4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11682
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1808) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1809. To: mininggold (#1804)
You are saying they weren't engineered to take a direct hit from an airliner in a city crisscrossed by air lanes?

What year was the building designed?

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:11:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1810. To: all (#1807)
If you guys want to make your theories believable you got to make them more realistic and less testable.
Instead of saying the US shot a cruise missile at the pentagon, and flew two airplanes into the towers and then used explosive to knock them down, then inexplicably blew up tower 7.
You should say, the Bush admin intentionally stopped the FBI from finding the terrorists, allowed them to take flying lessons, allowed them to pass through security, and purposely messed up the response to the hijackings.
That way you can use the natural incompetence of the government as false evidence of malevolence.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-30 15:11:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1811. To: war (#1807)
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

--Leslie Roberston, structural engineer WTC

Well assuming sure made an @ss of him. Not very creative that one. Hopefully other structural designers in your areas aren't as dull. Especially since hijacking airlines is not exactly a new sport.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:13:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1812. To: mininggold (#1811)
You're applying 21st century standards to a building designed in the early 60's.

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:15:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1813. To: mininggold (#1811)
Well assuming sure made an @ss of him

Being a charter member yourself, I'lltake your word for it...

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:16:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1814. To: mininggold (#1811)

Well assuming sure made an @ss of him. Not very creative that one. Hopefully other structural designers in your areas aren't as dull. Especially since hijacking airlines is not exactly a new sport.

Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak. So you'd basically have to build the towers to be able to hold 12 times its minimum weight.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-30 15:18:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1815. To: war (#1812)
You're applying 21st century standards to a building designed in the early 60's.

Well like all designs that aren't up to standard it got "pulled" by it's designers own lack of foresight and it's own obsolescence. Too bad the cowardly owners didn't have the moxy to close it and do it right, before lots of people got killed. It's not like it was NOT a previous target.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:20:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1816. To: mininggold (#1815)
Do me a favor...ping me when you stop grasping for straws that are the length of the pubic hairs of a gant...thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:38:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1817. To: war (#1800) (Edited)
Saying it twice only made it twice as stupid.

Imagine how you come across, repeating your .gov propaganda multiple times over.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 16:06:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1818. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot.

Kerosene? BWAHAHAHAHA, who do you think you're kidding? What a load of crap, you've done jumped the shark, boy.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:08:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1819. To: mininggold (#1805)
So airplanes don't take off from NYC airports they only land. Oh... Okay....

And it's never a clear day there, always foggy and the planes are almost stalling out because they're going so slow. LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:10:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1820. To: mininggold, war (#1790)
war personally inspected every structural member of all three of the collapsed and maybe more buildings....Who knows... they might have been designed to fall into their own footprint as a cost saving feature. /s

haaaaaaaaaa!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 16:14:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1821. To: mininggold (#1774)
I still will use my common sense and not venture into tall US buildings that appear to be able to collapse in such a total fashion. Especially when, for all the tax money I pay, the gov couldn't even take out planes being piloted by amateurs. Afterall how many others are built similiarly and as a result are ticking time bombs waiting for the right circumstances.
I guess the overseas architects must be better at designing buildings that can withstand some stress, since non appeared to have collapsed in the same manner.

Oh, you should be safe to go in them now. Apparently all the Magickal Jet Fuel™ was used up on 9/11. Several big high rises have caught fire since then and burned much longer but none of them fell. And none before 9/11 either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:18:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1822. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? Check the NIST report, it states that the jet fuel burned up in the first few minutes. Kerosene doesn't burn that hot to begin with, and there was NOWHERE near enough of it to even warm the steel, never mind weaken it.
The fires that everyone saw were standard OFFICE fires, whereas the WTC had ALREADY survived one that lasted over three hours and was much more intense than those that occured on 9/11/2001.
The 1975 World Trade Center Fire
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 16:33:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1823. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...those firemen shills all...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:34:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1824. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...that structural engineer...a shill

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1825. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1826. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...all those pics...even though a lot of 'em came from Moonbate sites...FAKED...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1827. To: FormerLurker (#1822)
The fires that everyone saw were standard OFFICE fires..,.

Standard office fires are started by a plane impacting and exploding inside of it?
Do you ever stop to ***think*** how stupid you sound when you post such nonsense?

OOoooo....Oooo....I KNOW I KNOW...
Apparently not...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:39:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1828. To: litus (#1820)
< /em>
Monday, February 12, 2007

Clip from "9/11 Eyewitness"
If anyone has had the misfortune of sitting through NOVA's attempt and validating the official government myth about 9/11, here's a piece that debunks the "pancake theory" computer simulation NOVA's graphic artists came up with to make the Bush administration's 9/11 story seem plausible.
9/11 Truth: NOVA's WTC Pancake Collapse

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:49:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1829. To: litus (#1820)
Purdue Simulation Full of Hot Air
George Washington's Blog
Thursday June 21, 2007
The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:
The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.
Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.
"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.
However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.
And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.
Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.
Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:
(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.
(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.
(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?
(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?
(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?
(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?
(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?
As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.
2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.
3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."
In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.
Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:
"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”
As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:
“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:51:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1830. To: TwentyTwelve (#1828)
Another Moonbat lie.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:51:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1831. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak. So you'd basically have to build the towers to be able to hold 12 times its minimum weight.

What kind of drugs are you taking?
You better get off of them quick.
Jet engines burn that fuel in a closed system at much higher temperatures than can be reached in an open air fire. Guess what jet engines are made of. STEEL. Guess what the towers support was made of, STEEL. But not just any steel, it exceeded all requirements of the time and even now concerning strength and melting point for steel in sky scrappers. Your car burns gas, it's engine is made of steel, how many times has your engine fell out because it melted? What about your outdoor grill. How many times has the thing melted before the steaks were done?

Like I said, please stop taking the drugs.
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 21:52:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1832. To: TwentyTwelve (#1828)
This video has been removed due to terms of use violation (I believe that is what it said when I clicked on it).

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 21:52:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1833. To: TwentyTwelve (#1829)
And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Another Moonbat lie.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:53:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1834. To: TwentyTwelve (#1829)
Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed?

Debunked.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1835. To: James Deffenbach (#1832)
Try this:
9/11 Truth: NOVA's WTC Pancake Collapse

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1836. To: war (#1830) (Edited)
The sagging floors? It is more like your sagging brain. Do you think the mass of a floor changes even if it did sag? DO YOU? If not then how the HELL could it pull anything inward? No more force on the columns than before you DUMB ASS GOVERNMENT STOOGE!
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1837. To: war (#1833)
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1838. To: TwentyTwelve (#1835)
That one worked, thanks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 21:58:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1839. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#1834)
Debunked.

Oh, and how long DID it take each tower to collapse then?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:01:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1840. To: war (#1830)
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,

Right, the evidence indicates controlled demolition.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:03:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1841. To: war (#1827)
Standard office fires are started by a plane impacting and exploding inside of it?

Desks, paper, carpeting, various office equipment, those are all that could burn, and that is what burned. Are you trying to state that the cement was on fire or something?
BTW, all of the fuel was burnt up in the first few minutes. Most of it burnt outside the buildings in the huge fireballs as seen in live footage of the event. A plane itself can't explode, it's the fuel that catches on fire due to sparks, and it doesn't explode unless that spark occurs in a confined space such as a fuel tank.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:07:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1842. To: FormerLurker (#1841)
Aren't you getting tired of beating your head over that wall? You would come closer to getting through to a stump or fence post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 22:09:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1843. To: war (#1825)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills.. Yep...that structural engineer...a shill Yep...those firemen shills all...

"Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible."
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen. I wouldn't doubt, as well, that .GOV has, in whatever way it wished, threatened anyone who was a witness and dare to tell the truth. They would lose their job, or be demoted, or lose their retirement, etc.

I am aware, personally, of particular individuals during my lifetime, some fairly high up in the government (or, when I was younger, their father was), who were under DIRECT ORDERS not to tell what they know or witnessed surrounding particular events. They don't want the public to know things.
Fool!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:11:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1844. To: FormerLurker, war (#1841)
A plane itself can't explode, it's the fuel that catches on fire

Pay particular attention here, war, try to wrap your mind around an idea like that.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Dakmar posted on 2009-03-30 22:14:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1845. To: litus (#1843)
They don't want the public to know things.

Neither does war, that is why he is here.
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 22:14:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1846. To: litus, war (#1843)
infowars.net/articles/march2007/280307blueprints.htm
WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.
The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.
Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.
Most of the drawings can be viewed here.
The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.
The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.
Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.
Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:
"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."
Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail.
The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7
The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building".
And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:
*No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
*Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
*They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
*They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.
*They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
*Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.
A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million.
Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
*NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
*NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
*NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
*NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence:
"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."
So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.
NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".
The excellent research website www.911review.com, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.
Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.
In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:
"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.
If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!
INFOWARS.net
Copyright © 2001-2007 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:16:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1847. To: RickyJ (#1845)
Neither does war, that is why he is here.

We know that, and he knows that we know that, yet his handlers continue to pay him to post his propaganda.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:20:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1848. To: TwentyTwelve (#1846)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction. . . .

bttt!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:21:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1849. To: litus (#1848)
infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm
Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7
Photos aid debunking of WTC 7 "raging fires" claims
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently emerged on the web showing that huge amounts of smoke poured forth primarily from the buildings closest to the collapsed towers, not from the further away building 7 which mysteriously collapsed later the same afternoon.
Despite the fact that the official NIST report cannot officially explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continue to cite "raging infernos" inside the building.
The following set of images highlights the fact that the majority of smoke emanating from the complex was coming from the smaller buildings 5 and 6, which WERE engulfed by fire after suffering major structural damage from falling debris.
We can clearly see the fire crews dousing building 5 and putting out the fires, thus causing a great deal of smoke to be emitted as the flames are deprived of oxygen.
We have previously shown photos of WTC Building 7, provided to us by an anonymous rescue worker who was at ground zero on 9/11, in comparison with buildings closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire and debris damage yet did not collapse. Here are those photos once more.
CLICK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IMAGES FOR HIGH DEFINITION ENLARGEMENTS.
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.
Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.
In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.
A wider perspective shot of the rubble of Building 7. The Fiterman Hall building and the U.S. Post Office building across the street show little damage. Building 5 in the background is completely charred but still stands.
The rubble of WTC Building 7 lies in front of the Fiterman Hall building. The building has fallen in its own footprint - another sign of controlled demolition.
As can be seen in the photo below (from Knoxville News Sentinel Sept. 11 photo gallery, this particular photo reportedly from the New York City Office of Emergency Management), WTC 6, which was immediately adjacent to WTC 1, has a large hole in the middle from falling debris, yet did not collapse.
Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.
Remember that firefighters were at no point engaged in tackling the fires inside building 7. The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five, stating "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."
Incidentally this is exactly the reason why Silverstein's explanation of his "pull it" remark doesn't hold water. He said late in the afternoon that the decision was made to "pull it", by which he then later explained that he meant evacuate the firefighting operation. The problem is, according to FEMA, there was no building 7 firefighting operation.
The photograph below (click for slightly bigger enlargement) was taken at around 3PM on 9/11, approximately 2 hours 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 (or around 1 hour 54 minutes if you're the BBC). It shows small fires confined to just two floors of the building. Later images from news reports (such as the afore mentioned BBC one) show no signs that the fires had worsened significantly enough to collapse such a huge building.
Officially eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The official NIST report concluded that it could not therefore comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts stated about building 7:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" .
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Do these fires look like they could do that?
In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of 7:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously reported, building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is TOTALLY untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse? This is total harebrain logic.
Building 7 has become the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
INFOWARS.net
Copyright © 2001-2007 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:34:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1850 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um