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: 19210
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 (1-48) not displayed.
.
.
.
#49. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
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.
Guess I'm going to have to debunk this on multiple threads. Oh well. Skilling was NOT the main designer. The structural engineer of record was Leslie Robertson who moved to NYC where the design was done. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Besides the Skilling white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center , Leslie E. Robertson, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002, 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." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. And that makes more sense then assuming commercial jets were going to crash into buildings at maximum velocity. 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. You might want to read the history of what went on back then: http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf "The Height of Ambition: Part Four September 8, 2002 By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON ... snip ... But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year,another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of mid air collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said. The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost - he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counter attack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."
ASSUMING that they weren't weakened by fire. And what if that 14% loss were concentrated in one region of the structure? Surely the designers and architects weren't saying the structure would stand if that occurred. Also, for the record, the designers and architects of the WTC are on the record saying that they believe impact and fire are what brought the towers down. Not bombs or microwaves. It isn't alleged that the planes dislodged "all" fireproofing on 5 floors. Nice strawman. Secondly, NIST does have evidence that an impact of the sort that occurred would dislodge fireproofing. Both test and computer modeling. http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm Again, what is your source for this claim. NIST isn't claiming that aviation fuel was the fuel in the 1000 C fires. But other things in those towers could burn. How do you think the Madrid fire saw temperatures over 1000 C? Actually, they do. They have visual proof that the floors where sagging and VERY GOOD structural models that tell them the outer perimeter girders would be pulled inward as a result. Plus, they have visual confirmation before the collapse that inward pulling was occurring. Didn't you ever see the pictures and videos? Prove this. It is untrue. NIST did not test the floors without fireproofing. They modeled the floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before impact. Plus, the trusses were physically undamaged. You are trying to paint a picture that misrepresents what NIST did. Why is that? You don't apparently understand the boundary conditions of their model. Plus, again, you aren't fairly representing what NIST actually did. This is false. And, what matters is the time it took the fire to move into the region on the opposite side from the impact. That's where the sagging floors and failure began. As you yourself note, it took about an hour for the fire to work its way around. The fact that people were seen standing in the impact hole is irrelevant since the impact hole is not where the failure began. Perhaps you should consult the experts who seem to disagree with you. Again, let's see your source for this claim. Don't you have one?
Only if the fireproofing coatings were intact. And the experts and computers models indicate they wouldn't have been after the impact.
I imagine that the wings and the tail just fell off the plane before impact. and probably got swept up innocently by a street-sweeper. wings & tails always fall off of commercial jets flying through the air. especially when they know they're going to hit the pentagon. what do you think they are? Stupid!!! that's good thinking BAC. thanks for explaining.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The bottom line is that a cheap stopwatch attests to the freefall of the three WTC buildings - that makes the "collapse" impossible, by itself. Just follow the money, thereafter. The rest is BAC's constant and reliable bullshit. Why anyone wastes much time with BAC on this topic amazes me. Why patronize his infamous disinformation? Sheesh! "Get BAC, get BAC to the trash where he belongs."
Post a photo of what you think the entrance hole was, Red. Tell us the dimensions of that hole.
you posted a photo in #33. I don't know the dimensions of the hole, but you said the hole wasn't big enough for wings & tail to have gone through. so I'm assuming they fell off before hitting the building. Do you disagree? the pentagon is one stout building. wings & tails of attacking planes fall off before even getting there.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
hope you can continue posting over here. We could always use a world-renowned september 11 expert. your friend Badeye posts over here sometimes after five, and on weekends too. I think the both of you are extremely smart. and are a great addition to the posters here. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ha! Ha! Your big problem with me is that I've READ large sections of the reports. I don't ccp 30 url's and 1000 word paragraphs from Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and 911 Myths Debunked. I don't know if your being deceptive in your CCP, it just maybe that the sites you visit, exclude the damaging, conflicting results that are in the reports and quotes from others. Your already reduced to saying this is false, that is false, this is a lie, that is a lie. No, you just haven't READ the sections that have this information. Wait, I mean ccp. I don't ccp my information, I type it from memory because I've read the documents that contain it. You want sources? Do your own research. I'm not here to spend my time doing your work. You know what my qualifications are? I'm a concerned American citizen. I study 911 and the reports to point out all the deception, contradiction and false conclusions. The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions. In almost every instance, NIST opted for the most extreme model, even though there was no proof of said conditions. NIST didn't even have enough proof on certain more realistic modeling. I have a very busy week of work and time is limited. I'll be around checking in briefly, so don't think I've gone away just yet. I have more FEMA/NIST deception for you.
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
CCP ? Copy cut paste? CP Copy Paste would be sufficient, cutting is not needed.
God is always good! Even engines fall off too. It's amazing the survival instincts that are programmed into these mechanical and structural parts of an airplane. Everyone assumes the plane had to be flown by remote control, but this plane might have been so smart to know exactly where it was and what course and actions to take at certain locations. No remote control necessary.
God is always good! Actually, several. Photos showing what the structure looked like on both sides of the 16-19 foot diameter central hole. The central hole is the one the conspiracy sites and videos (like LooseChange) always point to when they make the claim that the plane couldn't possibly have entered the building through such a small hole. What they dishonestly do is ignore the large holes on both sides of that hole. Why not? That information is all over the internet (if you can get past the million conspiracy websites). The width of the hole is somewhere between 75 and 95 feet according to most accounts that actually look at all the pre-collapse pictures. I happen to think it's at least 90 feet. I did not say that. Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize what I've said, Red? I said most of the plane penetrated the structure. I said those portions of the wings (and the tail) that lacked sufficient mass to penetrate shattered and were either burned up or found downrange of the impact location. Since most of the wings contained fuel, they had sufficient mass to penetrate. Which is why you see wide wing shaped holes on both sides of the central hole, which is presumably made by the fuselage. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of damage to the outer face of the wall in those locations where the wing would have hit but not penetrated. Here: And here's a videoclip produced using a CAD tool that in one section overlays the plane's dimensions against images of the damage done to the structure. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only
Produced by whom? Integrated Consultants Inc., a defense contractor. No bias there. Nope. None at all. lmao
Over at LP, I couldn't even get you to admit that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet across. With the pictures staring you in the face. So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
the evidence of flight 800's fuel tank explosion, which is nonsense, also rested upon a cia sponsored computer simulation that was so implausible it had the jet ascend after the explosion some hundred feet, then roll over. same modus operandi here. its basically like asking for evidence from someone, then accepting whatever they offer after its proven they paid a third party to manufacture it. (rather like those who claim to be gods chosen people, offering evidence they themselves supply, written by themselves, benefitting themselves, strangely enough) but no one is really that stupid. they are either insane, or just liars. all of the above is likely as well.
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
Using the windows as a guide, the biggest single hole appears to be around 17 feet. So what caused the collapse far to the right of the central hole? I'm estimating thermite did the job, shattering the concrete pillars. The fire was too brief and there is no suggestion that the pillars were impacted. No penetrating damage to the front = no impact damage.
If you want the low-down on TWA-800; go here -
If he's smart he will. By the way, was Jackie Onassis really flying the plane when Ron Brown was converted into a pod person?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
My uncle's cousin's girlfriend's brother says Bigfoot helped move the WMD to Syria before the war. You need to clue in NewsMax to this important fact.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Critter, BAC asserts there was a hole in the 9-11 Pentagon, broader than 20 feet. Damage certainly spread further, but as to a hole, I never saw anything to exceed 20 feet, let alone any viable suggestion of forward-moving damage. Did I miss something?
We are looking into the Elvis / WMD connection now. He's not really dead you know.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
I knew a programmer who named a unix server elvis so that when he "pinged" it, it would come back with "elvis is alive".
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Probably. Because we have been through this over and over, and you have been proven wrong over and over, so what is the use? lol
He has also posted a photo which clearly shows nothing, but he insists that it clearly shows a hole at least 90 feet wide. I want some of the dope he's smoking. hehehe
Comments (90 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCould 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
#66. To: Kamala, Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#52)
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.
#67. To: Kamala, Zipporah, Peetie WheatStraw, ALL (#56)
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.
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.
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.
#68. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#54)
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.
#69. To: BeAChooser (#33)
Untrue. The entrance hole is large enough to accommodate everything but the wing tips and the tail of the plane
#70. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#69)
#71. To: Red Jones, ALL (#69)
I imagine that the wings and the tail just fell off the plane before impact
#72. To: BeAChooser (#71)
Post a photo of what you think the entrance hole was, Red. Tell us the dimensions of that hole.
#73. To: BeAChooser, Badeye After Five, Weekend Badeye (#71)
#74. To: BeAChooser, honway, formerlurker, wakeup, angle, critter, esso, skydrifter, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, BTP holdings, , *9-11* (#67)
#75. To: Kamala (#74)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#76. To: Red Jones (#72)
the pentagon is one stout building. wings & tails of attacking planes fall off before even getting there.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#77. To: Red Jones, ALL (#72)
you posted a photo in #33.
I don't know the dimensions of the hole,
but you said the hole wasn't big enough for wings & tail to have gone through.
#78. To: BeAChooser (#77)
And here's a videoclip produced using a CAD tool that in one section overlays the plane's dimensions against images of the damage done to the structure.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#79. To: Critter, ALL (#78)
Integrated Consultants Inc., a defense contractor. No bias there. Nope. None at all. lmao
#80. To: Kamala (#74)
The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions.
#81. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#72)
#82. To: gengis gandhi, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#80)
#83. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#79)
(Edited)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#85. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#79)
#86. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#87. To: Minerva (#86)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#88. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#89. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeALooser I mean BeAChooser (#85)
BAC asserts there was a hole in the 9-11 Pentagon, broader than 20 feet.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
.
.
.