[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: NIST and "The Foot Of God" Hypothesis NIST and "The Foot Of God" Hypothesis Rob Rice Excerpt from a recent email exchange with Robert Rice, independent 9/11 researcher, in the "real world" Executive Vice President with a reputable international Executive Search firm that specializes exclusively in the Engineering Architectual and Construction market sectors, as follows: The "Winter Garden" atrium was hit by 20 ton steel beams ejected 600 feet from the tower. There are photos of this. Also, Hoffman replies (already!) to the newly released NIST "factsheet"/FAQ. Once again Hoffman points out the obvious, the obvious absurdity of the government sanctioned report. They never dealt with the actual "collapse" (descent) of the twin towers, remaining stuck (like some in our movement?) on the point of collapse initiation, as if, once initiated, what the buidings did was inevitable and automatic. That is quite the leap of logic, at the very least, given that the buildings were made of structural steel, with a 47 column forming the "core", which btw the initial FEMA report actually attempted to flat out deny with their "truss theory" eyerolls]. Furthermore, the latest NIST FAQ claims a fall time for the North Tower of 9 SECONDS (though it was actually at least a few seconds longer than that). If however, we take them at their word, 9 seconds is EQUIVALENT to the rate of ABSOLUTE free fall in a complete VACUUM! They state it, right there, in plain sight! And The 9/11 Commission Report as we know pegs the south tower collapse time at exactly 10 SECONDS! (though again, they are off by about 2, maybe 3 seconds MAX). This entails falling through the path of maximal resistence--core columns begin tapered ever thicker toward the bottom to attain over-engineering-- in about the same timeframe (within second or two) it would take for any freely dropped object, dropped from the height of the tower, to hit the ground, plowing through nothing but mere AIR alone! That seems to be the official narrarative. And let us not forget either, that in the NIST report, in all of its 10,000 pages-Why so much "fluff" for something THEY claim is self evident?--not even ONCE is the timed duration of the collapse even MENTIONED, and here we have them saying that the seismographic evidence proves the north tower made it's decent from top to bottom in just NINE SECONDS! How absurd is that? The photographic and video evidence (including debris trajectories), the actual dynamics of the "collapse" (it has to be placed in quotes since that's not what actually occured in reality), including the explosive nature of the collapse, PARTICULARLY for the "collapse initiation" of the North Tower, all of it, shows conclusively, and well beyond any REASONABLE doubt whatsoever, when placed under almost ANY amount of scrutiny or rational analysis--that what we witnessed (and what is preserved in the historical record in PERPETUITY) was something altogether different from what we were led to, and are supposed to continue to believe, about what happened there on 9/11. Particularly revlealing is the North Tower "collapse initiation", which reveals the top of the building exploding in a huge fireball, everything ejected explosively, right off the top, with the entire remaining UNDAMAGED length of the north tower (and there's a REALLY good shot of this in the herisnewyork gallary of images, with the North Tower still burning, left to "crush": View contextually relative to this gif of the beginning of the North Tower "collapse" (disintegration) Btw, there're excellent photographs found here, which could be utilized http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp (go to "WTC - "catagories) It's well worth purusing, to further grasp the utterly absurd proposition being put forth in the NIST report. Call it "The Foot of God" hypothesis, to emphasize the absurdity of the official NIST and government position now reemphasized both through NIST's latest release of their "Fact Sheet" as well as the US government's newly released affirming in every way, the official account, for the record. In fact, I believe, having been able to step back and really take a look at the dynamics involved, particularly debris ejection in relation to the near free fall nature (btw, we STILL do not have the time for a free falling object in AIR, factoring in terminal velocity due to air resistence [Editor's note: Judy Wood has told me that, depending upon the shape and mass of the object and the resistance it would encounter, that would be a minimun of 13 seconds), with some new reports soon to be released in The Journal of 9/11 Studies among other places, vitiates the core of the NIST report, as Jim Hoffman, among others, have observed: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century by Jim Hoffman. The thrust of their argument against CD is, in essence, that the buildings began their decent at around the impact areas [countered by the comments of Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (below), as to how it could be done from a CD perspective], AND, that it was not a "traditional CD" moving from the top down as it did. [Editor's note: This only means it not a "classic" controlled demoltion but one of a special kind.] Steven Jones and others could make use of this. The only counter-argument might then be that the buildings didn't really fall down in their own footprint Unlike the WTC7, of course, which shows a classic demo job. It is interesting that NIST is taking so long to find a contractor capable of performing the very simple visible modelling of their "natural", fire-provoked "collapse" hypothesis! South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the North Tower's antenna drop was anomalous from the perspective of the official theory, the South Tower's collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors--above the level struck by the airplane--began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building's footprint. "However," observe Paul and Hoffman, "as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34). And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, "this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!" This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building's footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is VERY convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones's question: "How can we understand this strange behavior without explosives?" (Jones, 2006). This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said: "By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west." (Else, 2004) Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is adopted. http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html Take a look at this image and description also (which could be made use of): When you look at the way the vast majority of the building material, including the massive steel beams, was EJECTED outwardly and laterally, creating the entire debris plume (as depicted here, for example), (and is has also come to my attention that the TV documentary "On Native Soil", the North Tower collapse segment was artfully removed via a commercial interrupt, during a pre-recorded show...)--what becomes apparent is that the official "pancake theory" or "global collapse" (which was never really addressed by NIST or FEMA to begin with) is utterly indefensible. What we are looking at, in essence, is increasing weight UN-loading, not loading. In fact, once initiated, as the tops blew right off these buildings from the top down, [Editor's note: as Judy Wood has emphasized], there was quite literally NOTHING BUT ATMOSPHERE, above the entire length of remaining UNDAMAGED structure, containing a 47 steel column core. So are we to believe that this nothingness--the "Foot of God"?--then exerted such massive downward force and momentum, that the disintegration of the remaining length of building could occur through the path of maximal resistence, in the same amount of time it would take for any freely dropped object, like an enormous steel safe, for example, to traverse the same distance, in nothing but AIR?!!! Is THAT what we are supposed to believe? It's absurd, right on the face of it. The "Foot of God" Hypothesis, the official story, in terms of accounting for the actual occurance of the event itself, appears to be all the government has to offer by way of explanation for the collapse. [Editor's note: See Judy Wood's parallel discussion of "the trash compactor model" archived on http://st911.org. It's high time to tear the NIST report to shreds in terms of the physical reality of the actual "collapse" itself IMO and even by a simple thought experiment. The tipping point of the argument involves the "GLOBAL COLLAPSE" itself, which NIST rather conveniently, failed to address, or model, at all, not even making MENTION of it (up until now, pinning the north tower fall time at 9 seconds, of all things). They're in our sights now with this latest release of the NIST "fact sheet"/FAQ and that government report attempting to re-affirm the officially sanctioned account of what happened on 9/11. Thus, there is no historical record, either contained in The 9/11 Commission Report (see David Ray Griffin's works), the FEMA or the NIST reports, about these "collapses" as well as the rest of the "narrative" (which is all The 9/11 Commission Report is, for the most part--a "story") that can be shown to be a self-consistent and reliable historical account of the observable events themselves, not to mention a trustworthy and honest analysis. Therefore, into that "gap" will go the truth and reality itself as far as what actually occurred, in physical terms, and in terms of inviolate and immutable laws of physics, which I suppose we are to pretend either do not exist or which may be bent and broken, either by the government's official story tellers, or, if they are to be believed, by the 19 Islamic extremist terrorists armed with boxcutters and fake bombs, who completely circumvented all standard military operating procedures in the event of a non-responsive or hijacked aircraft. And to demonstrate that the official account cannot be sustained, we needn't worry about the true nature of the South Tower plane, the absence of any apparent impact damage from a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon, or the lack of plane wreckage in Shanksville. [Editor's note: But of course they would all figure in a complete analysis of what went wrong and other respects in which what we have been told does not comport with the evidence.] All we need to analyze and share with everyone else, is the speed and the manner in which those buildings came down, thus making their mere ABSENCE from the New York City Skyline the NUMBER ONE "smoking gun" of 9/11! Let's Roll! Best, Robert Rice
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Believers in the footprint of god bump! Right up there with coincidence theories.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||