See other 9/11 Articles
Title: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Source:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
URL Source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Sue Reid
Post Date: 2007-02-10 08:45:52 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 16145
Comments: 205
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 Sue Reid – The Daily Mail February 10, 2007 The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001. Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93. Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow. Or that's how the official story goes. Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster. The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers. Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11. A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services. Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier. Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11. Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis." These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II). Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S. Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq? This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic. Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did? An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent. Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job. It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind. And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack. Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked. Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes. But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late. And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it. Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. So what of the fall of the Twin Towers? The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes. It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain. But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees. Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off? And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all. The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times. How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft? The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene. "But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. "Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building? "Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively. "If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole." And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin. So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ. Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane. So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio? No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded. They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target? Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour. He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened. The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not? He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway." Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds. He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers. The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion. Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame. Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington. The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change. President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil." The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811 Watch Loose Change here. Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend Last updated 10/02/2007 Homepage
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-24) not displayed.
.
.
.
#25. To: kiki (#7)
They did not mastermind it, and for that, you are absolutely correct. It was masterminded by the Mossad. That is where the dancing Israeli spies come in. And, the control over the US government by the Khazar Jews.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
Just another demolition. "pull it" Lucky Larry and his two separate "terror attacks" he collected billions on.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Cousins.
it is. i replaced the e's with c's for christine. :P
Now the cold hard facts about the Loose Change video: The ScrewLooseChange video: A guide to the ScrewLooseChange video: A great blog related to the ScrewLooseChange video: A related discussion forum: More great data: The above sites are the arsenal of anyone confronting those promoting LooseChange.
Love your new no-spin persona. Really.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
I like to use the BPAT/FEMA/NIST reports to refute the governments own fairytale. The reports are full of deception and misleading conclusions. Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
*********** http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html "Quote Abuse ... snip ... ---------------------- Then we have this quote from a David Ray Griffin essay: ---------------------- "Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6)." http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ------------------- Here's the full version, with the snipped part in bold (which is our emphasis). ------------------- "...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down". http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF ----------------- And another, from the same Griffin piece: ----------------- "Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ----------------- Again, a possible attempt to offer an alternative explanation to explosives, that the “pops” may have been the building falling, has been omitted (our emphasis): ----------------- "As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out." http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/includes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110287.pdf ------------------ ... snip ... ******************* Looks like Griffin was committing quote abuse. And here's something else written by *Professor* Griffin: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm In it he states But why is this unexpected if a plane full of fuel hit the structure and penetrated the elevator shafts as numerous eyewitnesses testified? One would expect fuel released from the impacting aircraft would enter the freight elevator shaft and explode, sending a pressure wave and fireball down the shaft. In another section Griffins states But this is deceptive of Griffin. Mark Loizeaux is also on record stating that what happened at the WTC was NOT a demolition with explosives. And he's an expert. Griffin says Actually, there are reports of firemen hearing loud noises that sounded like explosions more than 10 minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of controlled demolition. Indeed, the structure was seen to be sagging and tilting many minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of planned demolition. And who are Griffin's sources? A proven liar. An anti-government hack ... not a *journalist*. What he wrote about the seismic data in his articles was an outright LIE and not a single seismologist in the world backs his claims up, yet the seismic data is available to any seismologist in the world. The seismologists who he quotes in his articles are on record in technical papers and other venues saying JUST THE OPPOSITE of what Bollyn claimed they said. This man doesn't believe man landed on the moon. He lies about the size of the hole in the Pentagon, the amount of debris at the Pentagon, the engine found at the Pentagon. He thinks that DU tipped missiles were used at the WTC and Pentagon. He's a software engineer. Forget the bombs ... he thinks giant super secret microwave beam projectors, installed in the basement of the towers, is what brought them down. I'll give some credit to Hoffman, though. He's right in saying the other CT'ers are wrong to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds and he says Bollyn promoted numerous claims that are not supported by any evidence. MIT engineer. Yeah. An electrical engineer and molecular biologist ... who has been a medical doctor for the last 25 years. Who claimed a fireman admitted 9-11 was an inside job. But the fireman says that's untrue and accuses Mr Lavello of slander. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61418 Oh yes ... the water treatment expert. ************* And here's still another article by *Professor* Griffin that makes one wonder about his honesty. ************** http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 ... snip ... Actually fire has caused many steel frame BUILDINGS to collapse in the past. That's why there are codes now to protect steel framed building from fire. And all the portions of the Windsor Tower (a skyscraper in Madrid) that depended solely on a steel frame for support did in fact collapse in a post 9/11 fire (no impact). This is untrue. The best experts in the business using the best fire codes in existence have concluded that the fires were very hot and long lasting, and ultimately led to softening of steel members which caused the collapse. Which is why only one or two structural engineers in the world have come forward to agree with Griffin's assertion. And Griffin is also omitting the fact that where there have been fires in tall steel structures that did not collapse, the structures were built differently, the fires spread differently, the fires were actively fought by firefighters, and there were other mitigating factors. Untrue. NIST has carefully explained why one tower collapsed before the other. The building was in fact extensively damaged by falling debris from the towers and the fires were not localized or small. Plus, NIST did explain what FEMA did not. Currently, only one demolition expert in the world agrees with Griffin that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. And he based his conclusion solely on viewing material hand picked by conspiracists. Nothing more. And ironically, that same individual is on the record saying that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are definitely NOT controlled demolitions. But they were sticking up in the air after the collapses. This is proven by looking at the videos and photos from that day. Here, this video shows the core was still standing after the floors had pancaked: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 These images also show that core was still sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air after the floors pancaked: Silverstein did not say "pull building 7". He said pull it and a look at the context in which he said that should lead a reasonable person to conclude Silverstein was referring to the firefighting effort and the firefighters that were around the building.. Furthermore, demolition experts (at http://ImplosionWorld.com, for instance) say the "pull" terminology is not used in the way alleged by Griffin. Numerous structural engineers, FBI agents and countless others had access to the site and the steel before it was removed. Many pieces of steel were eventually saved. All the structural engineers in the world seem to think it was. Untrue. The entrance hole is large enough to accommodate everything but the wing tips and the tail of the plane. This is clear from photos to the left and right of the main impact hole: And here is a fine animation which shows how the damage to the Pentagon is completely consistent with the impact of a 757. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only The portions of the plane not containing fuel or much mass shattered with the remains strewn in front of the Pentagon as seen in photo after photo. The above animation shows images of many of these pieces. There are also photos of debris both inside and outside the Pentagon that could only come from a 757. Numerous people familiar with such jets toured the site ... including members of 757 crews. They ALL say what they saw is consistent with Flight 77 hitting the building. If Griffin thinks a missile was used, could he tell us what missile would cause damage like that seen? Remember, there was hole in the Pentagon about 90 feet wide. Columns on the right side were broken and bent towards the left. There was a winged shape hole on both sides of the central impact site. And actually, here is Rumsfeld's full quote based on what Parade magazine initially said he said: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." But not everyone agreed. http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfelds-missile-admission.html "Problems with the audio transcription are evident or else there wouldn't be a "similar (inaudible)" involved. So I zoomed in on the second “and” that created the impression of two separate objects and tried replacing it with the similar sounding “as” and got “using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building.” This makes the whole statement make more sense, and is exactly what the government has always said." In fact, Parade admitted in September 2004 that "a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet." ******************* Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
Start with the fact that heat rises. Move on to the fact that while the fuel would burn rapidly, it wouldn't explode, in the classic use of the term. Add that the images of the lobby bear no witness to any appreciable amount of smoke. That's not the evidence of jet fuel. Your attempts at deceit continue to insult the reader's intelligence, BAC.
Given all the crap you spewed forth in your reply, I wonder how ignorant you really must be. Or what you have to gain from spewing DISinfo? A little common sense goes a long way - and it's something you are apparently lacking. Only a fool would believe the "official story". Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!. I don't know what your line of work is or what your 'expertise' is, BUT I DO KNOW it ISN'T architecture, or construction. You apparently have no clue as to how massive the steel is in the main support columns of a building like that; NOR do you have any clue as to it's strength. Construction IS my forte, and I have seen the results of HORRIFIC fires on buildings... I have seen the massive steel used. I have been involved in the rebuilding of a VERY LARGE (75'W x 75'D x 175'H firebox measurements) boiler which exploded - and yet the boilerhouse itself (building containing the boiler) remained standing and very much intact. Building 7 collapsed as a result of 'debris damage' coupled with fire??? Then why did 3, 4, 5, and 6 remain standing??? They were ALL located closer to the big Towers than 7, AND damaged by debris and fire MORE than 7!!! j The "official story" is so full of holes it makes a screen door look like plate steel. And your touting it as truth makes you look like either a government shill, OR a complete moron - OR BOTH.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
PANCAKING! Ha, ha. You need to get some new material BAC. NIST has backed away and said the towers did not pancake. As a matter of fact, the NIST report does not explain the dynamic collapse of the towers. NIST stops at what it calls, "poised for global gravity collapse." Very strange indeed. There was only one elevator shaft that ran the entire vertical building. The elevator itself sealed the shaft. All other elevators were staggard and sealed off at each mechanical floor. The towers were 3 buildings in one. Each completely sealed and independent of the next section. Eyewitness accounts have the middle elevators having extensive damage coming from the bottom and the basement. The problem with the pressure wave/fireball theory is the lower, middle elevators only ran the bottom 27 floors. Very strange indeed. Cascading and pooling jet fuel coming from 1000 feet above, is going to destroy the lobby and multiple sub-basements, machine shops, giant lift presses, parking garages? According to NIST, there was only around 4500 gals available. A pressure wave isn't going to blow out concrete 5-7 basements down. There was only one stairwell that ran the whole height of the towers. Where was this fireball blowing out the stairwells and doors? Where was all the dark smoke from the jet fuel fireball? Very strange indeed. Why don't you ccp the account of a firefighter who was on the lower floors of the towers, checking for employees, and found about every 3 floors that the doors leading to the office areas were crumpled and damage coming from the inside. When he pried open one of the office doors, he found extensive damage, with a "white smoke event", with a covering of light dust and debris. No fire, no dark smoke. Very strange indeed. You are right, 0.3% of the steel was handpicked by FEMA/NIST, around 240 pieces and sections. These section were, according to FEMA/NIST, from the fire and impact zones. FEMA actually had some WTC 7 steel and it was tested. The steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel. Very strong diesel fuel, I guess. Very strange indeed. Before 911, no structual steel skyscaper has completely collasped from fire and or damage. The Madrid fire burned 20 times longer and burned at gas temps of over 2000 degrees. No primary structual steel vertical girder has ever failed due to fire. There has been localized failure of horizontal steel girders that have resulted in localized failure and collapse. This would result in the primary girders collapsing also because of no box support. Just like in the case of Madrid. Seriously, you need to get some new material. I seen all your stuff from LP. I won't continue long with you. Just enough to give you a good beatdown.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
BAC is in trouble here. We have alot of tradesmen that are on 4UM that work in construction. He really is going to get a good licking.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
You did a pretty nice job in #36!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Not strange at all. Just a matter of the energy involved, whether intense fires were started and the construction of the building. And let's get our facts straight. The Towers were NOT designed to withstand this sized plane impacting the towers at velocity they did. They were designed for a low speed impact in fog. The energy difference between the design and this impact is a function of the difference in velocity squared. See below: http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, ... snip ... The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers. ... snip ... 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." ... snip ... Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf "It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speed. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass, and travelling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 708 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274, 000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact." http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ "Still, it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all—even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft—considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed—about 180 miles per hour—and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."
*********** http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. 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. 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. NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: * the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and; * the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view." ***************** ***************** http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway. ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. ... snip ... J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. ************* http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity. "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain." Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says. From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity. The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community. -JKM ************* Before 911, no structural steel skyscraper was subjected to a high speed impact by a commercial jet loaded with fuel. I'd like to see your backup for that 2000 degree temperature claim but in any case, all portions of the Windsor (Madrid) tower that relied solely on a steel frame did in fact collapsed. Again, all portions of the Windsor (Madrid) tower that relied solely on a steel frame collapsed. The reason the Windsor tower as a whole didn't collapse is that it had a reinforced concrete core and the frame from the 17 floor on down was also reinforced concrete. "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." — Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 - 33 years.
Not so sure youre right on this one.. Hmm and have you forgotten the Empire State Building withstood THIS? :P
...and this... :P
Hm a B52.. ? hole 18 X 20 feet.. well ya know when that structure was built I'd venture to guess that the technology wasnt as advanced as when the WTC blgs were built..
Yeah... By the time the WTC Towers were built in the '60's and '70's, folks had forgotten about all that air traffic around NY (I hardly noticed it myself growing up there...), and it didn't occur to them that someone might either purposely or by accident fly a plane into a super-tall building at top speed... So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen... Of course... as we now know.... that obliviousness had tragic consequences on 9/11....
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;)
You mean they thought of that possibility...?? Even before Islamo-fascism and its unprecedented threat to our nation, freedom and way of life from people who want to kill us....??? How could they have had that kind of foresight..????????????????? :P
Frank DeMartini, project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center, says the WTC towers were designed to absorb multiple jetliner impacts. This interview was filmed inside the World Trade Center in January of 2001. Frank DeMartini died inside the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001... Frank DeMartini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil".
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;) Could you tell I was being a smartass in that last post? :P Seriously though, despite the probability that the "choosers" here will dismiss it as a "conspiracy site," here is a link to a good summary (with cross-referencing) of the design features of the WTC Towers which were indeed intended to provide the structual integrity and strength to withstand and survive just such an event as 9/11.
Uh huh :P Thanks for the link ..*
Now this is interesting from your link: "According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
Exactly. The "War on Terror" crowd wants the American public to believe that the WTC Towers were just engineering puffballs---gossamer phalli that would detumesce at the first significant traumatic insult.. :P
There ya go Zip. Great quote. I've used it before. The towers could lose around 25%-30% of its core girders or perimeter girders. In NISTs own report, the towers primary girders only saw 14% severe damage. You could lose around 60 perimeter girders and it would stand. It could see severe damage to around 15 core girders an still support the building. The steel used for the core was rated at 42,000psi and the outer girders at 100,000psi. Super strong stuff. The hat truss design at the top of the towers was the key to transfering the stresses from the inner to the outer girders. Good work.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Skilling, the main designer/architect also said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump. Also I found a real gem. Included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH. It is a smoking gun document. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Another thing to remember is that the steel used in the WTC Towers was certified to withstand the type of temperatures generated by the jet fuel and office contents fires that supposedly weakened the WTC Towers to the point of complete, rapid collapse, and much more than that.
Of course they did. Claims that no adequate consideration was given in the design and construction of the WTC Towers for the impact of large aircraft and the resulting fuel fires and structural damage, are so despicably mendacious they would have made Goebbels blush for shame.
In the NIST report, only 14% of primary girders saw severe and extensive damage. According to the main designers and architects, the towers could lose between 25- 30% and still stand. NIST has no proof of the airliners "dislodging" all the fireproofing completely from 5 floors of the towers. At the end of the NIST report, they quickly inserted a "experiment" where they used a shotgun and fired at a firecoated piece of steel. All it did was remove a very small section, all the rest of the girder shaped piece was still completely coated. Also in the NIST report is the fact that the fireproofing in the towers and in the area of impacts, had been upgraded to an average of 2.2 inches with a much more robust type of coating. This was started in the mid 90's. There is no energy for the planes to dislodge and scrap clean ALL the fireproofing. FEMA had MIT engineers calculate what happened to the planes on impact and the airliners energy was expended upon impact, just as the towers were designed to do. NIST has no hard scientific proof of 1000c gas temp fires. The only experiment involved was a double/triple experiment where NIST increased the known amount of jet fuel, then increased and over ventilated the fed jet fuel. NIST has no proof of sagging floors pulling the outer perimeter girders. In real physical experiments done by UL for NIST, not one full scale single floor model failed. No matter how much fireproofing was removed or how great the loads were induced. These live scale models were preformed at 2000 degrees for 2 hours. Lorring Knoblach, the head of UL, resigned after this. The only way NIST was able to prove that the perimeter girders could be pulled in is in computer software. NIST greatly exaggerated all the data, then when the computer model still didn't fail, NIST disconnected the floors from the outer girders. Then the model failed. The question is, if NIST is going to claim that the floor system pulled the perimeter girders in, by disconnecting them, how do they pull? NIST has stated that the WTC office floors were fuel poor and would burn out in around 20 min. It took the fire in the WTC 1 around a hour to work its way around from the north to the south face. After the fire fuel was gone, the fire zones quickly cooled down. That is apparent when photos show employees standing in and around the impact areas. Acid rain isn't going to evaporate structural steel, either is sulpher from some drywall. The temps seen to turn steel into swiss cheese is much, much too high. No office fire or diesel fire can do this. As far as Madrid, the physical temps may have been 1400 degrees but in the construction an magnesium alloy as an aluminum hardener for welding was being used. The temps that can reach is over 2000 degrees. The fire at Madrid was a magnesium fire.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Yes, it IS strange!!! While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse) Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact??? Did you see the picture of the bus being used in evacuation of hurricane Rita - the one that caught fire near Dallas? It was carrying people that had breathing problems, and were on oxygen. When the bus caught fire, it not only had the diesel from the bus feeding the fire, but the seats and whatever other combustible materials PLUS PURE OXYGEN feeding it - and the shell remained intact!!! Granted, the shell was quite charred, but it remained intact. There was no glass left, everyone in it died, there was basically NOTHING left BUT the STEEL. And how thick is that steel??? Certainly nowhere near inches thick... Why doesn't your barbeque grill melt down??? OR smudgepots used in citrus groves to protect from freezes??? I have one of those smudgepots, and have had the entire chimney glowing red for hours on end (fed by diesel), and it has yet to even deform, let alone collapse!!! And this chimney is made of only 20 gauge material... " src="http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n86/innieway/fire_wideweb__430x313.jpg">These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." WHAT????? CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT????? What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)????? And the second part of that totally ignorant fucking statement is something I addressed in my reply - the fact that it has been proven that NORAD can and has responded to situations much less serious, in airspace which was practically UNRESTRICTED in much less than a half hour, YET on 9/11 somehow magically COULD NOT (or more accurately - WOULD NOT) respond within 1½ hours to 4 commercial aircraft headed towards SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD!!! Of course, I notice you failed to comment on this. WHY??? BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH, YOU FUCKING SHILL!!! You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY??? Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THANK YOU for posting this!!!!! I knew I had seen this interview before. What a shame he died in the disaster. You know if he were still alive he'd be a voice to be reckoned with in the matter... At least nobody could argue his "credentials"...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
that is as stupid a statement as "fire turns steel into wet noodles." WHAT????? CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT????? What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)????? And the second part of that totally ignorant fucking statement is something I addressed in my reply - the fact that it has been proven that NORAD can and has responded to situations much less serious, in airspace which was practically UNRESTRICTED in much less than a half hour, YET on 9/11 somehow magically COULD NOT (or more accurately - WOULD NOT) respond within 1½ hours to 4 commercial aircraft headed towards SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD!!! well said. that alone is proof of guilt, imo.
Yes, and what seems to escape the shills like BAC is this rating is for tensile strength - a pulling measurement - rather than a compaction measurement... Like I've said before, a 200 lb man can stand on an empty beer can without crushing it. Of course the beer can can't be dented, but still - we're talking about mighty thin aluminum... Compare the strength of that can to even a tin can - (it's VERY easy to crush a beer can by hand, but try to do it to a soup can)... AND we're still talking about mighty thin material... Now compare those to the metal used in the Trade Center Buildings.... Jesus Christ - what has happened to common sense in this country??? I think it completely left this country concurrently with the gold standard...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
It doesn't eascape him. Shills are here for one purpose...to disrupt honest discussion and derail the thread. At this he is effective.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Thank you... I had tried to post images of the bus I was talking about, but somehow they failed to work (though they looked fine in the preview)... I didn't discover they hadn't posted until I was scrolling down from replying to Zip further up the thread....SO I tried to edit it, and still no luck. I was using the Opera web browser at the time. Opera is extremely fast, but it does have it's little 'quirks' that I still haven't gotten used to... So I'll see if I can get those images posted here.... (I'm back on Firefox now) No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Really? This assertion doesn't seem to match this image: Or this one: Can you explain how the Windsor Tower in Madrid saw measured temperatures of over 1400 F without any plane crash or jet fuel? The ignoramus who said that was the chief structural engineer and project manager on the WTC towers, Leslie Robertson. You haven't proven that the damage or fire in those structures was worse than in WTC7. Numerous firemen say the damage and fires in WTC 7 were bad enough that early on they knew they'd lose the building. As to why those others didn't collapse in the same manner? Call it luck. Call it the randomness of nature. Call it differences in construction. Call it differences in the way the fires were fought. Do you know that explosions were heard in some of those other structures? Were there bombs in them too? How many firemen do you think were involved in this mass murder, innieway? Then I suppose you are also saying that all the folks we rely on to design and build all the structures we use in our society also lack common sense ... because none (or at least very, very few) of them seem to buy into your allegations.
Curious. Are you an expert in buckling phenomena too? ROTFLOL! And by the way, the proper term is compression, not compaction. Compaction is what one does to soil foundations. But can a 200 lb man drop a foot onto a empty beer can without crushing it? That's more the situation that existed at the WTC towers.
This is false. DeMartini was NOT the project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center. He was about 14 at the time. And he was NOT a structural engineer. His degree was in architecture. And in that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. The WTC towers were NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. And by the way, it wasn't a B52 that hit the Empire State building. We wouldn't want you to confuse anyone, would we? As to Peetie's source on the design, http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Leslie E. Robertson – " 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." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "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." And Skilling wasn't the structural engineer of record. Robertson was.
Comments (66 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestas far as masterminding it, that's harder to swallow.
#26. To: robin (#8)
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#27. To: Eoghan, kiki (#26)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#28. To: IndieTX (#24)
i thought it was e e cummings...lol
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#29. To: IndieTX (#24)
(Edited)
#30. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/
http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/sources.html
#31. To: BeAChooser (#30)
A great blog related to the ScrewLooseChange video:
#32. To: BeAChooser (#30)
(Edited)
Honestly, while a good introduction for the average citizen, it has some sloppy of information.
#33. To: Kamala, ALL (#32)
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6
Rodriguez’s account has been corroborated by José Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that “sounded like a bomb,” after which “a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator.”7
Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”9
Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. ... snip ... These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse,
Christopher Bollyn,
Eric Hufschmid
Jim Hoffman
Jeffrey King
Randy Lavello
Kevin Ryan
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
#34. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#33)
But why is this unexpected if a plane full of fuel hit the structure and penetrated the elevator shafts as numerous eyewitnesses testified? One would expect fuel released from the impacting aircraft would enter the freight elevator shaft and explode, sending a pressure wave and fireball down the shaft.
#35. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, Inside Job, Former Lurker, Indie TX, SKYDRIFTER, All (#33)
(Edited)
Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
When Payne Stewart's charter flight went off course and started going north from the Panhandle of Florida, within 20 minutes NORAD had 2 fighters scrambled and on that situation like flies on shit. They were looking into the cockpit of the charter flight and reporting that the crew was unconscious - and stayed with that flight until it crashed. Yet for some reason, on 9/11 NORAD cannot manage to get even one fighter scrambled when 4 commercial airliners are flying off course for over an hour and a half - AND headed towards some of the most highly restricted airspace in the world????? BULLSHIT!!!!! 
Layout of Trade Center Complex 
WTC 3 
WTC 4 
WTC 5 
WTC 5 & 6
#36. To: BeAChooser (#33)
#37. To: innieway (#35)
#38. To: Kamala (#37)
BAC is in trouble here. We have alot of tradesmen that are on 4UM that work in construction. He really is going to get a good licking.
#39. To: innieway, ALL (#35)
Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!.
#40. To: Kamala, ALL (#36)
NIST has backed away and said the towers did not pancake.
FEMA actually had some WTC 7 steel and it was tested. The steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel.
Before 911, no structual steel skyscaper has completely collasped from fire and or damage.
The Madrid fire burned 20 times longer and burned at gas temps of over 2000 degrees.
No primary structual steel vertical girder has ever failed due to fire. There has been localized failure of horizontal steel girders that have resulted in localized failure and collapse. This would result in the primary girders collapsing also because of no box support. Just like in the case of Madrid.
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#41. To: BeAChooser (#40)
And let's get our facts straight. The Towers were NOT designed to withstand this sized plane impacting the towers at velocity they did
#42. To: Zipporah (#41)
Hmm and have you forgotten the Empire State Building withstood THIS? :P
#43. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#42)
#44. To: Zipporah (#43)
Hm a B52.. ? hole 18 X 20 feet.. well ya know when that structure was built I'd venture to guess that the technology wasnt as advanced as when the WTC blgs were built..
#45. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#44)
So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen...
#46. To: Zipporah (#45)
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;)
#47. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#46)
#48. To: Zipporah (#45)
So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen...
#49. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
Could you tell I was being a smartass in that last post? :P
#50. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
#51. To: Zipporah (#50)
#52. To: Zipporah (#50)
#53. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
#54. To: Kamala, Zipporah (#52)
#55. To: Kamala (#53)
Skilling, the main designer/architect also said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump.
#56. To: BeA Chooser, Esso, inneway, welders, *9-11* (#40)
#57. To: BeAChooser (#39)
(Edited)
Not strange at all...
="
#58. To: Zipporah (#47)
Frank DeMartini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil".
#59. To: innieway (#57)
These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets."
#60. To: Kamala (#52)
The steel used for the core was rated at 42,000psi and the outer girders at 100,000psi. Super strong stuff.
#61. To: innieway (#60)
what seems to escape the shills like BAC
#62. To: christine, Be A Chooser, Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, Kamala, ALL (#59)
(Edited)
well said.
#63. To: innieway, ALL (#57)
While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse)
Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact???
These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. ... snip ... What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)?????
You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY???
Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
#64. To: innieway, ALL (#60)
Yes, and what seems to escape the shills like BAC is this rating is for tensile strength - a pulling measurement - rather than a compaction measurement...
Like I've said before, a 200 lb man can stand on an empty beer can without crushing it.
Now compare those to the metal used in the Trade Center Buildings....
#65. To: Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#47)
Frank DeMartini, project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center, says the WTC towers were designed to absorb multiple jetliner impacts. This interview was filmed inside the World Trade Center in January of 2001. Frank DeMartini died inside the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001
.
.
.