City of Dust Meets Judy Wood

6 hole dice smoke pattern

The Professor 911Truth Now1 Dan, thanks for the link. Somehow the notification didn't work so I only spotted your reply now. I had not seen this paper before but have downloaded it and will take a look at it. Greening's work is usually pretty good, although his 2006 paper on the energy required to pulverise concrete amounts to one big non-sequitur: his conclusions aren't supported by his own calculations. More specifically, he claims there was enough potential energy stored up in the towers to crush all the concrete. That would take the equivalent of about 60 tons of TNT according to Greening's own numbers. Crushing and pulverising concrete is one of the two big energy sinks in the collapse, the other sink being mechanical bending of steel, snapping of joints, etc. According to Greening, the two sinks consumed about equal amount of energy, i.e. 60 tons of TNT each. So that's 120 tons of TNT consumed by those two sinks. Here is where the trouble starts, because Gregory Urich's meticulous calculations show that the potential energy stored up in the towers was worth about 115 tons of TNT. If you've got two sinks consuming 120 tons, that's about it. There is no energy left over for anything else, not even percussion as the debris falls to the ground. To keep the energy balance, the debris would need to fall smoothly like feathers on the ground. There is no energy available for percussion causing seismic shocks. But if no energy was available for that purpose, what then caused the seismic shocks? The only answer is that there must have been an external energy source providing the extra energy input required to shake the bedrock. What is more, some of the crushing and pulverisation of concrete, as well as some of the bending of steel, snapping of joints, etc. must have been accomplished by an external energy source that reached inside the towers. What I'm saying here is that Greening's own numbers defeats his "official story" conclusion. That's the big non-sequitur. In reality, the upper half of the towers were crushed, pulverised and bent by a nuclear device (nuclear-pumped laser), and the lower half of the towers, by official-story collapse. So the real-world story is a near 50/50 mix between the two. Greening notes that crushing concrete by impact is 10x more energy-efficient than crushing it by explosion. So to crush and pulverise the concrete by explosions, you would need 10x more TNT than with gravity-driven crushing. That's 600 tons rather than 60 tons. If the upper half of the towers was crushed by explosion (nukes with lasers), that's 300 tons of TNT for each tower. The lower half would be half of Greening's figure, or 30 tons for each tower. Bending the steel drops out of the equation for the upper half with nukes, but is still there for the lower half. That's another 30 tons of TNT. The total is now 360 tons for each tower. Available in potential energy we've got 115 tons for each tower, which means a deficit of 245 tons per tower. Suppose the nukes deliver 350 tons each, which jibes with my calculation and also with what Netanyahu says. About 50 tons would stay at the bottom and a fraction of that, say 4-6 tons, would shake the bedrock causing the seismographic readings. The remaining 300 tons would be transported by the laser beam up to the top parts of the towers, and do the work up there. We would then have 300 – 245 = 55 tons left over for other purposes including percussion as the debris falls to the ground. If you look at the seimograms, you'll find there is a 7-8 second big shock, followed by about 12 seconds of far more muted activity. The first part is the nuke detonation shock, the second part is the percussion effect from debris falling on the ground. For Building 7 we have the same pattern with two shocks. Because the detonation shock is much smaller for conventional explosives, the two shocks are separate and do not overlap. The explosion shock is 3-4 seconds, followed by a few seconds' lull, then comes the percussion shock for another 7-8 seconds. Looking at the energy levels of the seismic shocks, the nuke shocks at the towers are over 30x higher than the demolition shock for Building 7. That's not in the conventional ballpark, so we can tell from the seismograms that it was nuclear. The percussion shocks for the towers are about 3x more energetic than percussion for Building 7. In terms of potential energy, the towers were up towards 10x higher than Building 7, but the collapse took longer so was distributed for one, and also the top parts were pulverised mid-air so didn't contribute much to percussion. The two papers are: • F. R. Greening, "The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11" • Gregory H. Urich, "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1"