--- Begin Message ---
x ** TOP_VIEW ** x
The Bigger Picture
Leaking jet fuel did NOT cause WTC lobby damage: NO DIRECT ELEVATOR
SHAFTS FROM IMPACT AREA TO LOBBY -- MUCH MORE!
** Huge international response to article on 911 firefighter documentary
** Physicists rebut/debunk gov't 'jet fuel melted WTC' fable
Here's a small sampling of the hundreds of informative and often
impassioned emails we've received, in response to our article on the
September 11 firefighter documentary -- and the events depicted therein
which disprove federal government lies about the WTC attacks on several
KEY points.
= = = = = = = = =
From: "Jim S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Major 911 oddities
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 05:59:02 -0800
Hi.
I just finished the firefighters point-by-point analysis of the 911
tape. I believe something should be clarified relating to the WTC's
elevator shafts. To make clear, the North Tower was reported to have hit
about the 93rd floor, not the 80th as commonly stated. Now for the
shafts...The WTC's elevator system was made up with express and local
elevators. If youneeded to got to the 89th floor, you first took an
express to the (I believe) 78th floor and then transferred to the 89th.
This would mean the shafts at the 93rd floor would extend downward
onlyto the 78th floor. Unless there was a bank of elevatorsfor freight
or whatever that went the entire height of the building, the idea of jet
fuel descending to the lobby through the elevator shafts would be
impossible. Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
-James
= = = =
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:03:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "JOHN SMITH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "major 911 oddities revealed"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's hard to get a reliable consensus from among the ranks of the whores
called "experts" nowadays, but I continue to have doubts about the
fireballs seen in the wtc attacks being caused by exploding jet fuel.
Jet fuel is NOT volatile, being deliberately engineered to avoid
accidental combustion and/or explosions. If those fireballs we saw were
jet fuel, there were both explosives and incendiary devices on board
near or in the fuel tanks rigged to go off on impact to create spray and
ignite it.
Gasoline is volatile, but rarely explodes without special help. Look at
car crashes in old movies: no special effects crews: no car crash
explosions. At most, small fires from leaking gasoline.
Liquid jet fuel won't even burn without a wick or being mechanically
atomized. Like diesel it must be sprayed at high pressure, creating a
fine mist, in order to be harnessed as a propellant fuel.
Pure oxygen is not even flammable. Ask any welder. Standard safety
procedure when turning off a welding torch is fuel first, oxygen second.
The oxygen will extinuish the torch, preventing any accidental burnback
to the fuel tank.
McDonald seems to get off on gross exagerration of causes of fuel explosions.
Media whore posing as explosive expert. Don't call her to put out a
fire. It would be like calling 911.
Her writing is nothing to brag about either: "...additives are added..."
Is weak grammar not a clue to weak logic?
= = = =
From: "George W. Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:36:19 -0500 (EST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 9/11 Oddities
Hi there:
Your article has had a rebuttal applied, which I am sure you can
dispute, Lea McDonald failed to mention the tanks of water in the
buildings. I watched that show and ws struck by the marble off the walls
and the windows blown out, yet no carbon or smoke anywhere. Kerosene
burns dirty, lots of soot. ALL fuel aboard the plane was ignited on
impact, no non-burning fuel could have dripped down the shafts and then
ignited. For TWA 800 we were suppoosed to believe that un burning fuel
dripped down and was ignited by the cool ocean. Your point of the
suspicious call of a gas odor is also correct, the guys on the plane
didn't call them out did they?
Please re-post answers to the rebuttal.
George
= = = =
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:25:52 +0200
From: "Steen E. Holland Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Major 911 Oddities Revealed ---
My father was a bricklayer. I have seen buildings been raised and taken
down from my very first rememberence.
I am engineer bachelor of sciense in electronics, and had been working
in design af Atomatic Fire Alarm Systems. I have read many evaluations
of large scale building-fires in Scandinavia. I am a Dane living in
Denmark. On 11 th of september I was surprised to see the WTC-buildings
fall. In the very same second the south-tower began to collaps my very
first reaction was to crie to my wife "They are blowing down the
building". Knowing about steel-constructions and safty-factors, I knew
that the building could partly and slowly collaps i one side, where it
have been hit by the plane and fire, but all the upper part sunk as were
all colloms torn away in the same moment in one of the damaged floors.
Without knowing anything about any fire-sprinkler-system in the
WTC-buildings, there MUST have bee one, I was surprised to see all that
black smoke from the fire. Had any automatic-fire-sprinkler-system been
engaged, all the smoke should have been very grey to white
(Wather-wapor). My building-ensurrance on my house in Denmark are pretty
much higher this year. The World Citicens must pay the bill in the
worlds biggest ensurrence-fraud. I think some people in USA need to be
put a little bit in jale for a long time, and be denied there
ensurance-money. Thats the way we do in Denmark when such things happen.
And then we have the murder of inocent people doing thier duty. That 911
case stinks from A to Z.
I think it is time for peace loving people to wake up and remove power
from crasy individuals putting death and war on our beautiful world. -- Kindly
Steen Christensen
= = = =
From: "Virgris B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Major 911 oddities
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:16:19 +0000
Yeah and what if the traitor is your president? It's too late to impeach
him. Don't doubt it. We'll have martial law very, very soon.
= = = =
Reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Ursula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Major 911 Oddities Revealed
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:09:25 -0800
I just finished reading your article, "Major 911 Oddities Revealed In NY
Firehouse Documentary" and I must say, you wrote about many things that
went through my mind the morning I watched the Twin Towers tragedy on TV
when it happened. Call me sacrilegious but my first reaction that
continued for days and weeks was that those planes crashing into those
two buildings were merely distractions from what was going on below. I
am a military brat and what I saw unfold that morning does not portray
the US Military Defense in the way I was raised to believe in this
country. Where were they? How could they have been so immobilized.
Also, in thinking of the collapse, I never believed that those planes
caused that destruction. I felt the buildings were wired for explosions
to weaken the structures so that when the impact happened, they would
crumble like a house of cards. I am not a builder but if I was going to
plan to do such a thing with limited knowledge of structural
engineering, weakening a tall man at the knees when you punch him in the
face guarantees a collapse.
I wonder if it all is true.
Thanks for your article.
Ursula Powers
Elko, Nevada
"Think wrongly, if you please, but in all cases think for yourself."
---Doris Lessing, b. 1919, British Writer
= = = =
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:44:00 EST Subject: 911 Oddities article--N
tower elevators To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Top View,
I just read the article on Rense website. And there is something
noteworthy to add. When I watched the doc. on TV, sometime after the
command center had been set up, an elevator opened up and people came
out of it looking around at the lobby damage. I think it was said by
narrator something like these people had been on the elevator during the
crash and were stuck there for some time. When the doors opened, they
seemed totally surprised that something that major had happened while
they were stuck.
This astounded me. They didn't know!!! Weird! And the blast (of fuel,
fire or whatever) that supposed traveled down the shafts didn't damage
the elevator! I suppose they could have come up from downstairs,
however. When I watched I thought it was said that they were on a down elevator.
Check the tape.
Maybe this is another oddity, maybe not.
Keep up the good work!
Slm
= = = =
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:25:57 -0500
Subject: You are close!!
From: "John Lamenzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Good work...don't stop, but the people who know who wired the elevator
shafts with explosives are long dead...as are the actual technicians who
did it. Mossad/CIA are very thorough in their operations...but this time
they have f'ed up, and the only way to cover-up is through distraction,
thus the Palestinians become the scapegoat, the distraction, and get holocausted!!
Also, where is the pilot of the Pennsylvannia Air National Guard who
shot down Flt. 93? probably either dead or in the Caribbean with a few
mil in the bank...I agree, take the traitors out back and.....
johnhawk
= = = =
From: "PlaguePuppy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WTC: the implosion conspiracy
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:29:40 -0800
Dear T_V,
I've been deeply puzzled by how the buildings were brought down ever
since I first saw the videos. As somebody with a strong physics and
engineering background (MIT '74) none of the quasi-official explanations
offered have stuck me as very unconvincing.
Some comments on videos I was able to collect:
http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7336&group=webcast
Look especially at the video "Close and medium view north tower- immense
dust cloud and strange afterglow.mpg" and tell me what that very bright
glow that suddenly seems to "switch on" 45 sec. into the clip, also seen
in "Both collapses - bright afterglow at 1min 07sec.mpg"
The revised version of the commentary is attached.
Also some comments about that mysterious dust cloud and how it might
have been created:
Dear Gerard,
One more point, in response to the statement from SH:
(1) Where does the "impossible" amount of "dust" come from, it is asked?
He at once seems to say this can't be concrete dust, and later assumes
that it is. By and large it is almost surely not. I believe the
reasonable and plausible explanation is as follows.
The point is that it is quite impossible, given his assumed mechanism
for the collapses, to generate that much concrete dust. But yet, there
it is, and it most definitely is concrete dust (mixed with traces of
other things) as can be easily verified. One tip-off is the speed with
which the dust cloud falls. It can be seen to plunge down at high speed
in a pyroclastic flow, which only a heavy powder could do. Ash (and
would all the floors' contents be reduced to ash, even below the fires?)
would settle much more slowly, and could not be deflected by the ground
and chase people down streets for blocks around. Only a very dense and
finely divided powder would behave like that. And that several inch
thick blanket of dust was in fact identified as concrete dust.
So where does all that dust come from? Well, of course that can only be
speculation, but the fact that it exists is clearly not explainable in
the spontaneous gravitational collapse model. I'm not promoting any
particular explanation, except to say that even with conventional
demolition charges, used as they generally are to implode tall
structures, would not generate that much concrete dust, since the
charges would mostly be placed on the vertical steel columns of the
core, not in contact with the floors. With no claim to plausibility, the
only engineering solution I could imagine would be that the aggregate
used to mix with the concrete (it was "lightweight concrete", so it
probably used a plastic aggregate of some kind rather than gravel) was
actually some kind of milled high-explosive granules. This implies a
degree of advance planning that is almost impossible to imagine, but
that's as close as I can come to a scientifically consistent solution to
the puzzle.
Some interesting pictures taken in early October at this
link:http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc-photos.htm
This is soon enough that very little has been removed, but what we see
is shattered steel and pulverized concrete, with not so much as a
fair-sized chunk of cement clinging to a piece of rebar that I can
identify. So where did it all go? Alien death-rays anyone?
But in fact the "death ray" hypothesis looks more plausible the more I
think about this (Tesla scalar-wave weapons perhaps- do they really
exist?). Even the contents of the offices were reduced to a very fine
dust. I read in the NYT that they were finding .25 micron particles
derived from metals found in the computers in the building in the air
after the collapses. I don't know of any conventional explosives capable
of doing that. Any thoughts?
Best regards,
Jeff King
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some General Remarks About The Implosions And Explanatory Models
In discussing the collapse of the WTC towers, an event charged with an
enormous burden of grief and anger, there has been almost no serious
effort to clarify the exact nature of the events leading to the
structural failure of the building, almost as if asking too many
questions about the how and why of these disasters would somehow insult
the memory of those who died there. But yet this was, before all else,
not simply a disaster but a crime. And given the vast scope of the
crime, we must look very closely at the physical evidence and be willing
to go wherever a rigorous investigation leads, with no a priori limits
on what may have really gone on. To refuse to recognize where the
evidence points because it is too awful to contemplate or seems like a
"conspiracy theory" is not intellectually honest and does not truly
honor the memory of those who died.
As remarkable as the collapses themselves is the utter lack of a
functional scientific investigation of their causes, and the almost
complete destruction of the physical evidence that could allow a
detailed reconstruction of the structural failures. As I write this,
more than 80% of the structural steel, the most crucial part of the
physical evidence, has been cut up and hauled away for recycling. Civil
Engineers sent to investigate have been given no authority or funding,
and have been reduced to volunteer efforts to find interesting pieces of
the debris to salvage -- so far about 100 pieces out of 100,000. Without
a careful examination of the structural steel an enormous amount
irreplaceable evidence is being thrown away. Michael R. Bloomberg, the
new mayor of New York made the astonishing statement that modern science
no longer needs physical evidence, but can learn everything it needs
from computer models!
The scene of an enormous crime is being systematically scrubbed of all
useful evidence, as FEMA, the agency in charge blandly asserts that it
is "not an investigative agency" and that "this will not be a Flight-800
type investigation." This absolutely unique catastrophic failure of two
sophisticated high-rise towers is treated as the most banal sort of
everyday event, even as tourists are forbidden from taking pictures of
the crime scene. This lack of interest in doing a thorough forensic
analysis of the crime scene is very hard to account for. But yet there
seems to be an official government commitment to learning as little as
possible about the events of September 11, and to making the
investigations themselves as secret as possible.
Despite this loss of the physical evidence, a number of videos of the
collapses exist and are widely available on the internet. These are
copies of broadcast television footage that are available from a number
of sources, and show no evidence of editing or image manipulation. The
archives of the various networks should be able to verify the
authenticity of the clips, but in view of the close agreement between
various sources and various views, fakery seems very unlikely. I believe
that a careful analysis of some of the major qualitative features of the
events that these videos show allows us to exclude the possibility that
they were simple gravitational collapses due to structural failures
induced by the collisions and fires. That may seem like a strong
statement, but remember that if a proposed explanatory model for the
collapses does not account for major objective features of the events as
witnessed, it cannot be accepted as an adequate explanation for the collapse.
The Popular Models
Though there has been no official explanation released so far, there
seems to be a popular consensus more or less as follows: heat from the
fires weakened or softened the trusses that supported the floors. Either
from sagging or thermal expansion of the trusses, the attachments of the
outer end of the trusses to the outer steel framework of the buildings
were broken. This would presumably happen to the floor or floors above
the impact sites, where the fires would have burned hottest. The loss of
these attachments is then said to have caused entire floors or sections
of floors to fall, leading to a chain-reaction collapse. These models
generally ignore the fact that the very substantial core of the
building, a 27 x 40 meter rectangular pillar consisting of 44 steel box
columns surrounding about 100 elevator shafts should have remained
standing as the relatively light floors fell down around them. The
brackets attaching the inner ends of the trusses to the central core
would shear off under the impact of a floor falling from above, causing
the floors to slide down around the core like records on a spindle. But
yet, in both collapses, when the dust settles the building is completely
gone, including any trace of the central column structure. There are
many other weakness in the popular models, but perhaps their greatest
failing is their inability to explain the very peculiar dust clouds seen
in both collapses.
Why The Immense Dust Clouds?
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the
collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem
that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that
was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the
buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine
dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very
energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a
gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset
what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the
sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.
The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top
4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses
(or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of
kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most
pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the
trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being
blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of
concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being
converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed
of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended
doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and
the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine
powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The
only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives,
is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of
this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the
amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of
the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9
seconds, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same
height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have
gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism
exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust
begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the
collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the
structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected
laterally from the building at high speed?
Puzzling Evidence: the Videos
The video "Directly under the South Tower" shows the WTC south tower
very soon after it starts to collapse, looking up from directly below
the building. The cameraman quickly realizes that he is in danger and
turns to run, only to be pursued by the immense dust cloud that issues
from the collapse. Though the view of the building is brief, looking at
it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of
the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with
what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a
perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an
extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only
dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great
quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected
out horizontally at high speed. To account for this very rapid ejection
of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early
stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.
If you look closely as the wave travels down it seems to spare the
corners, perhaps letting them lag behind to help keep the implosion
aligned. The demolition wave is clearly advancing ahead of the actual
collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down. The delays
between demolition charges would have to be very precisely controlled to
create this effect, suggesting to me that each floor was wired to a
separate detonator, with control of the sequencing most likely done
remotely. This would also allow the collapse to be triggered from the
point of impact of the plane to make it look more realistic. Such
sequencing could easily be done from a laptop connected wirelessly to
the towers, as long as each floor could be detonated separately.**
Soon the photographer is running away to escape the dust cloud, holding
the video camera at his side and pointing back. As he runs you can see
an enormous cloud of dust chasing people down several blocks of the
surrounding streets. The cameraman and the people with him are running
full tilt to get away from the dust flow, which seems to rapidly fill
all the streets for a several block radius around the site. "South Tower
Dust Pillar" also shows an interesting view of the immense tower of dust
that is all that remains of the WTC South Tower as it begins to flow
down and race out along the surrounding streets.
The other striking thing visible at the beginning of this clip is how
much very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building
very early in the collapse. Since it should at most be accelerating
under gravity at 32 ft. per second per second, things would actually be
moving quite slowly at first, reaching about 200 mph at the end of the
~1400' fall if nothing slowed it down. It is very hard to imagine a
physical mechanism to generate that much dust with concrete slabs
bumping into each other at 20 or 30 mph. And the extreme fineness - I
have heard it described as like talc - and uniformity of the dust makes
its origin quite puzzling.
This huge amount of very fine dust seems to virtually fall in place,
much of it within the outlines of the former building. This created a
pyroclastic flow, or perhaps more properly a turbidity current: a slurry
of dust and air much denser than the air around it, that can accelerate
to considerable speeds as it falls. This is the dense cloud that chases
the cameraman down the street for several blocks, and can be seen in
several of the videos. From what I understand the surrounding area for
several blocks radius was covered by several inches of very fine
concrete dust, which would seem to account for most of the concrete in
the structure. And there seem to have been very few macroscopic chunks
of concrete found at the sites, much less the pile of broken but not
pulverized floors that one might reasonably expect to find after the
dust cleared.
The Afterglow
This is perhaps the strangest feature of the collapse: in both
collapses, the videos show a bright glow that develops as the bulk of
the dust cloud hits the ground. A good example of this is "Close and
medium view north tower- immense dust cloud and s.mpg". At 45 sec., as
the dust cloud from the North Tower collapse hits the ground, there is a
sudden very bright glow that develops. It may seem at first that this is
some kind of video artifact, but a similar glow is seen in several
views, and occurs at the same point in the collapses (see "Both
collapses - bright afterglow at 1min 07sec.mpg"). At about 16 sec. into
"South tower of WTC collapse from north, then closeup.mpg" we see the
beginning of this glow at the end of the South Tower collapse, but the
clip abruptly cuts away before it is well established.
"Bright afterglow of south tower collapse.avi" starts after the South
Tower has fallen, but a very bright and persistent glow can be seen
where it had been. The beginning of "Both collapses - bright afterglow
at 1min 07sec.mpg" shows the South Tower afterglow, and the sudden
"ignition" of the North Tower afterglow at 1 min. 07 sec., which is so
bright that it almost burns out the image.
I have no explanation to offer for this effect, and have heard no
accounts of it being seen by witnesses. Is this something that shows up
on video (near UV?) but is not visible to the naked eye? All I can say
is that it seems to be real, and occurs with both collapses.
** Actually the sequence of the south tower collapse is a bit strange.
(See the video clip "Close-up of top of South Tower") First we see the
top of the building start to tip to one side as a monolithic block,
which we would expect to continue to rotate and topple to the side.
Instead, almost as soon as it starts to tip, the building below it
starts to collapse, allowing it to drop straight down. There are very
visible rings of explosions that start at the level where the building
has begun to tip and travel rapidly down the building. And instead of
continuing to topple to the side, the top portion actually telescopes
into itself at the same time that it sinks effortlessly into the
building beneath it. Before it disappears into an immense dust cloud, we
see the distance between the roof and the bottom of the upper section
actually collapse to less than half its original height. This is
especially remarkable because it is essentially in free fall at this
point, so there should not be any internal forces causing it to collapse
on itself.
PlaguePuppy
= = = =
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:32:44 -0600
From: "The Webfairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: http://thewebfairy.com/chaos
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: please look at the "whatzit" /forgot the url - resending
I split out the slow motion verison of the first-hit fireman video into
frames, with Quicktime, at 30 frames per second.
First, you see an anamolous object approaching the building at
remarkable speed. Then the explosions erupt as discrete "dustballs".
There are multiple "dustballs".
The entire affair of the "Whatzit" has been ignored as a "Speculation
too far" since it is not explainable with conventional weaponry we are
not allowed to know about.
Nothing has been faked, changed, or added.
it would sure help to add the URL:
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit
--- End Message ---
