"News far more than Art, is Artifact."
-Marshall McLuhan

Errors in the Best of the Popularly disseminated 9/11 "Truth" DVD:
9/11 Mysteries
Produced, Directed, Written and Narrated by Sophia Shafquat

Sophia, 9/11 Mysteries, Fabrications and Disinfo by Rick Siegal

"Bathtub" or Slurry Wall Physics
by Daisy Vining
The voice on this clip is Sophia from "9/11 Mysteries"

The argument presented at the start of the clip linked to above is that the "bathtub" was holding up the building all along, and that therefore Shafquat contends, the alleged impact of 500,000 tons (X 2 for each building) should not have damaged the slurry walls. According to her argument the slurry walls were holding up the pressure of the building for all those previous years and that therefore, should they have fallen onto it, that pressure would have been no greater than the retaining walls had borne for all of 30+ years!

She equates an accelerating force with the force of a body at rest, as though the gravitational force exerted upon the building was enough for it to pull itself down and consume itself as well as to crush it up, but not enough to break or damage the retaining wall?

Sophia argues therefore, if the building collapsed with the force to destroy itself, there would not have been enough energy left over to destroy the "bathtub?"

But the destructive force breaking up the building material, in the case the Towers were broken up by the force of gravity, would come from the resistance of the the solid ground, including the slurry walls, against the buildings.

(Thinking this through I'm wondering how the government-story-apologists explain the destruction of the steel columns at the ground level, those which were holding up the building? None remained. )

This same fallacious idea, wherein two bodies can hit and only one be damaged with the impact, is evident in the viewpoint of many who consider the impact of the "airplane" into the steel grid of the outer skin of the Trade Tower:

According to this fallacy only one of the object suffers the majority of the collision force.

The model below is more realistic, since the aircraft should break apart upon impact.

According to the government apologists the "airplane" doesn't break apart or slow down upon impact with a grid of steel girders. The wide steel posts are sheared clean, by aluminium. Similarly, according to Shafquat's understanding of the government's gravity-collapse default position, NIST cover-up explanation, the collision force between the slurry wall foundation area - the ground and the Twin Tower is enough to turn the Tower to dust but not enough to break the slurry wall.

The implied belief of those who trust their TV but not Newton's Laws of Physics is that a collision between the Trade Tower and the commercial jet punched a hole in the solid steel frame cage-work and thick cement floors of the Trade Tower (cement floors which extend solidly through the Tower to the other side) but somehow spared the aluminium aircraft any damage before it entered whole into the inside of the building, without first breaking apart in any detail and in some images showing a "nose-out" on the opposite side!

By Shafquat's understanding, if the government apologist's argument is correct, there should be no damage to the slurry walls - and yet there was minor damage - dislodging of the perimeter. She is triumphant since this proves, in her opinion, that explosives were used.

This is an unexamined point of view and a dangerous one because she misunderstands the doubtless and necessary position of the people who promote the gravity collapse argument.

It also could be subversive since there are plenty of other evidences for explosives in the buildings. So why give time to a dud argument to make a point about explosives? She believes there was evidence of explosives. She argues there was damage caused by explosives evident on the retaining wall.

Those accusing the government and Media of malfeasance have no scarcity of evidence supporting those claims. If some denouncer shows Shafquat to be illogical, those who try to follow the research and reasoning and keep an open mind, (or not, as more likely the case), will be either further confused or in the case of the not-in-good-faith will be given more fuel for obscuring the evidence.

The narrator, Sophia, equates the force of the presumed accelerating
material into the ground, in the case of a "pancake" collapse or any kind of gravity collapse scenario, with the force exerted when the building was at rest - for thirty years or whatever - up until the moment it disintegrated.

But if the government apologist were really arguing that case there would be no force to destroy the building!

Using apparently the same data as Judy Wood, Sophia interprets it to mean
the opposite, spinning it another way. The bathtub was disturbed
according to her, and therefore the use of explosives is demonstrated!

The "9/11 Mysteries" teaches that the fact the "Bathtub" was slightly dislodged proves there were explosives in the basement. Maybe there were, and maybe that is what damaged the slurry wall. But the bigger question is why the slurry wall showed so little damage.

In a querulous voice Shafquat the narrator says, "What could have
dislodge the perimeter.?"

H' uh? 500,000 tons of cohesive material presumably falling crashing to the ground with the force sufficient to destroy itself?

Judy Wood's argument

The material did not fall directly to the ground in any significant portion - at least in the way people commonly assume. The dust eventually drifted down and settled. Most of the material did not end up in the smoldering heap which remained, as common sense will tell you if you inspect the size of the "pile."

Check out the pictures above and below. What caused the fine dust? What caused a dust cloud to spout vertically out the top? What pulverized, what de-materialized, the entire building to the point that, yes, the slurry wall was not damaged significantly and the subways were not flooded with water from the Hudson River.

The material, that was once a grotesquely oversized monstrosity of 2 ~110-story truly landmark buildings, became a pyroclastic-like dust cloud that poisoned Manhattan and Brooklyn.

cf: Please carefully view the investigations of Judy Wood on the subject: BATHTUB. Wood, a materials scientist, originated the insights on the slurry wall and the disintegration process.

Credit to the insight on the aircraft or impossibility thereof belong to Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable and Nico Haupt.

Please, examine these photographs carefully. And check out the links to the Wood - Reynolds treatment. You will find many more suggestive photos there to fill-out what occurred and what did not.

Dust

blockbush@blockbush.org

HOME