See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
Source:
BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-07-17 17:31:29 by buckeroo
Ping List: *4um PSY-OP Club* Subscribe to *4um PSY-OP Club*
Keywords: None
Views: 24620
Comments: 1209
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total" In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. 'Fair assumption' The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell". "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation" He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 506.
#237. To: buckeroo (#0)
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds. Wow, the towers fell FASTER than free falling objects, like being sucked into a huge vacuum cleaner. Amazing.
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
Oh man, are you REALLY that stupid? Besides it being stated in virtually every report that exists in terms of free fall comparisons, here's the basic physics, which you apparently never learned in school. You can look up the formula, it's t = SQRT(2d/g) t = time, d = distance, g = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 feet per second/second) The roof heights of the WTC towers were 1368 ft for WTC1, 1362 feet for WTC2. Acceleration due to gravity is (32.17 feet per second)/second For WTC1; t = SQRT(2*1368/32.17) = 9.222 seconds For WTC2; t = SQRT(2*1362/32.17) = 9.202 seconds So there you go buck, try looking things up yourself next time before you make a fool of yourself.
Why do you think that your height measurement for the "top" of each of the WTC towers is correct? The towers were hit on the 96th and 81st floors, this means that "free fall" time values were 8.61 and 7.91 seconds respectively because this is the location of initial forces (de plane! de plane!) that buckled the upper floors. So, you are incorrect by throwing your silly brick off the 110th floor... for a publick demonstration of your astounding assumptions to thwart otherwise serious study and investigation into and about a tragic issue. This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
Hahahahhaa. More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip. Where she's obviously parroting something she doesn't understand the least from a CT website.
Rosie is obviously brighter than you. You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top. Do they give you stupid pills on your job?
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases. You've had over 8 years and still can't come up with coherent, supportable, verifiable versions of events. Take another few years to get your stories straight. It's not like anybody will be holding their breaths.
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that. Do you and he subscribe to "Junk Science Monthly"? Or do you just make this shit up as you go?
There is a very good reason why real world controlled demolition uses so much time, energy, and materials to create conditions getting as close to free fall speeds as possible. And the consequence of this reason is, if the collapse does not approach free fall speeds, it wasn't done by professional controlled demolition experts. The reason is, it is known with complete certainty that the force of gravity, if unobstructed by other forces, will pull the building straight down into its own footprint. Where it can be neatly disposed of without damage to anything else not intended to be destroyed. When the structure is not sufficiently prepared by getting rid of any and all remaining obstacles in the way of straight down vertical collapse, there are additional uncertainties introduced of timing, and rerouting gravitational forces in lines other than straight up and down. So professional demolitions people take extra time to make sure the fall will be as close to vertical free fall speeds as possible to avoid introducing other variables which may cause unpredicable unmanageable results. If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
Wrong. All the demolition has to do is START the collapse, and with strategically placed charges and computer aided timing, the collapse can take however long they want it to in terms of structural collapse below the initial point of failure. Thing is, it collapsed WAY too fast for gravity to have done it alone, where a falling body meeting resistance slows down, and the resistance may eventually give way, but it takes some finite amount of time for that to happen. You're saying it took 6 seconds to smash and break EVERY iota of resistance, since the 9 seconds of falling through a vacuum doesn't correlate with the time it took to overcome the resistance.
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
Er, no buckie. The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit. They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
So there was no debris scattered around immediately after the impacts? Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
Not amazing at all, what's amazing is that they fell at all, never mind disintegrate into dust while coming down close to free fall speeds.
ROTFL .... no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
So what IS your excuse for WT7? Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747. Also, this architect calls BS on much of the story......he has far more experience in this field than you do Buck.
Your story is FALSE or fabricated. The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. Statements by Engineers Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. John Skilling John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes) You prove, once again, that you don't know wtf you are talking about. No, Tw00fster, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Federal airspace rules prohibit any commercial aircraft from going over 250 KIAS below 10,000 altitude or in "Class B airspace" which surrounds jet airports. New York City is completely covered by both restrictions. There would be no reason to design a building able to withstand a crash whose speed presumably never would be allowed by Air Traffic Control in the first place. Furthermore, structural engineer calculations aren't built in mockups and then tested to make sure the calculations are correct. Last but not least, there is no record of a design specifying a 500 mph impact. This is hearsay unsupported by any files. If you have a file supporting 500 mph impact of a 707/767 the produce it. You lie, you lose.
Well then, you've lost long ago if that's true...
Loser, here is a partial list of deficiencies you cannot answer with any satisfaction. As time goes on the list will get bigger. Just as a partial list, you've been provided explicit proofs of the following phenomena and many others.
Glad you posted that so that some of the folks who think Hani Hanjour actually did what they claimed he did will know that he could NOT have done it. They get quiet when you mention that he allegedly took control somewhere in the skies over Ohio and then flew it back to the Pentagon like a stunt pilot. But at the time the plane was hijacked, even if the weather had been perfect and not a cloud in the sky, he would not have had any idea where he was over the landscape. It all looks pretty much the same from heights greater than the top of Mt. Everest. And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed.
The most difficult parts of pilot tests are takoffs and landings. Take-offs and landings in a Cessna are relatively easy, with the take-off being such that just about ANYONE could do it. Flying is the relatively easy part. Hanjour couldn't do any of the above even in a Cessna, never mind a heavy multi-engine airliner with all of the complex systems that need to be set correctly. We are supposed to believe however that he brought the plane down from 35,000 feet to treetop level at 400+ mph, then performed a manuever not any professional pilot could pulloff, and that is to descend to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph (which is basically performing a landing), defying the laws of aerodynamics (in terms of ground effect), flying straight and level directly into the Pentagon wall. Yeah right. Hanjour didn't have to do either when he took over an aircraft already airborne and intended to be crashed, not landed. Besides LANDING the aircraft short of having his wheels down, AT 530 MPH (which the aircraft basically CAN'T DO), he navigated the plane from Ohio without any navigational aids in terms of ground references, so we must assume he was familiar with IFR (instrument flight rules) procedures using sophisticated flight systems and instruments, where he couldn't even fly a Cessna VFR, (visual flight rules).
And when did this amazing transformation happen and what could have caused it? Playing around and getting drunk in nudie bars? Did that transform him into an ace pilot? I see aggravator is still "catapulting the propaganda." Must have taken some training in Dubya's school for liars.
I wanted to bring this two part article to everyone's attention. I am sure everyone has noticed that I have stressed over and over again that 911 is best understood as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp for short (despite the Army doing a PR change on their PsyOp department's name). THE SPLIT-SECOND ERROR...EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT... WAG THE WTC II THE BLOCKBUSTER - PART II OF EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT As an aside - FL I believe you know how to post full files of Web Pages, a skill I haven't learned and which even Neil couldn't tell me how to do, so if you can could you post this article as its own thread? Please. ;-)
by Fintan Dunne, " href="mailto:%20news@psyopnews.com">mailto:%20news@psyopnews.com The determined man at the controls of Flight 175 was now less than one minute from his own demise, and was in that state of heightened alertness that only approaching death can generate. For no matter how well executed the approach, it would be necessary to make one last seconds adjustment to get right on target. In the final five seconds, the tower would still be half a mile away. That's when the collective million hours of preparation would telescope into seconds and determine the success or failure of the mission. And it wasn't going well. As the tower rushed to fill the view in the cockpit window (3), the pilot realized that he was going too fast and wide of the target to boot. He would miss to the right. Instead of a minor tilt of the controls, he would have to lean the aircraft hard left -NOW! (4) THE ARC OF FAILURE Copyright reserved 2001 www.psyopnews.com by >
I couldn't get it to post the pictures either.
It looked different in preview than it did when I posted it but I don't remember seeing any pictures.
I couldn't see any pictures either........I thought it was just me, but I feel better knowing I have some company while imagining the pictures. : )
The pictures were on the original link OI provided.
#507. To: wudidiz (#506)
I don't understand why you can't get it all with view page source. That usually works.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHis calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
#246. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Actually a free fall from the 110th floor would have taken 9.22 seconds.
#247. To: buckeroo (#246)
Show me your calculation and/or source material.
#249. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#247)
#252. To: buckeroo (#249)
This notion of "free fall" has always been used by the TWOOFERS and it is an incorrect assumption for the top of either of the building for the calculation; it is utter nonsense.
#256. To: AGAviator (#252)
More back pedaling after they themselves use 9.22 seconds as evidenced on Rosie's video clip.
#260. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#256)
You don't judge collapse time for only PART of the building collapsing, you INCLUDE the ENTIRE building from the very top.
#263. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#260)
You're the people bantering around the "9.22 seconds," "physical impossibility" phrases.
#309. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#263)
(Edited)
Yep, the building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed as if it were falling through a vacuum, yet buck's expert "calculated" precisely that.
#316. To: AGAviator (#309)
If a building doesn't fall at close to free fall speeds, its fall has not been set up by controlled demolition. Fifeeen seconds vs. nine seconds for a collapse is not even close to free fall speeds. The controlled demolition theory is debunked by actual and observed free fall speeds indicating lack of thorough setup for a building collapse many times larger than the largest recorded CD.
#318. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#316)
All the demolition has to do is START the collapse
#321. To: buckeroo (#318)
But a demolition did not start the collapses. The jet crashes did.
#323. To: FormerLurker (#321)
The buildings did NOT start to fall down when they were hit.
They did NOT start to fall till the precise time they collapsed.
#328. To: buckeroo (#323)
Not much time... it was amazing they stood for so long ... but it took time for the central structure to lose stress capability that caused the later crush down phase.
#331. To: FormerLurker (#328)
what's amazing is that they fell at all
#337. To: buckeroo (#331)
no building is designed to withstand that kind of impact.
#341. To: abraxas (#337)
Also the architect for those buildings claims they were indeed made to endure the impact of a 747.
#346. To: buckeroo (#341)
The twins were designed for a 707 as in a FOG with a velocity well below 550mi/hr. (For you, that means much less inertial force as what occurred on 9/11 by the relative impacts caused by terrorist crashes)
#355. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#346)
#358. To: AGAviator (#355)
You lie, you lose.
#377. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#358)
Well then, you've lost long ago
(1) Two aircraft crashes released gigajoules of kinetic energy into the Twin Tower structures, and within 2 hours both structures collapsed from structural damage,
That's just a partial list of the issues about which you and your cotiere have been batted on from one end of the forum to another. There are plenty of others. Your attempts to evade and make things personal is noted, as well as noted as being unsuccessful.
(2) A fireman is recorded on video saying a third WTC Building, WTC7, will be going down because the building is losing its structural stability from crash damage and uncontrolled fires,
(3) Over 30 calls from hijacked aircraft were logged including several by flight attendants giving seat numbers and descriptions of hijackers,
(4) The false statement that Flight 77's cabin door was not opened has been demonstrated to be a lie, as there is no evidence about any cabin door operation of that aircraft either during or before the September 11 flight,
(5) The lauded "peer review publication" of Tw00ferk00ks Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have been shown to be pay-to- publish articles for which $800 was given to a Dhubai publishing mill, with zero other peer reviewed articles
(6) The phrase "pull" as used by the demolition industry means "pull down with cables," and as used by firefighters means "pull back from site,"
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place, and
(8) It's a physical impossibliity for a structure to both be flexible enough to absorb gigajoules of energy, move away from vertical centerline, return to vertical centerline on its own, then be rigid enough to provide a fixed platform for a rotating and falling top section to collapse outside the building footprint and
(9) The actual free fall times of the WTC towers have been conclusively shown as 15+ seconds for 1 tower and 22+ seconds for the other, an order of magnitude above the claimed "free fall time" of 9.22 seconds which is supposed to be evidence of a controlled demolition
#431. To: AGAviator (#377)
(7) Flight 77 impacted a recently-renovated portion of the Pentagon which was not fully occupied and still had construction equipment in place
#450. To: FormerLurker (#431)
(Edited)
#452. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#450)
And it is certain that a man who couldn't fly a Cessna could not fly what they claimed hit the Pentagon.
#454. To: AGAviator, abraxas, James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#452)
#455. To: FormerLurker (#454)
Besides LANDING the aircraft short of having his wheels down, AT 530 MPH (which the aircraft basically CAN'T DO), he navigated the plane from Ohio without any navigational aids in terms of ground references, so we must assume he was familiar with IFR (instrument flight rules) procedures using sophisticated flight systems and instruments, where he couldn't even fly a Cessna VFR, (visual flight rules).
#480. To: FormerLurker, James Deffenbach, abraxas, IRTorqued, wuddiz, CadetD, christine, Critter, ItIsTooLate, Kamala, all (#455)
#487. To: Original_Intent (#480)
The original of this page used to be at http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/plot_within_a_plot_part1.htm. But that page, and all other material on that site concerned with the WTC demolition, disappeared about 2001-10-21 without explanation. Consequently links in this page to that site, including links to all enlargements, except for Photos 6 and 9 and the photo of the hole in the North Tower, no longer work and have been disabled. The PDF version is viewable.
PDF Version HERE
THE SPLIT-SECOND ERROR
...EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT...
coEditor, PsyOpNews.com
Research Kathy McMahon
18 September 2001
="
VIDEO Windows Mpeg
THE HIJACK PILOT'S
SPLIT SECOND ERROR
14 mins @ 56K
"IT WAS DESIGNED
FOR A PLANE IMPACT"
Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center, talks exclusively to Jerusalem Post Radio on the World Trade Center collapse. He says they designed the towers to withstand something like a plane flying into the side.
For interview, Media Player
JpRadio item ...Now working.
12th September, 2001
EXPLOSIVES EXPERT SAYS
WTC WAS BOMBED
Towers collapse "too methodical"
CHARGES PLANTED
TO TAKE
DOWN BUILDING
Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
BUILDING COLLAPSE SHOCKS
WORLD TRADE CENTER
ENGINEER, ARCHITECT
"I DESIGNED IT FOR A 707 HIT"
DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, LAST WEEK (!!!), Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune. Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it."
UPI REPORT
DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A lead engineer who worked on New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story lanmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner.
Ahead, as he hurtled across New York towards Manhattan Island, he could see the vast plume of smoke (1). His colleague in Flight 11, approaching from the opposite direction had already made an almost perfect impact on the North Tower of the World Trade Center. 
On the far side of the tower, concealed from his view, was the gash (2) where the hijacked airliner had spread its fuel payload over several floors of the building. Just as the trainers had coached.
But the sight still managed to unnerve him. It was one thing practicing the approach for countless hours on a computer simulator, but this was real life -and no mistake could be made. The planners had insisted that the planes must strike the towers at a banked angle. Otherwise the fire would be confined to only a couple of floors and would not set the building comprehensively alight. Without perfect execution, the imperialists would only suffer minor casualties, he had been told.
What they never told him was that the aircraft impacts were only one half of the plan. One visible and psychologically terrorizing aspect would be provided by the suicidal aircraft. But the other half of the plan was unknown to the two pilots and their accomplices. Bombs had already been planted inside both towers.
They would be detonated after the planes had struck, to ensure the total destruction of the buildings and their evidentiary contents. The bombs inside the towers were strapped to radio-trigger detonators. Other plotters would be near the scene -monitoring TV coverage to determine the right moment to push the final buttons. The full PsyOps (psychological-warfare) effect would be the complete disappearance of these two symbols of US confidence and power.
But if the plane struck at the wrong angle, or even worse -missed altogether, the whole scheme was in danger. Substantial fires were necessary as a cover for the subsequent collapse.
The planners had taken every precaution. Their flight approach paths were calculated to align the two towers as a single target -without a gap between them. His orders were clear. His target was the South Tower, but if the first plane struck the wrong tower, he was to switch to the other. In either event, he must strike at the remaining target with a military precision.
But he didn't. And that's where things began to go wrong.
BANKING ON SUCCESS
A straightforward level approach would have been so much easier. Just line up the towers in the cockpit window and plow straight in. This banked approach was much harder to accomplish. Imagine swinging a stone on the end of a string, aiming to strike a standing beer bottle. Imagine getting only one try. A fully laden 767 is like an elephant with wings -the apotheosis of maneuverability.
Now, the pilot was now less than two miles from his target. The screaming noise of the engines on high power were already causing heads to turn among the early morning crowds below. But they didn't really understand what was happening. One eyewitness would later recount that the first plane had tried to to veer off the tower, but hit it nevertheless. That witness had mistaken the intent of the final course correction.
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
As the airliner tilted acutely to the left (5), the air under the wings began to leak away -depriving the craft of vital lift, even as the extra centrifugal force generated by the turn meant that he needed more lift -not less. The maneuver was only partly successful. Despite the course correction, the plane still drifted to the right.
In that last instant (6), he never really had time to consider his own death. 
The training and his death-moment concentration focussed him so intently on the task. With a grinding crash the side of the building gave way, as Flight 175 struck near the corner of the tower -too far to the right (7).
The howl of metal and concrete impacting each other was overlaid with the crack of plate glass shattering. The concrete floors of the building cut through the plane like a egg passed through an egg slicer. The metal in its wings offered little resistance. In an instant, the plane had disappeared into the tower like a bird returning to its nest.
But it was no longer an aircraft. It's separated parts careered across the floors of the South Tower. It was no longer obeying the laws of aerodynamics. It was subject to the dictates of the angular momentum caused by the banked approach -and that last moment course correction.
That's when things began to go even more wrong for the cynical perpetrators of the mass death that was now being inflicted on those in the shattered airliner's path.
Photo 8
Photo 9
Earlier, the North Tower impact site had been right in the center of the tower (2). The entire fuel load and flotsam was dumped deep inside and remained in the building -where it exploded (8)(fig 1 below).
But now as Flight 175 disappeared inside the South Tower, it burst like a paper bag full of water. The thousands of pounds of jet fuel were liberated to follow a path dictated by the momentum of what had once been an aircraft.
A wash of jet fuel and airplane parts tore through the interior of the building at hundreds of miles an hour; sweeping everything before it and just starting to ignite as it rushed along. But it didn't take the same course as had aircraft debris inside the North Tower, eighteen minutes before. By contrast, the majority of the fuel and debris from the second plane smashed out of the building and exploded OUTSIDE in the open air over the street (9)(fig 2 below).
The plane's approach was an arc of a great circle -one that had tightened even further with that final twitch on the controls. Imagine again a paper bag of water spun on the end of a string. If the paper bag bursts, the water inside will head off at a tangent to the original arc.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2 
In the same fashion, the fuel now tried to take a course to the right of the original flight path. The aircraft had impacted near the corner of the building. Within fractions of a second the already igniting fuel had raced diagonally across the corner to burst out into the open air again, on the adjacent side of the Second Tower. Photos even show a smoking engine which shot out as it had not even been slowed by the building interior (10).
This air explosion provided a stunning pyrotechnic spectacle witnessed by countless millions, but it was an operational disaster. For it left the thorny question of explaining how the South Tower -which took less than half the fuel load of its North Tower twin -was the first of the two to collapse.(See Fig 1&2)
THE WRONG TOWER
FELL FIRST
Even before the second plane hit the South Tower, its northern counterpart was already burning strongly, with a great plume of dense black toxic fumes drifting over a stunned Manhattan. Flight 11 had rocketed deep inside the building before the fuel ignited. On some floors the fire burned across the entire width of the building. By 9:45 a.m. the North Tower was ablaze not just on the floors that took the impact, but all the way to the top of the building (10).
The towers sprinkler fire extinguisher system were bolstered by automatic hermetrically sealing doors on every floor to prevent the spread of fire. But office workers still found themselves stumbling down sometimes darkened and smoke-filled fire escape stairs.
The giant steel beams used to build the towers had been cast in Japan -no American steel milll could roll out the massive 'I' beams. The explanation accepted by the mainstream media pundits for the collapse of both towers is that these beams softened like warm toffee in the intensity of the fires.
If that were the case, then the North Tower was the obvious candidate to be the first to collapse. Not only did it have almost a twenty minute head start on the South Tower conflagration, but the fire extended to the whole area of many floors. The South Tower fire was smaller and more confined, so that by 10:30 a.m. there was an obvious difference visible to those in the streets below and the hypnotized TV cameras now trained on the incredible sight.
But can the collapse in any event be really blamed on the fires within? The great explosions on impact had consumed all the jet fuel in seconds. Now it was plastic fixtures, cabling and internal partitioning that were burning. Or smoldering, to be more precise. Only near the great gaping holes -where there was access to an air supply- did the fire burn with anything like the intensity required to melt great beams of steel.
Neither had the impacts significantly weakened the structural integrity of the buildings. Even under normal circumstances these flexible buildings swayed so much in high winds that seasickness was a noticeable problem among workers on upper floors. Even on floors near the impact sites, many had felt only a mild shudder as the aircraft struck.
For the fire to be the cause of the collapse, most of the array of steel beams that spanned each floor would have to be engulfed in continuous extremely high temperature fire. This did not happen, nor was it essential to the plan. If the real intent had been to collapse the towers by means of fire then the planes would have struck the corners of the towers nearest to each other. That would have increased the chances of one tower collapsing into the other.
What actually happened next -before either tower collapsed, was one or more massive explosions in the other buildings around the towers. Explosions that sent clouds of masonry dust into the air. The first of many blasts that would rock the World Trade Center complex.
The explosions marked the final phase.
The curtain was coming down on the performance.
And the towers themselves would be next to fall.....
PART II
THE BLOCKBUSTER
Fintan Dunne, Kathy McMahon and PsyOpNews.com
Reproduce freely on noncommercial / alternative media.
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on TerrorismSerendipity Home Page
#497. To: James Deffenbach, Original_Intent (#487)
#503. To: wudidiz (#497)
I couldn't get it to post the pictures either.
#504. To: James Deffenbach, wudidiz (#503)
#506. To: abraxas, James Deffenbach, Original_Intent (#504)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 506.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 506.