; why?

        Here's a short paper summarizing the reasons "why":

        http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf


        > is provided by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, the former having a
        > PhD in Materials Engineering Science. Rather than relying on her
        > scholarship, the two researchers have provided visual image of a
        > part of the Twin Towers that clearly disintegrates - rather than
        > fall - before the eyes of the camera. Over a sequence of seconds,
        > you see the structure disintegrate - turn into dust - before your
        > eyes. "
        >
        > Twin Towers disintegrating in front of the camera
        >
        > http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/77/2/

        Very curious, yes, but there are more reasonable explanations.

        Excerpting from

        http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

        << Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers
        and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic
        analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform
        "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was
        recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are
        recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to
        the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two
        science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of
        this evidence. 1

        The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon
        never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which
        caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder
        into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the
        deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a
        graphic summary of the phenomenon:

        A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its
        edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to
        almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver
        dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This
        Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who
        expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

        FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture
        containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot
        corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the
        elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting
        point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it
        "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C,
        Limited Metallurgical Examination.

        Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel,
        including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular
        melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A
        liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur
        formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
        ...
        The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due
        to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
        ...
        The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of
        the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides
        that contain both iron and copper.
        ...
        liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur
        formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
        ...
        The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a
        very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur
        has been identified. [...]

        The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to
        investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven
        Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular
        melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of
        thermite arson [link].

        --
        Jordan.
      • Monart Pon
        ... And here is a reply to Jenkins paper: In Part 1 of his paper, Dr Jenkins states (about the debris) �This means that, within error, all of the debris in
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 21, 2010
          Commenting on:

          > > "How did the Twin Towers collapse?"
          > >
          > > "A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists themselves; why?

          Jordan Hazen wrote:

          > Here's a short paper summarizing the reasons "why":
          >
          > http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf


          And here is a reply to Jenkins' paper:

          "In Part 1 of his paper, Dr Jenkins states (about the debris) �This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses.� If this statement is correct, then how did the goods in the Mall Stores survive? How is it that the subway station has only a relatively small amount of debris and the train is not badly crushed and damaged? If the sub levels were indeed filled with debris as Jenkins suggests, then how can rescue workers have been walking around in the sub-basement levels so easily? Also, why does the reference for the data Jenkins has used come from The New York Times and not some more directly scholarly or scientific work from FEMA or NIST or the EPA? (Prof Steve Jones also repeatedly referenced the New York Times when discussing damage to the Bathtub). The New York Times does not seem to be a publication which has an accurate track record in publishing facts about what happened on 9/11."

          http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60

          Other responses to Jenkins:

          http://drjudywood.com/articles/cc/Jenkinspanic.html

          http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html

          http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=60



          -Monart
        • Jordan Hazen
          ... That underground mall wasn t directly beneath either tower. It was sited below those parts of the Trade Center superblock containing the large plaza up
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 21, 2010
            On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:32:19PM -0700, Monart Pon wrote:
            > Commenting on:
            >
            > > > "How did the Twin Towers collapse?"
            > > >
            > > > "A new angle - one which has been shunned by conspiracy theorists themselves; why?
            >
            > Jordan Hazen wrote:
            >
            > > Here's a short paper summarizing the reasons "why":
            > >
            > > http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
            >
            >
            > And here is a reply to Jenkins' paper:
            >
            > "In Part 1 of his paper, Dr Jenkins states (about the debris)
            > ???This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC
            > complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses.??? If
            > this statement is correct, then how did the goods in [the mall
            > stores survive?]
            >
            > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60

            That underground mall wasn't directly beneath either tower. It was
            sited below those parts of the Trade Center "superblock" containing
            the large plaza up above (with the bronze ball sculpture, if you
            remember that), and the low-rise WTC4 and WTC5 buildings.

            This diagram matches what I remember seeing posted on information
            boards when I was there, back in mid-2000:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/WTCmall.png

            although it doesn't show the boundaries of Buildings 4 & 5 above.

            The towers occupied only a fraction of the WTC complex property, but
            there was underground development beneath practically all of it-- the
            mall, PATH and subway stations, a huge cooling plant distributing
            chilled water to all the buildings (using the Hudson River as a heat
            sink, interestingly)... all sorts of other areas off limits to the
            general public.


            > Other responses to Jenkins:
            >
            > http://drjudywood.com/articles/cc/Jenkinspanic.html
            >
            > http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html
            >
            > http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=60

            Well, it sounds like there's some animosity between the two of them,
            which is unfortunate... I caught a bit of this in Jenkins' paper too.

            The main problem I have is that there's been apparently no attempt at
            all to explain how the *enormous* power and energy requirements of
            Woods' proposed DEW system (orders of magnitude beyond what any known
            technology) could be met, nor even to quantify it.

            > -Monart
            >

            --
            Jordan.
          • Monart Pon
            ... That s Judy Wood s point: that the evidence shows a disintegration of the twin tower matter mostly into finer and finer particles, in a manner not known to
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 21, 2010
              Jordan Hazen wrote:


              > The main problem I have is that there's been apparently no attempt at
              > all to explain how the *enormous* power and energy requirements of
              > Woods' proposed DEW system (orders of magnitude beyond what any known
              > technology) could be met, nor even to quantify it.
              >

              That's Judy Wood's point: that the evidence shows a disintegration of
              the twin tower matter mostly into finer and finer particles, in a manner not known to conventional technology. Whatever the energy requirements are for DEW (and it would have to be the same if conventional explosives were used), the requirements evidently were met, because the towers were "dustified" into finer and finer dust and talcum. And, how can convention explosives explain all the strangely "toasted" and flipped vehicles.


              -Monart
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.