Formulas for fakery

Be the 1st to vote.

It may be time to get Prof. Fetzer together with Simon and OBF and try and help the good doc see the media fakery all around him. I’ll post the very good exchange below from Veteran’s Today:

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: View of the World Trade Center and the Statue of Liberty. (Image: US National Park Service ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 | Veterans Today

Jim Fetzer said: “Here is another silly post from OBF. I have asked him several times whether he has any proof that the videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers were faked. He has offered no evidence at all–not a single witness, not a single photo, not a single item of any other kind.”

That is not true Mr Fetzer. Both Simon and myself , have previously given you links to Simon’s gif [extracted directly from the CNN archive] showing the entire, alleged “live” 18 sec CNN destruction sequence of WTC1, and to the archive from which it originates .

Here it is again, for the THIRD time :…

In case it is still not clear enough to you all, we are both saying [and, as I understand it, so is Veteran’s Today contributor Stuart Ogilby ] that that “live” CNN WTC1 18 sec. sequence IS 100% FAKE !, if only for the fact of the numerous perfectly timed miraculous [ but purely”coincidential” for the true believer in media integrity like yourself, no doubt] , supposed live edits/changes in camera angle within those alleged live 18 secs.

According to you [and by extension the authors of the article you have posted here] , this 18 sec “live” CNN WTC1 destruction sequence, which, by the way, is the only complete start to finish WTC1 destruction sequence in the official 9/11 media broadcast archives, MUST BE REAL because , as you say :

” .. Footage broadcast “LIVE” to the world about an event of this magnitude across all the networks has a prima facie claim to being taken as authentic….” .

But that presents you all with a slight problem, it seems to me.

For if that 18 sec. CNN sequence _is_ genuine live footage [as you undoubtedly all believe], then it directly contradicts your authors opening claim [from the first sentence of their article] : “A debate has raged for more than a decade about what caused the Twin Towers to “collapse” in approximately 10 seconds each — 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North.”

Both myself and Mr Shack have previously asked you or your article authors to post the evidence [ i.e. original network footage or whatever] you say you have that shows total collapse times of 9, 10, or 11 secs for either tower, and so far to date you have ignored our requests, there is not even a link in the article itself to back up these claims.

Furthermore, if those films [or whatever evidence it is you have] of an 11 sec destruction time for WTC1 actually exist, how can the CNN footage showing a full 18 secs or more be real?

Conversely, if the CNN footage _is_ real, how can the mysterious, never-revealed evidence you all claim to have that shows a 10 to 11 sec destruction time for WTC1 be real? Beats me!

Please make up your collective minds on this important matter, and get back to me sometime in the next 10- 20 years when one of you actually wakes up, or has the intellectual integrity to finally admit they were dead wrong , maybe ? :-)

Regards, onebornfree

  • Well, I have looked at the WTC-7 sequence before. I was not convinced that SS had shown anything was wrong. The idea of a “prima facie” proof is that there is a presumption that what we are being shown–especially under the circumstance of an enormous number of witnesses watching–is authentic ABSENT DEMONSTRATION THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. There is room for debate about the time question, because different criteria could be employed. If you waited until the dust cleared, then the destruction sequence would take overwhelmingly longer. Here is an illustration from…:

    In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

    Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.


    Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

    Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found…

    The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

    The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

    Below are calculations from a physics blogger…


    When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let’s see,
    d = 1/2at^2
    t = (2d/a)^1/2
    a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth’s surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
    d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
    t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
    OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
    v = at
    v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
    So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That’s almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven’t even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

    Let’s see:
    KE = 1/2mv^2
    The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that’s pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we’ll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they’re comparable, then we’re good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We’ll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
    208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
    50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
    additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
    450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
    so the total mass would be
    4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
    Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
    so our
    KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
    So, divide by 2 and we get
    OK, now let’s try a floor halfway up:
    t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
    v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
    KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
    Hey, look at that! They’re almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let’s see now, that’s
    110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I’m being conservative, took the lower value)
    = 1,139,879,868,600J
    OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let’s see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
    1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

    Now, that’s 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That’s over a quarter kiloton. We’re talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we’ve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven’t added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that’s another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we’ve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.


    Remember, we haven’t added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let’s be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I’m betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. – Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

    Let me make this clear, I don’t assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn’t say that’s the fall time. That was not its purpose. It’s only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It’s absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc… Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn’t matter to the point I’m making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn’t at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.


    For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
    Please refer to Dr Frank Greening’s paper for detailed calculations.…
    Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That’s almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.

    My favorite part of this analysis is, “We’re talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon-and we’ve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven’t added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that’s another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we’ve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.”

    It appears to be the case that, even if the demolition sequences took somewhat longer–let’s add seven (7) seconds to each estimate, to make them 9 + 7 = 16 seconds (South Tower) and 11 + 7 = 18 seconds (North Tower)–it makes scant difference to the arguments that we have presented. Instead of blowing a cube every second, say, it would mean blowing a cube every 1.5 seconds. The analysis even supports the energy requirements as being those of small nuclear devices! And it does not change the major points we’ve made:

    (1) a 300-ton steel assembly was still blown over 600 feet into the Winter Garden;
    (2) the USGS dust samples still contain Barium, Strontium, and the other elements;
    (3) hundreds if not thousands of tons of dirt were still trucked onto Ground Zero.

    So it seems to me you are making much ado about nothing–or, to be more precise, about virtually nothing.

    • Professor Fetzer,

      Please – oh please – stop this pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo right now. Since when did you become a physicist, Jim? Are you trying to impress anyone with this cascade of figures and calculations clearly made up out of thin air – and based on virtually nothing ?

      It has now become all too evident that your role is to restore some credibility to the fake 9/11 imagery – and to protect the media’s direct involvement in the 9/11 hoax.

      Your recent embracing of the inane hologram theory is obviously meant to convey the following notion: “The TV imagery was REAL and those TV cameras truthfully filmed holographic-plane-silhouettes which, to us viewers, conveyed the illusion of real airliners penetrating the towers.” Surely, you must be aware by now that this notion is totally discrepant with over half-a-decade of empirical observations and methodical analyses and comparisons of the 9/11 imagery?

      Your latest “nukes-did-it” theory about the tower collapses is also meant to “explain” WHAT WE ALL SAW ON TV (a bunch of Hollywood-style animations showing the towers “dustifying” top-down) and why “so few bodies” were found in the rubble. As the official story goes, “the 9/11 victims were mostly vaporized” – as claimed by NY Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch :…

      Jim, what if the WTC complex was quite simply and safely brought down with conventional demolition explosives – behind a smokescreen which impeded anyone to capture it on film? Has this thought NEVER crossed your mind? And why would you dismiss this possibility offhand? Are you not a self-professed professor of logical thought?

      Last but not least : when – oh when – are you going to consider the ever more likely possibility that NO one died on 9/11 – and that those approx “3000? where most probably created out of thin air by digital means? Do you know that the WTC towers were emptied of all their office workers/and original tenants in 1993, in the aftermath (and under the pretext) of the 1993 “Al-Qaeda” garage bombing? As long as you’ll pretend to ignore these core issues of 9/11, I fear that your credibilty as the “sincere truthseeker” that you claim to be will soon vaporize into fine dust. So please fess up or shut up now – and don’t hide behind a lame game of wordplay and cheap sentences such as this, thrown at yours truly :

      “You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say.”

      Have I really? And how so? Seriously now, Dr Fetzer : please have the decency to respond to my contributions in thoughtful, fair and consummate manner before blurting out such dismissive and unsubstantiated statements. Ok? At this ponit I really do demand a point by point response from you, Jim – and without dodging ANY of my points submitted in this post. I believe that my longstanding efforts in helping you, America and the world wake up to the media fakery deserve as much.

      Thanks for your kind attention

      Simon Shack

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a Reply