Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

[dant]

The link does not work for me...

Edit: I found this one:
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/03/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

Sadly, there is no caption, so I cannot comment. :(

 

[Guardian]

I think that's fair enough.

But here's the rub: a lot of people look up to you,

Oh good lord why would they do that? I wouldn't wish my nature, or my life path, on anyone.

and when you declare more or less unequivocally that you are not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, many of those other people ALSO think "well, Guardian says its bad, so I better not read it."

That's kinda hard for me to wrap my head around, but ok, the next time I decide I'm not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, I'll keep it to myself.

And that is exactly counterproductive to what many people actually need to be doing: learning how to read/weed/interpret on their own because the network will not always be available.

That I can understand!

So, indeed, while you may not need to read such a book, other people do, and I NEED THEM TO READ AND DISCUSS IT so we can sift the wheat from the chaff for everyone's sake.

Well thank you. That certainly does answer my original question that started all this. If you, or another good Teacher, needed me to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist for some purpose, I'd do it...because that is a REASON.

 

[QuantumLogic]

Much of this discussion has been centered around why I should read a book written by a disinfo agent...not whether or not Laura should. My point is that while Laura actually has a reason and need to read these books, I don't... and NEVER have to do anything I've ever done.

I think that's fair enough.

But here's the rub: a lot of people look up to you, people who do not have your skills, and when you declare more or less unequivocally that you are not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, many of those other people ALSO think "well, Guardian says its bad, so I better not read it." And that is exactly counterproductive to what many people actually need to be doing: learning how to read/weed/interpret on their own because the network will not always be available.

Additionally, I rely on the network very often to be my eyes and ears. You may have noticed my Acknowledgements page in "Horns of Moses" where I thank the members of this forum for their research and discussions which very often figure significantly in the solution to issues when discussion is engaged in openly and organically.

So, indeed, while you may not need to read such a book, other people do, and I NEED THEM TO READ AND DISCUSS IT so we can sift the wheat from the chaff for everyone's sake.

Actually this is exactly how the discussion here affected me. Since Guardian has been here so long, I initially decided that the book was a waste of time, especially since I have watched her video presentations. But there really is some data that cannot be ignored, and after Ark's posts here I have decided that although the conclusions and some of the data will be incorrect or inaccurate in her book, there is some that is not. I'm going to get the book and if there is anything that doesn't seem right, I know I can put it up here for inquiry and discussion.

I think that a good example of this scenario is the Climategate scandal. Was the conclusion of the paper incorrect? Yes. Was some of the data manipulated in it? Yes. But if the many people who dissected it and separated the good data from the bad had not done so, there is the possibility that we would all be victims of a carbon tax scheme right now, having even more money stolen from all of us based on a highly manipulated report. The truth about that report would never have come out if people did not analyze it carefully-as Laura and many on the forum say, "separating the wheat from the chaff".

There is obviously some good data in the book, and finding out the good data from the bad or faulty data is what I think this forum is for. The forum has the added plus of discovering programs and behaviors in ourselves in the research process, so even if very little data is found to be accurate, in the end it is not wasted effort, OSIT.

 

[Guardian]

Yes you are. If you could just try - just once - actually try to listen instead of defending yourself - to actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you, then perhaps we could get somewhere. You aren't listening.

Yes I am listening to you. If I was ignoring you I would not be this frustrated.

That makes no sense regarding the discussion at hand - writing books IS what some people do, after all.

At this point the whole discussion doesn't make much sense, at least to me, but when I countered a suggestion that I read the book with "Why would I want to read a book by a disinfo agent?" I was talking about ME, not you, or Laura, or anyone else...which is why I said "I"

At no point in this discussion has your point been that Laura is a teacher - see how you shift what you say in order to maintain being "right", even when you're not?

Yes, no, and no. The discussion wasn't about Laura being a teacher until I brought it up.

"Maybe that's just the difference between someone who lives to teach, and someone who lives to make sure those folks are safe and free to teach?"

Up until that point it was all about convincing me to "conform" and accept that I need to read the crappy book...without any REASON!

No, you used sarcasm and eye rolling and all sorts of rather snarky tactics to denigrate the fact that others think it's a good idea to read this book in order to glean information. That is what you did - that is denigration.

Once again, you are misinterpreting what I said, or in this case who I denigrated. I rolled my eyes at Judy Wood's repeated use of the phrase "empirical evidence" NOT at what a member of this forum said. Neither have I been snarky to a member of this forum until the name calling started.

What other "empirical evidence" have I missed?

It would actually be helpful if, in the midst of all that, you learned to actually listen to the people you claim to want to protect.

I always listen to them, I just don't always agree with them.

As Laura said,

Yeah she did, and she managed to answer my question in two paragraphs, whereas you still don't seem to understand what I was asking, so you fall back on saying "I'm not listening"

I ask: "Why is the ball blue"

You say: "The sky is blue"

I ask "Ok, but why is the ball blue"

You say "You're not listening"

We seem to have these types of conversations a lot.

 

[Rich]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Duff speaks very well and would make a good show guest. Interested to know more about his connections "who are a part of his team" and his current work. Seems very well connected...

He kept getting cut off when talking about interesting topics such as take over of the truth movement and Israeli arrests.

Thought the opinion of "his own people with army intelligence" that 4 small nuclear weapons were used, would have made a bit more of a mess but easier to understand than a 'free energy' weapon.

 

[QuantumLogic]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Although Gordon repeats many of the same points that have been out for a long time, there were a few points he was specific about that I found interesting.

1) He stated the steel in WTC disintegrated in less than 1/1000th of a second. This is in line with what Dr. Wood's research has found.

2) He stated that "they" (assuming his collaboration group) have NORAD tapes of a small but powerful missle hitting the Pentagon. I have never heard of videos of this being released.

3) On 9-11 there was also an explosion at George Washington Bridge. 3 armed suspects were arrested, but nothing was ever released afterward about the incident. I've never heard about this prior to this interview, so I'm going to see if I can find anything on it.

4) Supposedly Gwenyth Todd, someone who served in the Bush administration, is stating that Richard Clark(sp?) was the primary planner of 9-11 within the Bush Administration. Gordon stated she is now in Australia after repeated assassination attempts. I'm not familiar with either of those names, so no comment can be made at this time.

5) Gordon stated the 9-11 Truth movement has been infiltrated at all levels to discredit it from within. This we have known for quite some time, but I noticed the interviewer cut Gordon off rather abruptly when he began stating this.

I don't know if it means anything, but the interviewer started off with a question about "the top 30 floors of one of the towers beginning to pivot before the building was blown to pieces floor by floor" as stated by James Fetzer. Gordon did not address the question at all and proceeded to give his background and associations. The interviewer never returned to that question. Wasn't Fetzer the first person that Judy allied with until he became critical of her conclusions?

 

[anart]

Yes you are. If you could just try - just once - actually try to listen instead of defending yourself - to actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you, then perhaps we could get somewhere. You aren't listening.

Yes I am listening to you. If I was ignoring you I would not be this frustrated.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, that's certainly not my intention. Maybe the frustration comes from wanting to be understood by others as opposed to wanting to understand others? That's what listening really is - working really hard to understand the other person (or people) without being concerned about whether you are understood or not. When we work hard to understand someone else, all thoughts about whether or not we are understood disappear because it's not about us, it's about the other person (or people).

Perhaps you're different from me, but when I find myself getting frustrated when attempting to communicate with someone else, it is always because I'm focused on my not being heard, rather than focusing on whether or not I'm really hearing the other person.

In short, listening is about focusing on the other person (or people), not ourselves. In this situation it seems like you've spent a LOT of energy trying to 'be heard' (or be right) rather than trying to hear others, that's really my main point when I mention that you're not listening, because doing that always leads to frustration. fwiw.

 

[loreta]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Extremely interesting. In so little time how many things he says! And with clarity.

By chance we were looking my husband and me old videos recorded after 9/11 from Spanish TV. It is nauseating to see how big the lies were everywhere, about Muslims, schools of fanatics, Mass Destruction arms, etc. Incredible how they lied to us to make us accept War. Provoking fear because they are psychopaths. And the rest, all the sufferance. In-cre-di-ble.

I remember the day of the attacks: a guy from the Spanish Secret Services is on tv. He tells to the public, in fact he tells to all Spaniards, a movie, their movie, about what happened in the airplanes during the attack. He told us that some Muslims cut the throat of stewardess and bla bla bla. All the medias were in connivance. All the countries.

I think that Mr. Gordon is very near the truth. Fascinating. Talking about 9/11 is to approach one of the most fascinating subjects of this century...

 

[Cosmos]

Guardian I have to say, that I think Anart is hitting the nail with her assessment of you and your behaviour in this thread.

Of course you do because it has primarily been you insisting that I should read a book that I consider to be utterly useless to ME....even after I told you why I consider it to be utterly useless to ME. Evidently you think you know much more about what I should do than I do.

Yes you told me why you think so and I still think this approach is ignorant and not external considerate.
I don't think "I know much more about what you should do". I'm just telling you what I percieve wich can always be wrong.

In fact IMO, you have showed what I perceive as quite a notorious Ignorance, not only in this thread but in several others in the past.

As I said, you clearly think you know what's good for me, and are really bothered by the fact that I don't accept your pushy, arrogant advice.

I'm not really bothered, but I am sorry for you that nothing seems to be able to penetrate you. What in fact do you think is pushy here? And why do you think it is arrogant? Maybe it is/I am, I don't know, so it might help to point out to me what exactly you find arrogant and pushy. Maybe, just maybe you can see that you might be ignorant here? Or at least also, when I'm in fact arrogant or ignorant here.
.....

Something I find especially strange for such a long and supposedly near member of this forum. There seems to be a lack of really understanding the forum and also some kind of disconnect to it. How is that and what is up with that?

I have no idea since you just created that in your own head.

Well fair enough if you think so.
This forum is based on research wich includes reading material that can come from Disinfo Agents or is packet with disinfo mixed with interesting bits. It is all about becoming able to seperate truth from lies, both within and without and nobody can do this without facing disinfo of every sort directly. That's what people here do and you are clearly stating that you are not doing it or are not even willing to try.

Those are serious questions wich arise for me when I read what you wrote and see what you do. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating my observation wich can be false, always.

I can't remember that I have seen you talking about your personal progress on the forum either. How is "The Work" doing in your live?

Just great, thanks for asking.

It seems you are not willing to discuss anything in a calm considerate and nice way and instead you defend your "be right" syndrome and are on a constant defend mode. At least that is what I perceive.

FWIW from what I can see Anart is right when she is saying that you are not listening.

Is this forum and the work people do here, just one out of many for you?

One of several, but not "many"

Ok

Do you feel connected to this forum?

Yes, or I wouldn't not be here.

At this point it doesn't look like you are really connected to the forum since you refuse to do the very things this forum is based on.

do you think there are exceptional rules for you?

Of course not.

Well, but you behave that way. Or at least that is what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

You are always quick to answer, but my impression is that you seem to have a whole lot of problems to question your own behaviour and thinking.

I'm constantly questioning my own behavior and thinking, but I can understand why you might not notice since your primary objective seems to be to convince me to adopt your thinking.

I can't see much evidence that you constantly questioning your own behavior and thinking. I don't intent to convince you or anyone to adopt my thinking. I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong and in the hope that others including you can give me feedback about it. And maybe just maybe it will help you to understand that nobody here is trying to convince you or shape you in their own image. Just hoping that you might be someday able to really see that you can't trust your own thinking.

In short I not only find your behaviour often ignorant but also not externally considerate.

I think that would be because I disagreed with you, every time you repeated "read the book" over and over and over again.

No it is not because I disagree with you it is because I think your behaviour is ignorant and also not externally considerate.
It is has nothing to do with the book or Wood, it is about you and how you seem to behave.

I also think that the moderators and administrators of this forum have shown quite an endurance in your case.

Well yeah, I think that could be said for both of us at this point.

Fair enough. And I'm willing to accept that and ask for feedback if it is true and then try to do better.

But still almost nothing seems to have penetrated you and your image of yourself.

Again, because YOU know what that is so well.

I never said that. I'm just stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

I don't think that a whole lot of other members could have shown such a notorious and repeated ignorance and lack of external consideration for such a long time.

Likewise

Fair enough if you think that way.

I'm sorry to have to say it that way, but I need to, since I think you are doing yourself and us no vaviour with it.

No you're not, you're just calling me names because I told you "No" That's ok though, that's one of the primary ways I find out about the real nature of people...by disagreeing with them.

I'm not calling you names, I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

I hope you are not feeling attacked wich isn't my intention ;)

 

[aragorn]

Sorry for posting in the midst of your interesting discussion... ;)

I found the Jenkins paper interesting, because even if he is clearly coloring and exaggerating some points, the text, depth of detail, and equations reads like "real technical science".

Could you follow the equations?

I thinks so, but I do find some strange "extrapolations" in Jenkins' paper. I'll make an attempt to address some that stood out for me.

Jenkins writes:

Skyscrapers are designed to be mostly empty space by volume. To illustrate this point, if all the steel in the upper 110 floors of a WTC tower were hypothetically melted down into its own footprint, the resulting slab would only be about seven feet high.[1] A direct measurement of the total mass of steel after collapse would be ideal to show whether any debris is ‘missing’ via a comparison to the known total mass before collapse. Without this direct data, it is possible to estimate the amount of steel after collapse by utilizing what is known as scaling arguments. By measuring the volumetric compression associated with a collapse of a similar skyscraper, it is possible to make an estimate regarding the volumetric compression associated with the WTC towers (Jenkins 2007, pg 1)

Reference no 1 gives the correct equation to calculate the height of a molten chunk (completely solid) of steel, when it's mass and volume is known. But since the mass of the WTC towers AFTER the 'collapse' isn't known, he tries to estimate volumetric compression by using WTC7. This is the first odd thing in this paper - he is estimating a percentage of volumetric compression for 'big skyscrapers' using WTC7, which 'collapsed' in a completely different manner (everyone can see that).

To his credit he does mention one of the problems with this comparison:

There are possible risks associated with this type of analysis. First, the buildings would be designed differently as the WTC towers were not conventional steel-framed buildings, rather they were a unique design that incorporated 47 core columns and 236 perimeter columns (pg 2).

Next, he writes how Wood's comparison of the volume of the Kingdome in Seattle before and after collapse is false. In short, the Kingdom is a stadium (lot of empty space inside) - thus it can't be compared to a skyscraper. To me, this sounds like a sound argument.

Next, he gets back to his volumetric compression calculations with WTC 7:

Instead of using the Kingdome, we will use WTC 7. This is a more suitable structure, as suggested above, being a steel-framed skyscraper. The before-collapse height of WTC 7 was 610 feet[14]. The initial volume of WTC 7 was 610 “ft x footprint” where the unit ‘footprint’ is the cross-sectional area of building 7. The after-collapse volume I estimated to be 70 ±10 ft x footprint [15].

The height 70ft of the debris after the collapse he gets from...images. Reference no 15 says:

I used the following photographs from
_http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/ to construct a contour plot of the WTC 7 debris field: WTC_Pile_03, Tom16, normal_WTC_Pic_01, 9_16_pic09, b7pile, phil29, phil32, 2316_G,132105581_a75a50d39a_0, and wtc_pile. Each blue contour is labeled by the number of stories in height. The actual photograph used as the background does not depict all of the debris since some has been removed during cleanup, but was chosen due to the aerial perspective. By cross referencing with other earlier photographs of the WTC 7 debris, I have estimated the debris field height before debris was removed from the WTC 7 site.
The area between contour lines was measured in AutoCad and normalized by the area of the footprint of WTC 7 [...] Most of the debris from all the collapsed buildings in the WTC complex, excluding Building 7, collapsed within the sublevels (see reference 13 for the analysis details)

Well, not knowing the details - especially since the site 'sudyof911.com' doens't exist anymore - it's hard to say. Funny how he criticizes Wood of using images, when he does this himself. But an explanation is given, the debris collapsing into the sublevels where we can't see them (in the images):

Some proponents of the ‘missing debris’ hypothesis prefer to “count” the debris from photographs. This is an inherently reckless approach to the problem. Photographs
offer no way to directly view all the individual steel beams in debris piles or debris occupying sublevel collapses. For instance, any attempt to “count” the beams or “wall sections” in the debris pile of WTC 7 [I think he means the twin towers, not building 7] will fall short of accounting for the total mass of the building for the simple reason that the debris is located in a pile and all photographs only show the surface. That does not mean that the rubble pile does not contain the mass of the building. Even if the debris were spread out somewhat, the same problem applies when attempting to “count” the debris.

And

If all the building debris were compacted into the damaged sublevels, then this would yield a volumetric compression ratio of 10.2%. This is within the error of the compression ratio for WTC 7, 11.5 ± 1.6% . This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses. If 14% of the debris resided on the surface either in piles or scattered about, then the volumetric compression ratio would exactly match that of WTC 7, 11.5%. This clearly shows that all the debris can easily be accounted for if the sublevel collapses are included in the analysis.

Okay, so what evidence does he give that most of the debris crashes into the sublevels? (And this imo would mean that the tower collapses straight into its footprint - which we certainly don't see happening). The answer is given in reference no 13:

Sublevel collapse analysis of the WTC complex: _http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_W ALL.html
A schematic representation of the damaged sublevels published in the above NY Times article is used to estimate the volume of sublevel collapses. “The diagrams are based on floor-by-floor assessments of the basement levels of the World Trade Center complex by Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, which is advising the city.” A representative map for sublevel 1 is shown here...

[...]

Assuming that all of the debris from all the collapsed buildings occupy the ‘collapsed or heavy damaged’ sublevel volume and assuming the ‘undetermined’ volume suffered no collapse yields a collapse ratio of (28.3 story x footprint)/(248.87 story x footprint + 28.3 story x footprint)= 10.2%. Recall from reference 15 that the collapse ratio of WTC building 7 is 11.5 ± 1.6 % [Yeah, but remember how the manner of how the towers collapsed was COMPLETELY different]. This means that, within our errors, all the debris from all the buildings in the WTC complex, excluding building 7, could be accounted for within the sublevel collapses.

To me, the above looks like he doesn't have any evidence of debris occupying the sublevels - he's just assuming.

All in all, I think that the critique he has towards Wood's theories are for the most part valid. But he tries too hard to 'crush' her - juggling with shaky comparisons and numbers back and forth (maybe to distract or impress the reader). From what I can tell, the calculations are correct (he makes a lot of reducing in between, which can make it hard to follow), but where the numbers come from are on shaky ground.

The thing I found most interesting - and worth thinking about, was this:

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
E=(CS∆T1+CF +CL∆T2+CV)M=5.7×1014J (Equation1)

The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, respectively.[3]
If you consider that this amount of energy, 5.7 ×1014 J , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7x1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth[26] including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss (pg 5).

[...]

The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine. Power requirements were shown to be absurdly large to vaporize half of the steel in both WTC towers. Since the power requirements are so large, any hypothetical beam weapon would necessarily be ground based. Any reflecting satellite, if we falsely assume the reflector would survive, would require unrealistically colossal thrust to oppose the momentum transfer of the beam (pg 14).

 

[Joe]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Not much new there, and as usual Duff throws in some nonsense, like stating that a 757 can't fly at 500mph at low altitude, which I understand to be untrue. So here he's going for the "no planes" theory, which is, IMO, disinformation. For me, Duff is a blowhard who tries to cloak himself in super secret intel connections garb to get attention. I don't really believe any of it, and neither should he, but he's a bit of a narcissist and appears to willingly accept the credentials of the first person who comes along and claims to have 'connections'.

 

[Cosmos]

Sorry for posting in the midst of your interesting discussion... ;)

I found the Jenkins paper interesting, because even if he is clearly coloring and exaggerating some points, the text, depth of detail, and equations reads like "real technical science".

Could you follow the equations?

I thinks so, but I do find some strange "extrapolations" in Jenkins' paper. I'll make an attempt to address some that stood out for me.

Jenkins writes:

Skyscrapers are designed to be mostly empty space by volume. To illustrate this point, if all the steel in the upper 110 floors of a WTC tower were hypothetically melted down into its own footprint, the resulting slab would only be about seven feet high.[1] A direct measurement of the total mass of steel after collapse would be ideal to show whether any debris is ‘missing’ via a comparison to the known total mass before collapse. Without this direct data, it is possible to estimate the amount of steel after collapse by utilizing what is known as scaling arguments. By measuring the volumetric compression associated with a collapse of a similar skyscraper, it is possible to make an estimate regarding the volumetric compression associated with the WTC towers (Jenkins 2007, pg 1)

Reference no 1 gives the correct equation to calculate the height of a molten chunk (completely solid) of steel, when it's mass and volume is known. But since the mass of the WTC towers AFTER the 'collapse' isn't known, he tries to estimate volumetric compression by using WTC7. This is the first odd thing in this paper - he is estimating a percentage of volumetric compression for 'big skyscrapers' using WTC7, which 'collapsed' in a completely different manner (everyone can see that).

To his credit he does mention one of the problems with this comparison:

There are possible risks associated with this type of analysis. First, the buildings would be designed differently as the WTC towers were not conventional steel-framed buildings, rather they were a unique design that incorporated 47 core columns and 236 perimeter columns (pg 2).

Next, he writes how Wood's comparison of the volume of the Kingdome in Seattle before and after collapse is false. In short, the Kingdom is a stadium (lot of empty space inside) - thus it can't be compared to a skyscraper. To me, this sounds like a sound argument.

Next, he gets back to his volumetric compression calculations with WTC 7:

Instead of using the Kingdome, we will use WTC 7. This is a more suitable structure, as suggested above, being a steel-framed skyscraper. The before-collapse height of WTC 7 was 610 feet[14]. The initial volume of WTC 7 was 610 “ft x footprint” where the unit ‘footprint’ is the cross-sectional area of building 7. The after-collapse volume I estimated to be 70 ±10 ft x footprint [15].

The height 70ft of the debris after the collapse he gets from...images. Reference no 15 says:

I used the following photographs from
_http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/ to construct a contour plot of the WTC 7 debris field: WTC_Pile_03, Tom16, normal_WTC_Pic_01, 9_16_pic09, b7pile, phil29, phil32, 2316_G,132105581_a75a50d39a_0, and wtc_pile. Each blue contour is labeled by the number of stories in height. The actual photograph used as the background does not depict all of the debris since some has been removed during cleanup, but was chosen due to the aerial perspective. By cross referencing with other earlier photographs of the WTC 7 debris, I have estimated the debris field height before debris was removed from the WTC 7 site.
The area between contour lines was measured in AutoCad and normalized by the area of the footprint of WTC 7 [...] Most of the debris from all the collapsed buildings in the WTC complex, excluding Building 7, collapsed within the sublevels (see reference 13 for the analysis details)

Well, not knowing the details - especially since the site 'sudyof911.com' doens't exist anymore - it's hard to say. Funny how he criticizes Wood of using images, when he does this himself. But an explanation is given, the debris collapsing into the sublevels where we can't see them (in the images):

Some proponents of the ‘missing debris’ hypothesis prefer to “count” the debris from photographs. This is an inherently reckless approach to the problem. Photographs
offer no way to directly view all the individual steel beams in debris piles or debris occupying sublevel collapses. For instance, any attempt to “count” the beams or “wall sections” in the debris pile of WTC 7 [I think he means the twin towers, not building 7] will fall short of accounting for the total mass of the building for the simple reason that the debris is located in a pile and all photographs only show the surface. That does not mean that the rubble pile does not contain the mass of the building. Even if the debris were spread out somewhat, the same problem applies when attempting to “count” the debris.

And

If all the building debris were compacted into the damaged sublevels, then this would yield a volumetric compression ratio of 10.2%. This is within the error of the compression ratio for WTC 7, 11.5 ± 1.6% . This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses. If 14% of the debris resided on the surface either in piles or scattered about, then the volumetric compression ratio would exactly match that of WTC 7, 11.5%. This clearly shows that all the debris can easily be accounted for if the sublevel collapses are included in the analysis.

Okay, so what evidence does he give that most of the debris crashes into the sublevels? (And this imo would mean that the tower collapses straight into its footprint - which we certainly don't see happening). The answer is given in reference no 13:

Sublevel collapse analysis of the WTC complex: _http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_W ALL.html
A schematic representation of the damaged sublevels published in the above NY Times article is used to estimate the volume of sublevel collapses. “The diagrams are based on floor-by-floor assessments of the basement levels of the World Trade Center complex by Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, which is advising the city.” A representative map for sublevel 1 is shown here...

[...]

Assuming that all of the debris from all the collapsed buildings occupy the ‘collapsed or heavy damaged’ sublevel volume and assuming the ‘undetermined’ volume suffered no collapse yields a collapse ratio of (28.3 story x footprint)/(248.87 story x footprint + 28.3 story x footprint)= 10.2%. Recall from reference 15 that the collapse ratio of WTC building 7 is 11.5 ± 1.6 % [Yeah, but remember how the manner of how the towers collapsed was COMPLETELY different]. This means that, within our errors, all the debris from all the buildings in the WTC complex, excluding building 7, could be accounted for within the sublevel collapses.

To me, the above looks like he doesn't have any evidence of debris occupying the sublevels - he's just assuming.

All in all, I think that the critique he has towards Wood's theories are for the most part valid. But he tries too hard to 'crush' her - juggling with shaky comparisons and numbers back and forth (maybe to distract or impress the reader). From what I can tell, the calculations are correct (he makes a lot of reducing in between, which can make it hard to follow), but where the numbers come from are on shaky ground.

The thing I found most interesting - and worth thinking about, was this:

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
E=(CS∆T1+CF +CL∆T2+CV)M=5.7×1014J (Equation1)

The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, respectively.[3]
If you consider that this amount of energy, 5.7 ×1014 J , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7x1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth[26] including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss (pg 5).

[...]

The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine. Power requirements were shown to be absurdly large to vaporize half of the steel in both WTC towers. Since the power requirements are so large, any hypothetical beam weapon would necessarily be ground based. Any reflecting satellite, if we falsely assume the reflector would survive, would require unrealistically colossal thrust to oppose the momentum transfer of the beam (pg 14).

Also the photographic evidence as well as witness reports and reports from the sight, seem to suggest that not much of the underground sublevels were damaged. It even seems that large portions were accessible and walkable after the towers "collapsed" or more correctly I think, turned to dust in the air. So the idea that all the material was condensed into the sublevels can not be true OSIT at the moment. Even though it seems theoretically possible.

 

[QuantumLogic]

The thing I found most interesting - and worth thinking about, was this:

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
E=(CS∆T1+CF +CL∆T2+CV)M=5.7×1014J (Equation1)

The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, respectively.[3]
If you consider that this amount of energy, 5.7 ×1014 J , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7x1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth[26] including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss (pg 5).

[...]

The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine. Power requirements were shown to be absurdly large to vaporize half of the steel in both WTC towers. Since the power requirements are so large, any hypothetical beam weapon would necessarily be ground based. Any reflecting satellite, if we falsely assume the reflector would survive, would require unrealistically colossal thrust to oppose the momentum transfer of the beam (pg 14).

That is interesting, because what I notice in this quote is he is automatically dismissing the disintegration hypothesis based on melting point power calculations. While the math would be correct if in fact the steel was melted, it is unknown what amount of power would be needed if the process was demolecularization. As Ark hinted at during the show, perhaps this is a molecular bonding issue. From the papers he posted in this thread, it would seem that at least there is research into gravity generators that have the ability to alter the states of solids and liquids. That is why I asked the question molecular bonding relating to nanosecond-pulsed gravity generators.

This is starting to go very deep into quantum physics, OSIT.

 

[Guardian]

Yes you are. If you could just try - just once - actually try to listen instead of defending yourself - to actually LISTEN to what people are saying to you, then perhaps we could get somewhere. You aren't listening.

Yes I am listening to you. If I was ignoring you I would not be this frustrated.

I'm sorry you're frustrated, that's certainly not my intention. Maybe the frustration comes from wanting to be understood by others as opposed to wanting to understand others? That's what listening really is - working really hard to understand the other person (or people) without being concerned about whether you are understood or not. When we work hard to understand someone else, all thoughts about whether or not we are understood disappear because it's not about us, it's about the other person (or people).

Perhaps you're different from me, but when I find myself getting frustrated when attempting to communicate with someone else, it is always because I'm focused on my not being heard, rather than focusing on whether or not I'm really hearing the other person.

In short, listening is about focusing on the other person (or people), not ourselves. In this situation it seems like you've spent a LOT of energy trying to 'be heard' (or be right) rather than trying to hear others, that's really my main point when I mention that you're not listening, because doing that always leads to frustration. fwiw.

I just started a thread in the swamp for the part of this discussion that's about me. DO you want to move this over since I really don't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already have.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

and when you declare more or less unequivocally that you are not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, many of those other people ALSO think "well, Guardian says its bad, so I better not read it."

That's kinda hard for me to wrap my head around, but ok, the next time I decide I'm not going to read a book written by a whacko disinfo artist, I'll keep it to myself.

I don't think anyone wants you to just shut up or something like that. I think rather that your impressions, your research, your skill set, your style of going about things are respected and appreciated around here. Now that you know there are those here who will try to sort the wheat from the chaff in certain instances and that this can be fruitful for the network as a whole, you could still offer your impressions, evidence, etc and say,

"This is the kind of work I would normally avoid. Here's why... Etc, etc... Be very carefull if you try to go through this work."

I don't know exactly what I am trying to say, but I am quite sure the network is not asking to keep your ideas to yourself when they run counter to the flow of a thread.

Edit=Quotes :)