This was news to me. While I remain agnostic, I am increasingly open to the possibility that it was not CD.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
John Judge didn't believe in controlled demoltion (13 posts)
-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Yes, John was adamant about that. He told me once that given how long it took for some of the truthers to admit the plane really hit the Pentagon, it would be many more years before they admit the plane crashes really took down the towers. It is fortunate (sort of) that the towers stayed standing long enough for most of the people below the impacts to escape. If they had collapsed upon impact 9/11 would have been even worse.
The Boeing 747 that hit an apartment building in Amsterdam in 1992 (an accident, not intentional) caused that structure to suffer partial collapse immediately on impact. It was a cargo plane, not carrying passengers. Nearly all of the dead were in the building, only pilots were on the plane itself. Also, there have been two skyscrapers in the past two years felled exclusively by fire (in Iran and Brazil). It's rare but not unprecedented.
The fact that media coverage of 9/11 half truth focuses now focuses almost exclusively on the demolition claim should be considered solid evidence that this argument is false.
more details:
www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
===
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/ conspiracature_12.html#comments
Jeff said...
As I've posted before, my point is this: I've seen "9/11 Truth" be hijacked by speculation, whether valid or not, and the best and hardest evidence for conspiracy neglected.
I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.
I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al- Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shoot downs changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
===
BBC: Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTZ3XXO7wNA
no mention of suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames, but lots of focus on Loose Change, Richard Gage and Steven Jones, countered by New York firefighters who were there and various official experts. Has footage showing the fires in 7 were not small and were caused by part of the North Tower falling on it, first time a skyscraper has fallen on another building.
===
Paul Thompson "The Terror Timeline" (pp. 441, 466)
After 9:59 am: WTC Building 7 appears damaged
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."
4:30 pm: WTC Building 7 Area is Evacuated
The area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time. New York fire department chief officers, who have surveyed the building, have determined it is in danger of collapsing. Several senior firefighters have described this decision-making process. According to fire chief Daniel Nigro, "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire offices and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
===
implosionworld.com
A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
By Brent Blanchard
August 6, 2006
"for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the initial violent explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.
"The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely."
Posted 5 years ago # -
Thanks, Mark. I will update our CD page with some of your info here:
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
I see you already made counterpoints to many of the points on our page.
Posted 5 years ago # -
We've been over many of these points before. My major point is that all of your information about war games, PTech, CIA malfeasance. PROMIS, Atta drugs -- it can all be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Thus you can not expect your information to be acceptable to the Man on the Street, even when it's completely factual.
The fact of the inadequacy of the official reports about the destruction of the the towers can not be rationally denied. Now maybe that inadequacy is part of a brilliant false-flag op as a red herring to distract the truth movement as you allege. Maybe the government can pull a rabbit out of its hat and explain the building collapses, but up to now they have not done so.
When the government tells us that they did not analyze the collapses of the towers, and tells us they can not explain those collapses, and acknowledges that their core steel samples were only heated to 250 C and thus do not support their claim that the structural steel was weakened by fire -- we can not take those government reports seriously.
So youse guys want to assemble a gang of conspiracy theorists who think the CIA did it. I agree. But the evidence of the past 17 years is that Americans are not interested in borrowing your trouble.
So I'm interested in working with scientifically-minded people who are open-minded enough to consider the facts and arrive at their own scientific conclusions. 3076 architects and engineers have now signed on to the call for new investigations of the destruction of the towers.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I haven't read the NIST reports or listened to any of Richard Gage's presentations or seriously considered the evidence for probably 10 years. Up until the last couple years, I didn't seriously doubt the case for CD. What I read on Jim Hoffman's site and heard from DRG had been enough for me. It seemed like common sense logic that the buildings couldn't have come down like that without help.
I started to doubt things when I realized how weak some of the main points really were and the fact that major damage to WTC 7 was completely played down. How come no one shows these photos when trying to convince you that WTC 7 was CD?
Also, claims of foreknowledge do not equal CD. I was actually on the West Side Highway when building 7 came down. I remember word going around that it was going to collapse and that the area had been evacuated. If it had been burning most of the day and had major damage, isn't understandable that they might predict its failure?
I am still willing to admit that it may have been CD, but some of the "evidence" being pushed isn't very strong and the case isn't as much of a slam dunk as many people would like to think.
It is really hard to maintain an open mind once you've made your mind up.
Posted 5 years ago # -
On this aspect of the story, I think the firefighters who were there are more accurate than those who were armchair researchers at their computers years after the fact.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The fact of the inadequacy of the official reports about the destruction of the the towers can not be rationally denied. Now maybe that inadequacy is part of a brilliant false-flag op as a red herring to distract the truth movement as you allege. Maybe the government can pull a rabbit out of its hat and explain the building collapses, but up to now they have not done so.
Yes, I agree that would be hard to imagine--that the ultimate goal was to make the collapses look more suspicious than they were by intentionally putting out flimsy reports by NIST. On the other hand, these are the people who got a way with not releasing any surveillance footage of the plane hitting the pentagon.
I would not put it past them to release this footage and maybe more up close shots of WTC 7 at some future date, perhaps after CD activists spent 20 years pushing for a new investigation and finally got one. They learned from JFK and they have a long road map.
The 9/11 TM has already been converted into the 9/11 CDM.
Did Jim Hoffman ever deal with those photos or questions about WTC 7 that I brought up above? I definitely don't see anything on wtc7.net.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I doubt there will ever be "a new investigation" whether from the Demolition people or those focused on foreknowledge and suppressed warnings. I hope to be wrong but I see zero interest from the establishment to reopen this.
I recently encountered someone asking for signatures for a "new investigation," but his reasons were 100% the demolition claim. He did not know what Alec Station was, the war game exercises, suppressed warnings. He had heard of Mike Ruppert but wasn't interested in his approach. When I said there were better claims than demolition he got offended and abruptly stopped communicating. Somehow I can't see this being more than a small sideshow, not sufficient to get Congress or the Judiciary to take this seriously.
I recommend the late Gaeton Fonzi's book The Last Investigation, about the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He was one of their investigators. Veterans of 9/11 Half Truth will see a parallel.
http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0019b.html
The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi
"The first question I tried to get approved was the one by experience in investigating the case had dictated as a priority: Was there an intelligence agency connection through anti-Castro Cubans and Oswald to the Kennedy assassination? That, I knew, would never pass muster because of the investigative approach and effort it would require. By the nature of its operations, an intelligence agency doesn't leave authentic tracks. One had to look for patterns. The issue I wanted to pursue involved the patterns of verified misinformation -- almost all linking Oswald to Castro -- which were born in Miami immediately after the assassination."
http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0019a.html
The Last Investigation by GAETON FONZI
I discovered there are a lot of Cubans in Miami named Julio Fernandez. There are more than a dozen lawyers named Fernandez. Many Cubans, like Americans, are commonly known by their middle name, not their first, and some Cubans are commonly known not by their by father's family name by their matrinomy. Nevertheless, selecting them by their age and word of their anti-Castro activism, I spent weeks talking with scores of Cubans named Julio Fernandez. Schweiker particularly interested in the Julio Fernandez whose name did turn up in an FBI report buried in the Warren Commissions' volume of evidence. I finally tracked him down in upstate New York. He wasn't the Julio Fernandez who had called Clair Boothe Luce. It wasn't until more than a year later, with the broadened access to information I had with the House Assassinations Committee, I discovered that there was no Julio Fernandez who called Luce. She had simply concocted the name for Schweiker.
What was interesting about the Luce story was that it had a couple of the characteristics common to so many of the other leads which were fed to Schweiker and, later, the House Assassinations Committee and, when checked out, went no where. One such characteristic was that the leads usually could not be dismissed outright because they always contained hard kernels of truth mixed in the fluff.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews...
The Last Investigation
By Gaeton Fonzi
Reviewed by James DiEugenio
book review by NameBase
http://www.namebase.net:82/books03.html
Fonzi, Gaeton. The Last Investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. 448 pages.
This is the first comprehensive insider account of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Fonzi was a staff investigator for the HSCA, and before that an investigator for Senator Richard Schweiker, who was interested in the JFK assassination as a member of the Church Committee. Strapped for resources and under deadline pressures, HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey steered the investigation along avenues that would look good in their report. Blakey gave the CIA plenty of room to maneuver around his investigation, either to enhance his own insider status or because of his realpolitik pragmatism. He blames organized crime for the assassination, while Fonzi is much more interested in anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA. Committee staffers were unable to pursue many promising leads in this area.
Fonzi spends much energy trying to establish that CIA heavyweight David Atlee Phillips was the "Maurice Bishop" that Alpha 66 founder Antonio Veciana saw with Oswald before the assassination. He convinces his readers on this point, but since there's no corroboration for Veciana's story that Bishop met Oswald, it's unclear where this leaves us. The most interesting portions of the book, therefore, revolve around Fonzi's occasional evidence of disinformation and false leads planted in the paths of Committee investigators, apparently by U.S. intelligence assets. ISBN 1-56025-052-6
Posted 5 years ago # -
Brian G wrote:
We've been over many of these points before. My major point is that all of your information about war games, PTech, CIA malfeasance. PROMIS, Atta drugs -- it can all be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Thus you can not expect your information to be acceptable to the Man on the Street, even when it's completely factual.
When the government tells us that they did not analyze the collapses of the towers, and tells us they can not explain those collapses, and acknowledges that their core steel samples were only heated to 250 C and thus do not support their claim that the structural steel was weakened by fire -- we can not take those government reports seriously.
So I'm interested in working with scientifically-minded people who are open-minded enough to consider the facts and arrive at their own scientific conclusions. 3076 architects and engineers have now signed on to the call for new investigations of the destruction of the towers.
As John Judge cautioned, just because someone says the government is lying does not mean they are telling the truth.
The demolition claim has also been dismissed as a "conspiracy theory." In fact, nearly all of the media coverage now assumes that the ONLY claim of 9/11 "truth" is demolition. If that collapses then there is nothing left. Most of the truthers seem to believe this, too. But this is a false dichotomy, among other logical errors.
The government did not NOT say that the core only got to 250 C. Perhaps there were segments away from the inferno that only got that warm, but the areas that were directly hit were far hotter than that. The half-truthers utterly sank their credibility and profoundly insulted the family members by falsely claiming the fires were not that hot. Perhaps obsessing over the photos and videos of the burning, leaning and collapsing towers blinded them to the fact it is a snuff video.
I recommend talking with a blacksmith about what happens to steel when it gets heated (but still not hot enough to melt).
I couldn't care less how many people sign a petition.
Some years ago I looked at the list of signatories. I recognized some from attending various events who were neither architects nor engineers.
There is a petition against climate change falsely called the "Oregon petition." Many of the names are not exactly credentialed experts, to be polite.
Every engineering entity on the planet looked at the WTC collapses. It is fortunate the towers stayed standing as long as they did, otherwise it would have been even worse.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Hi truthmod, thanks for discussing this. You say "It is really hard to maintain an open mind once you've made your mind up." I agree entirely. That's why I've avoided making my mind up.
The situation in the CD debate is that the government made its argument that fires brought the buildings down. Skeptics offered their rebuttal to the government version, and made some valid points. The CD enthusiasts made their argument. The government has refused to respond meaningfully to their critics or to the CD argument. So the debate is stymied.
I am not going to make up my mind until I hear the government try to defend its version of events, and I'd admit that their scenario might be possible but only incompetently put forth, but my opinion at this point is that the CD crowd has better arguments. And the government's stonewalling in the face of these issues strikes me as very hinky.
The problem with the "major structural damage brought WTC7 down" thesis is that all of that damage would have been on the south side, and thus it should have resulted in a failure toppling toward the south. That did not happen. The government (NIST) claims that impact damage to WTC7 played no part in collapse initiation.
The problem with the "fires on every floor" thesis implied by your smoky photo is that NIST denies that one too. They claim that fires persisted on only six floors, and that the smoke on the south side came from buildings burning across the street. It was sucked up into the low-pressure zone created by a NW wind. I've got a comparable photo of WTC1, showing dust that seems to be belching from every south side window after the collapse of WTC2.
I agree that much of the evidence over-aggressively asserted by CD enthusiasts isn't very strong. Long ago I decided that I was going to stick to facts, not conspiracy theories. Was it possible to plant explosives or incendiaries in the elevator hoistways of the WTC? Absolutely. That's a fact. Did somebody do it? How would I know?
I went to Berkeley yesterday to the Big (football) Game to take advantage of the opportunity to get exposure to tens of thousands of people with my informative sign: "3076 architects and engineers want new 9/11 investigations."
I do the football crowds, and I include a scoreboard that compares the competing teams, counting the signatories to the petition.
Stanford/Berkeley (S/B) has the best numbers of signatories.
architects 3/23
engineers 19/24
PhD engineers 4/3
That ain't woofin'.
I got more heckling at Berkeley this last time than I usually get. One young man claimed to be a Stanford student of mechanical engineering. He pretended that he did not understand the intention of my sign "3076 architects and engineers want new investigations." When I tried to clarify my intention he repeatedly interrupted me and changed the subject. He was obviously trying to push my buttonsand provoke me to yell at him.
A big guy got in my face and said "You know the Jews did i!." I hollered after him "Only an idiot would believe that."
Another big guy got in my face just saying "You're an idiot!"again and again. He claimed he was an engineer. I said "Would you care to offer an engineering argument?" but he never did.
MY best argument, which I did not recognize at the time, was that it doesn't matter if I'm an idiot or not. I'm just holding a sign, and it happens that the sign is entirely truthful.
Posted 5 years ago # -
It sounds like your mind is made up.
I think it does matter if one is promoting reality or nonsense while arguing with football fans, especially in a community where some of the people have technical educations.
"Dunning–Kruger effect"
If someone had spent weeks or months wiring the towers for demolition, the office workers would have noticed.
The fact that the second tower hit had its collapse initiate where the impacts shattered the structure disproves the cult of CD.
“Just because someone says the government is lying does not mean they are telling the truth.†--John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations
"If the organizing principle is that the government lies, but there's no organizing principle to how you get to the truth, then anything is possibly the truth. People will organize around disinformation just as easily as information. The way covert operations do effective disinformation is they give the truth to the people who are discredited and they give the lie to the people who have great credibility - the way they disinform from both ends and confuse people. They put out stories - as we know from the assassinations - that will lead us down false paths, that will lead us to false sponsorships." -- John Judge, Coalition on Political Assassinations, conference on the 37th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, June 5, 2005
Posted 5 years ago # -
Hi Mark. I wanted to reply to your posts in order, but I'll start with the most recent one.
My mind is made up that the official investigations we have had are inadequate: politicized, unscientific, incomplete, and dishonest. My mind could be changed on that score if someone could show that I was wrong, but so far nobody has ever even tried. Usually those who try to argue against me must resort to ad hominem attacks and sophistry (as my Berkeley critics did). Another gambit I recently encountered was to invoke a false dichotomy between a) the Official Story, based on the classic axiom "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc,"and b) conspiracy theories.
My mind is not made up about the controlled demolition theory. I'm not an engineer, and I'm not an explosive expert, and I want to hear the government try to refute it before arriving at any conclusion. The government's unwillingness to try to refute it is telling.
I was not promoting nonsense. I was promoting a fact -- that 3076 credentialed architects and engineers want new investigations of 9/11, and that 7 of them are PhD engineers from Stanford and Berkeley. Are you suggesting that these PhDs are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect? On what basis? Are you suggesting that I am subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect? On what basis? Do you think I am unqualified to report a fact about the numbers of architects and engineers that signed the petition? Can you show me wrong?
Why do you think it would take weeks or months to wire the towers for demolition? Do you imagine that military demolitionists take weeks to blow up a bridge? Why do you think that office workers would notice demolition workers if the latter confined their activities to vacant floors and to the elevator shafts that housed most of the core columns of the towers? The morning of 9/11 more than 80 elevator mechanics gathered in the lobby of one of the towers, wondering what to do. They knew that many people upstairs were trapped in elevators, and they knew the people could not escape from the elevator cars without help. They knew this because they had installed the interlock devices themselves that prevented the people from opening the doors. In the 9 months before 9/11, a massive elevator renovations project had been ongoing at the WTC, providing cover for construction-type noises going on in the towers' 15 miles of elevator hoistways. How would the office workers know if the elevator mechanics installed charges on -- or inside -- the towers' hollow box columns?
Why would the locus of collapse initiation disprove anything? Do you imagine that it is impossible to armor explosive charges so as to make them fireproof? Do you imagine that it is impossible to coordinate an airplane attack and a demolition attack -- for instance by flying the planes in on autopilot radio beacons with a precision of +/- ten feet? Do you imagine that it is impossible to have computer control of installed charges such that after the plane crashes, the charge initiation sequence could be reprogrammed to reflect initiation at the appropriate floors?
I have not studied the collapse of WTC2 very closely because of its complexity. In WTC1 it's pretty clear from the Sauret video that the floors started collapsing several stories above the impact zone. There was also the matter of the "antenna drop" in WTC1 that would seem to indicate that collapse initiated with a core structure failure, or a completely symmetrical failure in the "hat truss".
Posted 5 years ago # -
Hi Mark,
I will now revisit issues I did not answer before. You said "I think the firefighters who were there are more accurate than those who were armchair researchers at their computers years after the fact." It's a seemingly reasonable stance if you don't know the particulars. The firefighters are all over the map in their evaluation of the damage to the WTC7 tower and the severity of the fire. It is quite noteworthy that the FEMA investigation completely ignored the testimony of the firefighters -- and went on to state that they could not explain WTC7's collapse, that their "best hypothesis" had only "low probability".
At one time NIST indulged in a damage estimate that included a huge hole scooped into WTC7 as much as 25% of the width of the tower. This was later abandoned, and ultimately NIST declared that impact damage to the building played n part in collapse initiation.
Some of the firefighters declared that there was fire on every floor of the building. NIST later toned this down such that fire persisted on only six floors. The illusion of fire on every floor was because a low-pressure zone on the South side of WTC7 (because of a NW wind) sucked up smoke from the fires at WTC6 and WTC5.
Your encounter with a truther who had not heard of Alec Station and had not heard of Mike Ruppert indicates that the call for new investigations of the collapses is reaching people.
Your claim that the steel got warmer than 250 C is complicated by the fact that yes, there was melted steel, so obviously there was some steel warmer than 250 C. But the government has not explained that melted steel. And their core steel samples only show heating to 250 C.
For you to dismiss the video evidence of the destruction of the towers as a "snuff film" displays a profoundly anti-scientific attitude. Do you feel the same way about those interested in the autopsy reports on the murders of JFK and RFK?
I assume that in your reference to blacksmith experts that you are talking about that good ol' boy who heated a piece of steel in a furnace and then placed it in a hole in an anvil and, with enormous leverage, bent it with his pinky.
There was no furnace in the WTC. The jet fuel burned off in less than five minutes, says FEMA. There was no Pinky of God applying lateral pressure at great leverage to the WTC. The relevant experiment would have been to apply axial pressure (straight down) with the pinky and see if he could buckle the furnace-heated steel. But of course he did not do that -- because he could not. Disinformation works both ways.
The architects and engineers for truth have over 3,000 credentialed architects and engineers who have signed their petition, and over 20,000 lay people (and I am one of them) who have also signed. If you know of any lay people who have signed as architects and engineers, I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to forward your information to the group. The credentials of the signatory architects and engineers are very diligently investigated.
Your claim that "every engineering entity on the planet looked at the WTC collapses" is quite over the top. Can you substantiate that claim?
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.