See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts”
Source:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765
URL Source: http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765
Published: Mar 10, 2007
Author: Kevin Ryan
Post Date: 2007-03-10 05:15:25 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 2665
Comments: 86
Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts” Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Thu, 03/08/2007 - 4:02pm. NIST report | wtc When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime. The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable of, or more likely to, tell the truth. Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events. From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.” What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3] Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”. Getting back to those experts at BMSP, we see that DOD employs a number of consulting firms to help out Corley and Sozen, in what is called the Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), including ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates.[4] It should be noted that most of these firms were major contributors to the various official explanations for collapse of the WTC buildings, as well as being government contractors in fields related to terrorism. Strangely, despite their overwhelming expertise in the use of explosives, none of their explanations for the WTC events had anything to do with explosives. That’s not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & O’Mara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the “One Guy, One Truck Bomb” political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin. After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”[6] When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeaux’s company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, “Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thornton’s company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero. In any case, it is clear that Rothschild’s primary experts have a long history of involvement in US government interests, and in highly questionable engineering reports. But surely the “engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country” could not all be so tied to US government interests. There must be some objective members within the group of scientists supporting the Bush Administration’s theories, and some agreement among scientists around the world. The truth is that interpretation of the events at the WTC does include some agreement from all parties. We all agree that no tall steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed uniformly at nearly free-fall speed into a pile of rubble for any reason whatsoever, outside of demolition. And we’re in agreement that the first three occasions of such an event supposedly occurred all on the same day, all in the same place. To round out a quick agreement, we can all safely say that these improbable events were the emotional basis for the passing of legislation that had already been written (e.g. the Patriot Act), and for the invasion of several strategically-important countries, the plans for which were already in the works. From there, however, the views of the government’s credentialed experts diverge from those who are more interested in objectively seeking the truth. The initial facts of agreement should lead any objective person to seek a detailed investigation that leaves no hypothesis un-examined. But for the government’s credentialed experts, only one hypothesis was worthy of consideration, a fire-based failure of all three buildings that jibed with the overall official version of the events of that day. In support of that fire-based triple play, the experts gave us a progression of false stories. The media gave us the first false story, with help from PhD engineers, some of whom were contributors to the official reports. Eduardo Kausel, an “engineering professor at MIT” and contributor to the WTC report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), suggested to us in Scientific American that this catastrophe was probably due to the jet fuel fires melting the steel in the buildings.[8] He was joined in this early theory by a handful of other PhD engineers and professors around the country, and by the US government’s top suspect - Osama Bin Laden. The US State Department still promotes the melting steel theory by promoting the alleged confession video of the alleged Bin Laden, which Matthew Rothschild finds convincing as well. In this confession video, the credentialed expert Bin Laden said -- “Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building..."[9] Apparently Bin Laden’s plan was a complete failure after all, because even the experts now agree that jet fuel-accelerated office fires cannot melt steel (or Iron for that matter). Another structural engineer who made early claims of melting steel, in the infamous 2002 Nova video “Why the Towers Fell”, was Matthys Levy. Mr. Levy was a principal at the BMAG consulting firm Weidlinger Associates that, later, with the help of many other PhD engineers, produced a report on the WTC disaster as part of an insurance claim by Larry Silverstein.[10] This Silverstein-Weidlinger investigation was based on extensive computer modeling and involved many of the same contractors that contributed to the government studies. Their final report told us that floor failure had nothing to do with the WTC disasters, but “that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses.”[11] At the time, Levy told us “There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure.”[12] Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NIST’s final report came out in 2005, the “Pancake Theory” had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report. This was strange, considering many of the same experts were involved in both the FEMA and Weidlinger investigations, including Gene Corley. Amazingly enough, just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse”.[13] NIST’s findings, first reported in their final draft report of October 2004 and built over a period of several years, originally consisted of two considerably different stories for the two towers. But NIST modified this nine months later in their final, final draft report, giving just one story for both towers about “widely-dislodged” fireproofing and sagging floors pulling the external columns inward, with no mention of pancaking. Their final, final collapse initiation sequence, the essence of their report, is now known to be false in every aspect.[14] Through the years, NIST and the other official investigators ignored the demolition hypothesis completely, as can be seen from their reports and archived presentations. That’s not surprising though, as the scientists working for FEMA and NIST, and therefore for the Bush Administration, would not likely lead their investigation toward a result that would limit or stop the 9/11 Wars. For example John Gross of NIST and Therese McAllister of Greenhorne & O’Mara, who not only co-authored the most important sections of NIST’s report, but were also primary authors of FEMA’s report, continue to act deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to evidence for the demolition hypothesis.[15] And we can imagine that all those “independent” contractors who contributed to the ever-changing story, who were also consulting firms for the DOD’s interesting Blast Mitigation Action Group, would be hard-pressed to offer an explanation that would require a less militarily focused solution. The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics. This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all. It's in PM’s book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths”, that we find this survey. Here they include other figures like Forman Williams, although they fail to tell you that Dr. Williams was also a member of NIST’s top advisory committee, and therefore was defending his own work. Williams is presented by PM as a disinterested academic expert, but one must wonder how disinterested Williams was when the University of California San Diego received $393 million in federal grants in 2005, the same year the NIST WTC report came out, with his own Engineering department receiving $44 million of that sum.[18] Another of PM’s disinterested experts was Engineering professor Richard Fruehan of Carnegie Mellon University, an institute that received $100 million in federal grants that same year, with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total. In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration’s terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19] In the forward to PM’s book, Republican Senator John McCain describes how he feels the truth behind September 11th is more mundane than “conspiracy mongers” would have us believe. Strangely, he refers us to the “banality of Nazi evil” to show that 9/11 was probably not an elaborate conspiracy. That is, according to McCain, 9/11 was probably NOT part of a simple plan by corporate-funded politicians to maintain and expand their power, but was instead the work of a small group of powerless fanatics whose plans to bring about worldwide totalitarian rule were held back only by our own cherished freedoms. That’s a tough bit to swallow, to be sure, but the idea that a Hearst publication would resort to the “banality of Nazi evil” is absolutely astounding. That’s because in writing this forward, Senator McCain joined an infamous group of Hearst publication authors, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering, who wrote for Hearst, the latter until 1938.[20] Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed “experts”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up. It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11 and the changes in worldview that might be demanded of such an examination. The problem is, the easy answers have all been wrong, while at the same time the experts have ignored one fairly simple hypothesis that is now becoming obvious to many. It should be clear that this is because the credentialed experts we’ve been dealing with are all quite well invested in maintaining the official version of events. 1. Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, September 11, 2006 http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx091106 2. For a short description of DOD’s BMSP, see “Department of Defense Should Broaden Communication Efforts to Protect Federal and Civilian Buildings From Bomb Attacks”, The National Academy of Sciences, November 2001, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10230 3. Missing Trillions: Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference, http://911Research.com, http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html 4. US Army Corps of Engineers, Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), Consulting Firms, https://bmag.usace.army.mil/consulting_firms.php 5. Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building, Mlakar, Corley, Sozen, Thornton, 1997, http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf 6. General Partin’s letter to Senator Lott can be found in its entirety in the Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, April, 19,1995, The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Appendix, page 378-380. This letter is also reproduced here -http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm 7. See Context of 'March 6, 2002: House Committee on Science Holds Hearing on WTC Collapses Investigation, Cooperative Research, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a030602collapseheari... 8.“When the Twin Towers Fell”, Scientific American, October 9, 2001 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ 9. The US State Department still appears to be promoting this first false theory by promoting Osama (Fatty) Bin Laden’s baseless statements. US State Department website: The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=A... 10. Profile: Weidlinger Associates, Cooperative Research http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=weidlinger_associat... 11. “Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures”, Engineering News-Record, 10/25/02, McGraw Hill Construction, http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp 12. Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing, Engineering News-Record, 11/04/02 http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp 13. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, August 2006, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm 14. See my essay, What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps, at the Journal of 911 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com . Also see the critique of my presentation Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, http://911Research.com, 10/15/06 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html 15. See video of John Gross’ presentation at the University of Texas Austin, with testimonies and evidence of molten metal at the WTC. Project for New American Citizens, http://911blogger.com/node/6104 16. “A 9/11 Conspiracy Virus is Sweeping the World, But it Has No Basis in Fact”, George Monbiot, The Guardian, February 6, 2007, http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2007519,00.html 17. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Facts, Dunbar & Reagan, Hearst Press, 2006. Note: See also Eduardo (melting steel) Kausel’s glowing review in the front cover. 18. See http://Fedspending.org, Grants, http://www.fedspending.org/ 19. City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz and Eric Lipton, (New York: Times Books, 2003), 138 20. Remembering “The Chief”, PBS’s Online NewsHour, 9/07/00, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/nasaw_9-7.html
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: SKYDRIFTER (#9)
I have a problem with calling the towers a controlled demolition and they definietly did not fall into their own footprint. It was a demolition, no doubt, but it was not controlled in the traditional sense. The perps cared not where the debris landed, and it landed all over the place. That it did indeed land all over the place is proof that it was demolished by explosives, in my opinion. If it was a gravity induced collapse there would have been more debris in the footprint. It is easy to confuse photos of debris piles at the WTC after the fact. Once the cranes moved in and began piling stuff, it looks a lot different than it did immediately after the collapse. I searched far and wide to find verifiable images of the debris field before search and rescue really got going, and the actual footprints of the towers had the least debris. There is no way a gravity induced failure would leave so little in the footprint. I think it does the movement a huge disservice to call the towers a controlled demolition when it is obvious that it was an out of control demolition with debris flying all over. All anyone has to do to debunk the controlled demolition theory is point to the widely scattered debris, and your argument is blown away.
Who says lightning doesn't strike twice? When he went into court for two terrorist acts, claiming that the two planes were two separate acts, it was obvious he was one greedy SOB. And Lucky Larry won. No one else's buildings fell that day, just his.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Is it just me, or is the NIST Report even WORSE than "speculation"? I mean, isn't it it's own contradiction? Doesn't the Report make the case for the "pancake theory"? Yet in the FAQ section of NIST's website we see (partially) in answer to the question Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.: They didn't??? Yet in response to the question How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? we see: As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, (isn't sequentially just a different word for progressively?) the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely. Is this NOT the "pancake theory"? Which is it, did the floors fail progressively/sequentially, or did they NOT? We see too from this answer that "the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass". Why would they provide "little resistance"? And concerning the "tremendous energy", how much of that "energy" was "spent" in the "pulverization" of that falling mass? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. It took a good amount of "energy" to pulverize that mass, thereby leaving less energy to overcome resistance provided by the following intact floor... We must also note that the question pertained to the freefall time of a ball dropped in a vacuum, with no air resistance. Yet there is no doubt that there had to have been air resistance along with structural resistance in the collapses. IN FACT, in response to the question Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions? we see: So we not only have "air resistance" but according to NIST, we have COMPRESSED air - which by any scientific standard MUST provide even greater resistance; ESPECIALLY when it's resisting DUST. We also see the question Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow? and the (partial) answer: The TOP of a window??? Is this not a strange phenomena? How did this "molten stream" manage to exit at the top of a window as opposed to the bottom? Does this not defy gravity? One more thing - if "pancaking" is due to the "weight" of the upper part of the building falling onto the lower part after the section previously supporting the weight above it "fails", then logic would assume that if a reasonably large building were to be brought down by controlled demolition, perhaps the main ingredient necessary would be to "blow" or remove the "base" of the structure. If all else went wrong, it should still come down (albeit rather "messily" perhaps) right??? After all, wouldn't the energy exerted on the bottom floor above the "blast" resulting from all the weight above it suddenly being "dropped" be enough to at least collapse that floor? And under any circumstances, if the building at least began to "topple" from the very bottom, wouldn't gravity if nothing else take over from there? You're right, the NIST Report is garbage. OH, and don't bother BAC - I won't respond to satanists - which is what anyone supporting the "official story" and the government's subsequent illegal invasions (which are directly responsible for the maiming and deaths of innocent children) is.
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
I have studied the videos of the so called core remaining standing. If you look at them VERY carefully, they are not core sections at all. They are perimeter sections. You have to pause and play and follow the line of the perimeter corner down as the buildings collapses with your finger or a pencil. Once the building is gone, you will see that what is standing is a corner of the building no where near the core. Yet just looking at the videos and assuming what you see is the core, because that is what you are told, it is easy to believe it is the core. What prompted me to do this is that I expected to see a bunch of core columns on the top of the debris pile, in photos taken immediately after the collapse, and there was no such pile. 40 and 50 stories of core pieces would have made a heck of a pile.
Yes, it would have. I agree completely - the "core" was destroyed immediately, right along with the rest of the buildings. The part you quoted from my post was a part of the answer by NIST in response to a question posed to them. More proof of their lies.
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
Oops! (to the video) The way the towers project the debris in an arch shows the amount of force involved. No pancake fall would pulverize cement and eject steel beams, embedding some into neighboring buildings. http://www.vt911.org/finalcollapse%20analysis.htm How did the central suppot collumns have parts of it evaporated? Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I want you guys to watch innieway's video first, and listen to the sound of the explosion, then watch at least the first 30 seconds of this: Sound similar? By all means, watch the whole thing though. Some good stuff there. This might be a good documentary when it is done.
In fact, please do what I just did. I click on innieway's video to start it and quickly scrolled down to the one I posted and clicked on it too. The timing was almost perfect, and i head innie's explosiom like 3 seconds before mine. The sound is almost identical.
I'm not sure thermite/thermate would either... How does your picture compare to this one? (or the many we've seen at the start of the collapses) 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
"funny" similarity isn't there?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush If the perps had been uncaring, they would have hit/blown the buildings at their bases, allowing them to topple. The killers had a conscience, of some sort; that's not Islamic terrorists. If the 9-11 WTC is not three "footprint" demolitions; they don't exist.
A stop-watrch says it all!
Oh yeah, that looks like a progressive gravity collapse. The great thing about the NIST report is that it doesn't explain the dynamics of the actual collapse. The NIST stops when the towers are "poised" for collapse. The closer the NIST gets to the actual event, the more and more vague NIST gets. Even though the whole report is nothing but vague contradictions and misleading statements.
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
I agree. Did you see the video I posted in 12?
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
Building 7, yes, not the towers. If you insist on that, you will end up looking silly.
The videos of the buildings falling, the videos of the sequenced blasts; they certify the obvious. That's not in the realm of anyone looking silly. Just follow the money! "Israel uber alles!"
Wouldn't do to draw attention to the obvious.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Reading all this, one thing dawned on me... the argument for fire causing 1 and 2 to go down is based solely on fireproofing being dislodged and sprinklers not working as a result of the planes. Fireproofing did not get dislodged in 7 and the sprinklers should have been working. I don't know if anyone ever mentions that.
I'm not saying they weren't demolished with explosives, I'm just saying they didn't come down in their footprint. That is certifiable. If you insist they came down in the foot print, you will be made to look silly by debunkers.
I think of it as a slightly sloppy footprint, as opposed to tipping over and falling onto the buildings next to it.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Depends on your policy, whether you have it insured for "fair market" or "replacement" cost. /end hijack
The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".
If they rigged it for a "controlled" demolition, it would have been a lot neater pile and would have started at the bottom. If they started it at the bottom, it would have looked as suspicious as building 7. So it was rigged to come down starting at the top, but to do that, they had to have little care about where the debris landed. It may have been technically a controlled demolition, but to say it was a footprint collapse is bordering on obsurd. I do not use the term controlled demolition when referring to the towers for that reason. It does little good to be easily made to look silly.
If you insist they came down in the foot print, you will be made to look silly by debunkers. Despite splitting hairs, the WTC towers are as much in the realm of "Own- Footprint" as anyone can ask for. Even if you don't approve! A stop-watch says it all!
A stop watch says demolition. Pictures say uncontrolled. Footprint is so far off the scale as to be almost ludicrous. That is not splitting hairs. That is trying to get the truth out without leaving oneself open to be made to look like an idiot.
That is trying to get the truth out without leaving oneself open to be made to look like an idiot. Bullshit!
So it was rigged to come down starting at the top, but to do that, they had to have little care about where the debris landed. I agree WTC1 and WTC2 demolitions were different from WTC7, which was a traditional demolition.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Whoever it was that has said that they believe that the controlled demolition of Bldg 7 was supposed to be timed with the collapse of one of the towers was spot on I believe. Building 7 is a classic controlled demolition. The fact that it did not go off as planned is a huge thorn in the side of the murderers and is the main reason that the media pretends it never happened. If the towers had come down in a controlled fashion like that, the media would have to pretend the whole incident didn't happen, it would have looked so bad. If 7 had come down at the right time, all we would be hearing, to this day, is how all three buildings collapsed, and how awful it was that one of the towers literally crushed building 7 down to the ground.
Have it your way. lmao
The core of the WTC towers were collapsed, with the outer walls containing the fall of the debris, to the maximum extend possible. It worked!
hmmm, let me check the locations. http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm That's an interesting idea, but it would have had to take out more than WTC7 I think.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Well, it wasn't actually supposed to take it out, just make it seem like it did. 7 was rigged to come down, as were the towers, but one tower collapsing, the closest I presume, was going to be given as the reason 7 came down too. In all the dust and confusion, who would ever know how it came down?
There were clearly explosives used in the upper floors, throwing the debris out in an arch, and allowing the free fall. WTC1 and WTC2 fell with the upper floors exploding, WTC7 had none of that.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I see what you mean. And in the morning, all the cameras were on WTC1 and WTC2, not WTC7.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Then, according to whoever it was that said this, 7 didn't come down. Now it stood there like a sore thumb. OOOPS! It took a while to figure out what went wrong and fix it. I guess it took til about 5. Now they have a problem and their behavior concerning this problem is EXACTLY what you would expect it to when such a problem exists, isn't it? Ignore it, deny it, suppress it, destroy the evidence, do whatever it takes, but make it go away.
Right and once a tower started down, all that dust and debris obscured any view of anything in that area, so there's a very good chance the collapse never would have been seen by anyone at all.
Ah, but weren't they using WTC7 as Command Central on the morning of 9/11? The still unexplained helicopters over the towers, watching the flights on the radar; so much timing involved.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush I would say that WTC 1&2 were a controlled top- down explosion. The towers took around 15 seconds or around 1/5th-1/6th a second per floor to collapse. While WTC 7 took 1/8th of a second per floor to fall. All three collapsed symmetrically, be it bottom-up or top-down, despite different asymmetrical damage and fire. Thats one of the keys. Either way, WAY TOO FAST for a "gravity" collapse. Never has a building exhibited all aspects of demolition, NOT been a demolition. I believe in the WTC Towers, a type of nano- spray gel, very high velocity explosive was used.
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
Given the building design differences, there would automatically have been two different approaches to their destruction. An awful lot of the lateral projection of towers' debris was the lateral component of the compressing debris, as the towers collapsed - that was a huge amount of mass, with a horrendous acceleration. How much was gravity and how much was explosives is anyone's guess. The towers were a complex series of events. In any case, the result is the same. All that proof of the inside-job.
The towers took around 15 seconds or around 1/5th-1/6th a second per floor to collapse. While WTC 7 took 1/8th of a second per floor to fall. All three collapsed symmetrically, be it bottom-up or top-down, despite different asymmetrical damage and fire. Thats one of the keys. That's a good way of explaining it.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Officially, they weren't. Guliani never went there. Unofficially, they may have been. And once the planes were safely into the towers and the demo was to begin, they probably set the timing sequence from 7 and left out the back. However, the towers came down as planned but something went wrong in 7, which had to be fixed before it could be taken down to destroy the evidence contained within. They could not let that building remain standing or they were screwed. Sounds very plausible doesn't it? It's the scenario that seems to best fit the evidence, and the behavior after the fact.
I don't think it takes much of a guess if you look at the immediate aftermath. In the footprint there is relatively little debris. That indicates to me that it was more the result of explosives than gravity. If gravity played any significant part in it, more would have stayed within the footprint.
Comments (51 - 86) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#11. To: SKYDRIFTER (#9)
In New York, arson is traditionally known as "Jewish Lightning." Larry got a BIG check!
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#12. To: Kamala, SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Critter (#5)
(Edited)
The NIST Report is nothing more than speculation based on false computer modeling.
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 estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds.
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
For your perusal:
#13. To: innieway (#12)
(Edited)
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#14. To: Critter (#13)
40 and 50 stories of core pieces would have made a heck of a pile.
#15. To: innieway (#12)
How did steel girders that weigh 4 tons get ejected 600 feet out of the building?
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#16. To: innieway, Kamala, SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, (#12)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#17. To: innieway, Kamala, SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#16)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#18. To: robin (#15)
The way the towers project the debris in an arch shows the amount of force involved. No pancake fall would pulverize cement and eject steel beams, embedding some into neighboring buildings.
Nuclear blast in Nevada
#19. To: innieway (#18)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#20. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#10)
I have a problem with calling the towers a controlled demolition and they definietly did not fall into their own footprint.
#21. To: innieway (#12)
#22. To: robin (#15)
#23. To: SKYDRIFTER (#21)
A stop-watrch says it all!
they would have hit/blown the buildings at their bases, allowing them to topple.
#24. To: SKYDRIFTER (#20)
If the 9-11 WTC is not three "footprint" demolitions; they don't exist.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#25. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#24)
Building 7, yes, not the towers. If you insist on that, you will end up looking silly.
#26. To: Kamala (#22)
The NIST stops when the towers are "poised" for collapse. The closer the NIST gets to the actual event, the more and more vague NIST gets.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#27. To: Kamala (#22)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#28. To: SKYDRIFTER (#25)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#29. To: Critter (#28)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#30. To: SKYDRIFTER (#9)
If your house burns down, the insurance company builds you a new one - you don't get a check delivered.
#31. To: robin (#29)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#32. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#28)
#33. To: SKYDRIFTER (#32)
(Edited)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#34. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#33)
#35. To: Critter (#31)
If they started it at the bottom, it would have looked as suspicious as building 7.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#36. To: SKYDRIFTER, Robin (#32)
(Edited)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#37. To: SKYDRIFTER (#34)
Bullshit!
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#38. To: robin (#35)
So it was rigged to come down starting at the top, but to do that, they had to have little care about where the debris landed.
#39. To: Critter (#36)
If 7 had come down at the right time, all we would be hearing, to this day is how all three buildings collapsed, and how awful it was that one of the towers literally crushed building 7 down to the ground.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#40. To: robin (#39)
That's an interesting idea, but it would have had to take out more than WTC7 I think.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#41. To: SKYDRIFTER (#38)
The core of the WTC towers were collapsed, with the outer walls containing the fall of the debris, to the maximum extend possible.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#42. To: Critter (#40)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#43. To: robin (#39)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#44. To: robin (#42)
(Edited)
And in the morning, all the cameras were on WTC1 and WTC2, not WTC7.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#45. To: Critter (#43)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#46. To: robin (#35)
#47. To: robin (#41)
#48. To: Kamala (#46)
I would say that WTC 1&2 were a controlled top- down explosion.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#49. To: robin (#45)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#50. To: SKYDRIFTER (#47)
How much was gravity and how much was explosives is anyone's guess.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
.
.
.