See other 9/11 Articles
Title: The 9/11 – 7/7 Connection and other 911 Videos
Source:
video.google.com : youtube
URL Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7193024010983572797
Published: May 15, 2007
Author: many
Post Date: 2007-05-15 19:44:08 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 491
Comments: 59
The 9/11 – 7/7 Connection and other 911 VideosThe 9/11 – 7/7 Connection and other 911 Videos On Friday 22nd July 2005, Ian Crane opened the Glastonbury Symposium with an analysis of the sinister geopolitical webs that have been ... all » spun, resulting in the tragic events of 9/11 and 7/7. Just two weeks after 7/7, Ian's research already indicated that the official version of the supposed 'terror' attacks in London cannot stand up to the scrutiny of research. The subsequent failed attacks on 21/7, the assassination of Jean-Charles Menezes the folowing day and the bombing at Sharm-El-Sheik in Egypt on July 23rd raise even more painful and very disturbing questions. This compilation of two live recordings (Glastonbury - 22nd July & Totnes - 30th August 2005) raises some very important and disturbing questions and is a 'must see' for anyone who still holds the view that the events of 9/11 and 7/7 were perpetrated by 'Muslim fanatics'. Ian does not offer specifi answers .......... but for those who truly value the concept of democracy, it is imperative that they are aware of these extremely important but as yet unanswered questions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
#1. To: All (#0)
9/11 A Closer Look - Eric Hufschmid Is the U.S. Government capable of conducting an unbiased investigation into the 9-11 attacks? Do we need a genuinely Independent Commission?
Like most conspiracy videos, the filmmakers of this one can't seem to separate the good questions from the bad. Members of the *truth* movement seem almost incapable of doing that. Sad, because the net effect is to discredit the good questions. You will not find the truth with a foundation of misinformation and lies. To be frank, there is so much dishonesty in this video that I'm not sure there actually are any good questions in it. What appear to be good questions may be equally dishonest. Here is why I say this: A) The video states that "no steel skyscraper has ever been destroyed from fire". This is misleading. No steel skyscraper of WTC construction has ever been hit by commercial jets traveling at high speed and filled with jet fuel, significantly damaging the structure then starting intense fires across an entire floor at once, that burned without fire suppression for nearly an hour. Furthermore, the Windsor Tower in Madrid did experience a fire that destroyed all portions of the structure that depended on a steel frame. Here's a photo of that structure afterwords: The portion still standing was the reinforced concrete structure. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 And this fire was not started by immense amounts of jet fuel in an already damaged structure and it WAS fought by firefighters. B) The announcer then goes on to ask "how did fire destroy steel buildings on September 11 when fire has never destroyed steel buildings before or since?" This is a lie. Fire most certainly has destroyed steel "BUILDINGS". It's the reason we have special requirements on steel buildings such as coatings to protect the steel members. Here's a link to a photo and description of a steel building that fire ... and just fire ... effectively destroyed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm It destroyed the building by buckling the steel girders holding the roof. C) With regards to WTC 7, the video asks "how and why did this building crumble. No airplane hit it." This is a lie of omission. No airplane hit it but it did get hit by large amounts of debris that firemen said created a 20 story high hole in the south face ... the one obscured by smoke in almost all photos and video. D) The voice says "that video tapes and seismic data" show "The towers collapsed at 'free fall' speed" This is an outright lie. Free fall speed would mean a collapse on the order of 9 to 10 seconds. Video tapes clearly show a collapse that took about 15 seconds. And numerous sources (including certain conspiracy sites) have now acknowledged that, so one only conclude the filmmakers are deliberately misleading their viewers ... i.e., LYING. E) The video voice says the "editor of fire engineering magazine was so disgusted by the government's investigation that he wrote in the January 2002 issue that the investigation is "a half-baked farce". This is a misleading lie of omission. First of all, it fails to note that the FEMA report was done years ago and since then NIST has done a much more extensive investigation that does shed some light on what happened. Second, the video fails to mention that the reason William Manning (that was the editor's name) was disgusted is not that Manning was endorsing the *truth* movement's assertion that the WTC structures were deliberate demolitions but because he thought faulty tower CONSTRUCTION might be the reason they collapsed. The filmmakers also fail to mention that since that comment they quote, Manning has said nothing further and, in fact, spoke at a 2005 dinner commemorating one of the firemen who died on 9/11 where he didn't utter a word suggesting an inadequate investigation. Why is he silent if that firemen was murdered by the government or someone other than the hijackers and he know or suspects it? F) Next, the video claims that the government "is still refusing to release security camera videos that show Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. Why are we not allowed to see what happened." This is both misleading and false. First, the filmmakers have no means of knowing whether videos should show the plane hitting the Pentagon. It was a very fast event and security cameras tend to have a narrow field of view, low resolution and a slow frame rate. Second, the videos they have were not released for one of two reasons ... either because the legal system required that in order to try suspects in the attack or because they are part of the security system of the Pentagon and thus sensitive. Third, now that the trial of the only suspect they had in captivity associated with the attack is complete, the government has been making available the tapes that do not directly impact security of the facility. Those tapes do not clearly show the plane that hit the structure but the explanation why they don't is quite reasonable. G) Next the video takes a "more in-depth" look at the collapse of WTC 7. It then proceeds to show a series of video clips from various angles of the collapse and claims that is what a demolition looks like. This is lie of omission. First, each of those videos begins many seconds after the collapse was actually observed to begin. Second, the video fails to mention that only one demolition expert in the entire world actually claims that's a controlled demolition. Many others say it is not. And the one that does was only shown a video clip that began many seconds after the collapse was actually observed to begin. H) The video plays the statement that Silverstein made and then proceeds to say Silverstein claimed (shown in quotes) "The Fire Dept. demolished it." rather than putting out the fires. This is a LIE. Silverstein said no such thing. The quote they play in the video has Silverstein mentioning the firefighting effort and terrible loss of life, so the logical assumption would be that he was referring to that firefighting effort and the risk to firefighters when he said they decided to "pull it". Furthermore, the demolition industry says that the term "pull" does not refer to explosive demolition but to physically pulling (with cables) a structure down. In video of WTC 6, which they did indeed pull down with cables, you can hear a demolition expert saying they are about to pull the structure down. I) The video then says "it takes more than a few hours to set up the demolition of such a large skyscraper". This is a lie of omission. They should point out that the ONLY demolition expert who has said WTC 7 was a demolition (Mr. Jowenko) also said he thought they set up the demolition AFTER the collapse of the two towers in order to avoid having to repair the structure. That doesn't fit in with the theory of pre-planned demolitions that the video is trying to push on an unsuspecting audience. Ironically, the video then proceeds to give a variety of good reasons why a demolition could not have been rigged in the few hours after the impact of the planes. They said there were fires burning (true), the tenants never removed their items (true), and the area was crowded with rescuers (true). So where does that leave the *truth* movement? (snicker) J) Next they say "don't these suspicious aspects of Building 7 justify a more in-depth investigation?" To which I respond "what suspicious aspects?" Nothing they've mentioned is suspicious enough that structural engineers and demolition experts around the world have raised concern. Should we conclude that they are ALL part of the conspiracy too? The filmmakers of the video lie by omission in not mentioning that the WTC 7 was hit by substantial amounts of very hot debris severely damaging the south face of the building and setting the structure on fire. They don't mention that these large fires burned for as much as 7 hours without water being put on them. They don't mention that firemen said the building was starting to lean hours before the collapse and that they knew it was going to come down. They don't mention that the structure collapsed in stages with the east mechanical penthouse sinking into the roof about 6 seconds BEFORE the start of the video clips they showed. They don't mention that photos shows the structure did not come straight down but collapsed towards the south where the hole in the building was located. They don't mention that NIST investigated the collapse and offered a quite logical explanation that fits what was observed. K) The video plays a clip of firemen describing the collapse of a trade center tower and saying it like a demolition with explosives all the way up and down the tower. This is a lie of omission. It doesn't mention that NOT ONE of those firemen (in fact NO fireman) has gone on record to say they actually think explosives were used to bring down the towers. Are they part of the conspiracy now? L) They play an excerpt from an interview with Fireman Joe Casaliggi to imply that bombs must have shredded everything. This is a lie of omission. They don't mention that Joe Casaliggi played himself in the "9/11" movie which said NOTHING about bombs in the towers. Is Joe Casaliggi then part of the coverup and conspiracy? They don't mention that in his official interview he said NOTHING about bombs in the towers. They don't mention that he had plenty of reason to be angry if indeed he thought bombs had brought down the towers since he lost many friends that day. M) The now return to the subject of the temperatures in the rubble. They state "obviously, the rubble would be cooler after 5 days then it was on September 11th". Obviously? Then where are all the experts in fire who should be standing up and saying there is something amiss here? Perhaps they understand something the filmmakers of the video do not? Or are they all part of the conspiracy too, as ridiculous as that is? N) The video claims that Peter Tully and Mark Loizeaux told American Free Press that "steel had melted at the bottom of the basements of the towers and building 7". "These incredible temperatures are more evidence that explosives were used." Then again, why hasn't ANYONE from the structures, demolition, fire or materials communities ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD come forward to agree with this statement? Are all those professionals part of the conspiracy? Or perhaps this http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html has something to do with it. And the video filmmakers are overlooking a key question. What kept steel molten for 6 weeks, if it melted on September 11th? Explosives don't do that. O) "Both Towers Collapsed at Free-Fall Speed" The filmmakers take an in-depth look at this LIE of theirs. P) "According to the scientists who analyzed the seismic data, the North Tower collapse in about 8 seconds. This is FALSE. It not only ignores clear video evidence that the towers took about 15 seconds to collapse but shows an inability to understand what the seismologists actually said and what the seismic data means. In fact, the head seismologist (Lerner-Lam) is on record stating that "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." And technical reports produced by his staff appear to support this statement. Furthermore, ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition are on the record saying http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events." The filmmakers of this video must know they are promoting a lie. Numerous conspiracy websites have acknowledged that the 8 and 10 second collapse time claims are erroneous. Here are a few examples: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. ... snip ... Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation." http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/ "video recordings show that each collapse took approximately 15 seconds. See, for example, this elapsed time analysis of the North Tower collapse." Indeed, an 8 second collapse would require that the lead falling material be at the same level as the collapse level throughout the collapse. But pictures of both the North and South Towers show that simply isn't the case. For example: In fact, frame by frame analysis of one of the videos (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1n1.html includes a photo that was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". Check it out and see how much of the tower was still standing? The only conclusion one can reach is that the video's filmmakers are either totally ignorant, woefully uninformed, OR OUTRIGHT LIARS. Q) They show long distance videos of the collapse without sound and use them to claim the collapses took 8 and 10 seconds. They deliberately show video from a great distance so the viewer can't see that it is only the initially falling debris cloud that reaches the ground in those times ... so one can't see that the collapsing level is actually well above that level at the time they claim the collapse is over. The material I linked above proves this. This is utterly dishonest on their part. The filmmakers of this video are LIARS and if they will lie about something as clear cut as this, there is NOTHING in the video that you can actually trust. They just proved they aren't interested in the truth. All they have is an agenda to promote regardless of the truth. And anyone who posts or defends this video, knowing the above, is likely not interested in the truth either. R) "Photos taken of the Pentagon immediately after the crash show a few fires but there is no hole in the building that is large enough for a Boeing 757. How did a plane crash into the building without busting a hole in the wall. This is another outright lie. Numerous photos show a fuselage shaped hole with wing shaped holes extending some 30 or more feet on each side of the central hole. The one they chose to show just coincidently has water or foam jets from the firetruck obscuring the region where the holes were located. This is nothing less than dishonest. Here's the real damage: What you see in those photos was once a solid wall except for windows. Considering that in order for wings to penetrate the outer wall, considerable mass had to be involved, this is not inconsistent with the observed damage. The bladders in the wings that contained fuel (in other words, considerable mass) extended out to about those distances from the fuselage. Beyond that, one would not expect the outer wall to have been breached by a light aluminum structure even traveling hundreds of miles per hour. But photos taken of the structure (that are widely available on the internet) clearly show damage to the outer face extending out to where the tips of the wings would have been expected to impact given the location of the central hole. So again, the filmmakers are either incredibly ignorant or they are lying to the audience. S) "and without leaving debris on the grass?" This is another statement showing either total ignorance or total dishonesty. The image they show is of the side of the central hole where the plane came from at about a 50 degree angle relative to the face. The laws of physics state that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. So if the airplane hit at an incident angle of 50 degrees relative to the face, one would expect anything that bounced off the wall to move along a reflection path of 50 degrees while continuing in the same general direction. Just imagine what happens when a billiard ball hits the edge of a pool table at an angle. Thus, one would not expect to see much debris on the lawn on the side of the central hole from which the plane arrived. And sure enough, if you look at what the ground looked like on the other side of that central hole, this is what you see: T) "There was no sign of the airplane after the collapse, either." "Only a few scraps were found." LIARS. That's what the filmmakers are, folks. " src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/324.jpg"> U) "Only one engine was found, and it was small." Extreme ignorance (not knowing what they are looking at when they look at that image), extreme laziness (not sufficiently investigating what they were looking at when they look at that image) or extreme dishonesty (knowing that what they are looking at is not the outer fan diameter of an engine but the turbine disk which is much smaller). Here are two websites that prove their claim that the debris indicates an engine only 2-3 feet in diameter is absolutely false. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm The second of those two websites is even a conspiracy website and it states "The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2. Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts." V) "Why didn't this dog find even one small piece of the 64 passengers?" This also is misleading and a lie by omission. Dozens of eyewitnesses say they found bodies or body parts of the passengers. This is documented in dozens and dozens of credible sources. On what basis do the filmmakers claim that dog found nothing? We know nothing about that photo and circumstances under which it was taken. In the recent trial, the prosecution released a flash video showing the location in the Pentagon of the bodies or body parts of each victim. The filmmakers are baldfaced LIARS. And folks who repost this video knowing all of the above are no better. W) "Photos taken during the cleanup do not show any airplane parts" LIE. Virtually every statement made in this video is a demonstrable lie. The folks who made this movie are LIARS. They are people who for whatever reason dislike the American government and American people so much that they are willing to LIE about the facts surrounding 9/11. If this is the *truth* movement, I spit on it. Finally, Itisa1mosttoolate ends his post with the tag line: Well to Itisa1mosttoolate and all *truthers* I say this: You can not find the truth by destroying it either.
This is an outright lie. Free fall speed would mean a collapse on the order of 9 to 10 seconds. Video tapes clearly show a collapse that took about 15 seconds. 6. 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)? 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). 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, 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.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in posting this. If it's to suggest that the time for the "first exterior panels to strike the ground" is the collapse time, you are wrong. It's the time it took the first panels falling off the towers to reach the ground. Those panels are clearly seen in photos to be falling well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure. They are free-falling. The collapsing level of the structure is not. So the filmmakers are liars. The filmmakers claimed the structure offered NO resistance. An obvious lie.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm The quoted NIST FAQ stated: “… 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. That is the NIST saying freefall. The NIST statement says it about all the levels below the level of collapse initiation.
No, that is NIST saying ESSENTIALLY freefall. It is amazing that you can't bring yourself to admit that the filmmakers were wrong when they claimed the towers collapsed in 8 and 10 seconds. Your inability to do this is a window into the soul of the *truther* movement.
It is amazing that you can't bring yourself to admit that the filmmakers were wrong when they claimed the towers collapsed in 8 and 10 seconds. Your inability to do this is a window into the soul of the *truther* movement. You have apparently played a poor, misunderstood victim ever since you found biblical truth and were heard to complain, "You mean God said the Arabs get all the oil and we get to cut off the tip of our WHAT???" 8 and 10 seconds is so different from BAC-defined freefall of 9 to 10 seconds, and NIST finding of 9 and 11 seconds, especially when pancaking needs about 89 seconds. [BeAChooser said at # 10] "Free fall speed would mean a collapse on the order of 9 to 10 seconds. Video tapes clearly show a collapse that took about 15 seconds." [nolu_chan # 17 quoted NIST] "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...." [BAC at #23 said] "Those panels are clearly seen in photos to be falling well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure. They are free-falling. The collapsing level of the structure is not. So the filmmakers are liars." BAC said at #10, "Free fall speed would mean a collapse on the order of 9 to 10 seconds." NIST, based on video, timed the collapses at 9 and 11 seconds. Anyone looking at the video can reach the same result. NIST declared it to be "essentially free fall." "Essence" in this context means, "the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Simple pancaking of the floors has been estimated to take about 89 seconds. The explosives heard by many firefighters which aided the freefall are evident in the videos by the squibs leading the collapse area by as many as 15 to 20 stories. In 7WTC there is a series of squibs emerging from the upper floors before those floors move relative to each other. From your comments, one can only conclude that you have never looked at the video.
ROTFLOL! Your posts get more incoherent as time goes by, NC. Or more deliberately obtuse. I'm certain that anyone just stumbling upon this forum will understand that I was NOT complaining about the difference between 8 versus 9 seconds and 10 versus 11 seconds. My amazement stems from the fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that the filmmakers were wrong when they claimed the towers collapsed in 8 and 10 seconds when the real number is about 15 seconds. As to your claim that pancaking *needs* about 89 seconds, you really should tell folks the source of that remarkable claim. It's not a structural engineer. It's not a demolition expert. It's not even a macro-world physicist. Would anyone like to guess the expertise of nolu_chan's source for that claim? It's an expert in dental materials named Judy Woods. True, she has a degree in Mechanical Engineering but she is a member of the IADR (International Association for Dental Research), and the Academy of Dental Materials and work on dental materials is all she's focused on since getting her degree. Her own resume (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf) states that "Dr Wood's area of expertise is moire interferometry, a full-field optical method that produces contour maps of in-plane displacements." Her research topics are "Structure-Property Relationship of Biological Materials", deformations "caused by residual stresses, thermal stresses, fatigue cycling or manufacturing defects" and optical methods that "can be used to analyze slippage between fiber and matrix, delamination detection, residual stresses, thermal stresses, long-term effects of aging and moisture as well as characterization of overall laminate performance." Based on the above, one can surmise she understands statics ... at least of dental materials. But there is nothing in her resume to suggest she begins to understand structures, fire, steel, concrete, impact ... AND dynamics. She used a Billiard Ball analogy to derive her 89 second estimate. Well, unfortunately for you and her, it contains a MAJOR error. Woods assumes that when falling floors hit a floor below, they impart no energy at all to the floor below. She assumes the entire mass stops, forgetting about the kinetic energy in the mass above the collision. She patiently waits for the floor below to accelerate from 0 velocity until they hit the next floor. In reality, the falling floors do not come to rest. They not only break loose the next floor, but impart energy as momentum, which increases as the collapse progresses. Here is a good debunking of Wood's silly analysis. There are many others like it on the web. But then you never looked did you, NC ... or if you encountered one you apparently failed to understand it. If you include transfer of momentum, you get a result more like this: And by the way, NC, did you know that your expert in this thinks bombs didn't bring down the towers? No, her pet theory is that star-wars like beam weapons destroyed the WTC Towers. I kid you not. So I feel obligated to leave you with a few more cartoons about Judy Woods. ROTFLOL!
BAC means this Judy Wood. Dr. Wood received her Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including When last checked, Virginia Polytechnic Institute is not a Dental School. It would appear that Dr. Wood has at least three more engineering degrees, and one more structural engineering degree, than WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson.
Your last post even merits a few new cartoons on Judy and the other top truthers...
#50. To: BeAChooser (#46)
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html [Version 3.1] On September 11th, Both of the Twin Towers disintegrated into vast clouds of concrete and other materials, which blanketed Lower Manhattan. This paper shows that the energy required to produce the expansion of the dust cloud observed immediately following the collapse of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) was much greater than the gravitational energy available from its elevated mass. It uses only basic physics. Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower. Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink. A second energy sink, that has apparently been overlooked, was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses. Note that the contents of the dust clouds had to come from building constituents -- gases and materials inside of or intrinsic to the building -- modulo any mixing with outside air. Given that the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, with distinct boundaries and rapidly expanding frontiers (averaging perhaps 35 feet/second on the ground for the first 30 seconds), it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their volume. Therefore the dust clouds' expansion must have been primarily due to an expansion of building constituents. Possible sources of expansion include: How much energy was involved in expanding the dust cloud from either tower? To calculate an estimate we need to answer four questions: Since I have better photographs for North Tower dust, I did the calculation for it. To answer question 1, I made estimates based on photographs taken at approximately 30 seconds after the onset of the collapse. The photo in Figure 1 appears to have been taken around 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse of the North Tower. The fact that the spire is visible directly behind Building 7 indicates the photo was not taken later than the 30 seconds, since video records show that the spire started to collapse at the around 29 seconds. In this photograph, as in other ones taken around that time, the dust clouds still have distinct boundaries. I used landmarks in this photo to make several approximate measurements of the frontier of the dust cloud. The following table lists some of them. Measurements are in feet. The first column lists heights above the street, and the second lists distances from the vertical axis of the North Tower. To approximate the volume I used a cylinder, coaxial with the vertical axis of the North Tower, with a radius of 800 feet, and a height of 200 feet. All the above reference points lie outside of this volume. Although the cylinder does not lie entirely within the dust cloud, there are large parts of the cloud outside of it, such as the 700 foot high upwelling column south of Building 7. The cylinder has a volume of: To accurately answer question 2 would require detailed knowledge of the fluid dynamics involved. However it does appear that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary. There are several pieces of evidence that support this: Initially the dust clouds must have been much heavier than air, given the mass of the concrete they carried and the distances they transported it. As time went on the cloud became more diffuse, but all of the photographs that can be verified as being within the first minute show opaque clouds with distinct boundaries, indicating the dominant mode of growth was expansion, not mixing or diffusion. It seems reasonable to assume that mixing with ambient air did not account for a significant fraction of the expansion in the volume of the dust cloud by 30 seconds of the start of the North Tower collapse. Nevertheless, I reduce the estimate of the dust cloud volume of building origin to 200,000,000 feet^3, imagining that a third of the growth may have been due to assimilation of ambient air. The answer to question 3 is easy. The volume of a tower, with it's 207 foot width and 1368 foot height, is: So the ratio of the expanded gasses and suspended materials from the tower to the original volume of the tower is: Above I identified two energy sinks that could have driven expansion of the dust cloud: thermodynamic expansion of gases, and vaporization of liquids and solids. Since most constituents and contents of the building other than water would require very high temperatures to vaporize, I consider only the vaporization of water in evaluating the second sink. It is clearly not possible to determine with any precision the relative contributions of these two sinks to the expansion of the dust cloud. If the cloud remained uniform in temperature and density for the first 30 seconds, then the expansion would consist of three distinct phases: The ideal gas law can be used to compute a lower bound for the amount of heat energy required to induce the observed expansion of the dust cloud, assuming that the expansion was entirely due to thermodynamic expansion. That law states that the product of the volume and pressure of a parcel of a gas is proportional to absolute temperature. It is written PV = nRT, where:
R = constant
I say that the ideal gas law allows the computation of only the lower bound of the required energy input due to the following four factors. In this paper I examine only the fourth factor. Before considering its effect on energy requirements, I first consider the energy requirements of heating only the gasses in the clouds to the level needed to achieve the observed expansion. According to the ideal gas law, expanding the gasses 3.4-fold requires raising their absolute temperature by the same ratio. If we assume the tower was at 300 degrees K before the collapse, then the target temperature would be 1020 degrees K, an increase of 720 degrees. Given a density of 36 g/foot^3 for air, the tower held about 2,000,000,000 g of air. Air has a specific heat of 0.24 (relative to 1 for water), so one calorie will raise one g of air 1 / 0.24 = 4.16 degrees. To raise 2,000,000,000 g by 720 degrees requires: If we assume that the water vaporization sink absorbed all available energy once temperatures reached water's boiling point, we can compute the size of the heat sink of thermodynamic expansion that was in play as temperatures rose from room temperature to 100 C, or from 300 K to 373 K: At 100 C at sea-level, water expands by a factor of 1680 when converted to steam. Hence it is reasonable to expect that water in the building accounted for a significant part of the expansion. How much energy would be required to expand the volume of the cloud by the 3.41 ratio if water vaporization were entirely responsible for the expansion? Since water vaporization involves the introduction of volumes steam from comparatively negligible volumes of water, I assume that all the incremental volume was occupied by steam. The estimated 3.41 expansion ratio means that the incremental volume was: Given the 1680 to 1 ratio between the volume steam and liquid water, 2,383,000 liters of water would have been required. The heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gram at 100 C. Therefore the heat energy required to produce the expansion is: Was there enough water in the building for this sink to be anywhere near this large? That is a matter of great uncertainty. Even well-cured concrete has a significant moisture content. Assuming that the estimated 90,000 tons of concrete in the tower was 1 percent water by weight, that would have provided 900 tons of water or about 900,000 liters -- well short of the 2,383,000 liter estimate above. However, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the water content of the concrete, which, like the rest of the remains of the disaster, was apparently disposed of with little or no examination. Moreover there were other sources of water in the building, such as the plumbing system, which could have accounted for tens of thousands of liters, and, gruesomely, people. The thousand victims never identified could have accounted for about 30,000 liters of water. Both thermodynamic expansion and water vaporization have the capacity to produce vast expansion in gas volume given sufficient heat. Two major difference in the features of these sinks may help in understanding the relative contributions of each. First, thermodynamic expansion to the observed ratio requires very high temperatures, whereas vaporization-driven expansion occurs at a constant temperature of 100 C. Second, vaporization-driven expansion would be limited by the available supply of water. If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures. If enough water was present for vaporization to drive most of the expansion, temperatures in much of the cloud would have remained around 100 C until most of the water had vaporized. Thermodynamic expansion would occur in regions with liquid phase water until 100 C was reached, and again after the water was vaporized. To the extent that thermodynamic expansion was the dominant factor driving the expansion, the distribution of concrete dust in the cloud, and its relationship to the temperature distribution in the cloud, would greatly affect the total energy requirements. Less energy would be required if the hotter portions of the cloud had a lower density of dust. The density was probably greater toward the central portions of the cloud, which also seem to have experienced the most heating. On the other hand, much of the dust may have settled out by the 30 second mark. The violent churning of the cloud, and the opaque appearance of its frontier, suggest that most of the dust had not settled that early. The dominant energy source assumed to be in play during the leveling of each of the Twin Towers was the gravitational energy due to their elevated mass. The energy sinks included the thorough pulverization of each tower's concrete, the vaporization of water, and the heating of air and suspended concrete dust in the ensuing dust cloud. Estimates for these energies are: The imbalance between sources and sinks is striking, no matter the relative shares of the thermodynamic and water vaporization sinks in accounting for the expansion. Moreover, it is very difficult to imagine how the gravitational energy released by falling mass could have contributed much to any of the sinks, since the vast majority of the tower's mass landed outside its footprint. The quantity for the crushing of concrete appears to be conservative since some reports indicate the average particle size was closer to 10 microns than 60 microns. The quantity for the heating of suspended concrete has a large amount of uncertainty, but the energy imbalances remain huge even when it is ignored entirely. All of these energy sink estimates are conservative in several respects. The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments. The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.
Link Proofs of Demolition Despite the destruction of the most significant evidence of the Twin Tower collapses -- the structural steel -- it is relatively easy to prove the towers were demolished. Determining how they were demolished without the benefit of the steel may be difficult or impossible, but proving that a gravity-driven collapse is insufficient to explain the characteristics of the collapses documented by photographic and seismic evidence is not. There are numerous pieces of evidence that strongly indicate demolition, including the fact that authorities destroyed and suppressed evidence, the more than 100 years of engineering experience with steel-frame buildings, the misleading representation of the towers' design by truss theory proponents and the implausible sequence of events proposed by that theory, and the many collapse features that seem irreconcilable with gravity-driven collapses. Proving demolition requires more than enumerating evidence. It requires making logical inferences about events using the evidence. Three fairly strong proofs are as follows. These are presented as qualitative arguments only. Each suggests an approach for developing a rigorous quantitative proof.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#1)
9-11: A Closer Look
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/trade16.jpg) 
Left side and center hole damage 
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse 
="
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#17. To: BeAChooser, Itisa1mosttoolate (#10)
D) The voice says "that video tapes and seismic data" show "The towers collapsed at 'free fall' speed"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
#23. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#17)
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.
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.
#27. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Those panels are clearly seen in photos to be falling well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure. They are free-falling. The collapsing level of the structure is not. So the filmmakers are liars.
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
#31. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#27)
, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
That is the NIST saying freefall.
#37. To: BeAChooser (#31)
No, that is NIST saying ESSENTIALLY freefall.
#39. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#37)
8 and 10 seconds is so different from BAC-defined freefall of 9 to 10 seconds, and NIST finding of 9 and 11 seconds, especially when pancaking needs about 89 seconds.
From http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm 
#41. To: BeAChooser (#39)
As to your claim that pancaking *needs* about 89 seconds, you really should tell folks the source of that remarkable claim. It's not a structural engineer. It's not a demolition expert. It's not even a macro-world physicist. Would anyone like to guess the expertise of nolu_chan's source for that claim? It's an expert in dental materials named Judy Woods. (sic - Wood).
from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood was an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.
#46. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#41)
Replies to Comment # 46. The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman
October 16, 2003
Introduction
Any chemical reactions induced by the collapse of a tower would have been insignificant sources of gas production, given the very short window of time of 30 seconds. Only the detonation of large quantities of explosives could have driven the third source of expansion. A commentary of version 3 of this paper 1. Quantifying Dust Cloud Volume
Figure 1. Photograph from Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report. label height distance description 3 230 1011 west corner of 45 Park Place 5 228 729 top of south corner of building with stepped roof 6 204 658 east corner of Building 7, 30 stories below top 7 600 776 upwell towering over southeast end of Post Office 8 700 ? upwell slightly higher than the top of Building 7 11 190 870 top of west corner of 22 Cortland St tower 12 508 588 8 stories below top of face of WFC 3 13 498 517 3 stories below top of upper face of WFC 2
pi * (800 feet)^2 * 200 feet = 402,000,000 feet^3.
I subtract about a quarter for volume occupied by other buildings, giving 300,000,000 feet^3. 2. Factoring out Mixing and Diffusion
Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.
3. Computing the Expansion Ratio
1368 feet * 207 feet * 207 feet = 58,617,432 feet^3.
200,000,000 feet^3 / 58,617,432 feet^3 = 3.41.
4. Computing the Required Heat Input
Since such uniform conditions were not present, I will first treat the two energy sinks separately, and will compute the energy requirements for each if it alone were responsible for the expansion. 4.1. The Thermodynamic Expansion Sink
P = pressure
V = volume
T = absolute temperature
n = molar quantity
Absolute temperature is expressed in Kelvin (K), which is Celsius + 273. Applied to the tower collapse, the equation holds that the ratio of volumes of gasses from the building before and after expansion is roughly equal to the ratio of temperatures of the gasses before and after heating. That allows us to compute the minimum energy needed to achieve a given expansion ratio knowing only the thermal mass of the gasses and their average temperature before the collapse.
2,000,000,000 g * 720 degrees * 0.24 = 345,600,000,000 calories
= 399,500 KWH
To evaluate the energy requirements of the fourth factor, it is necessary to consider the composition of the dust cloud. The cloud was a suspension of fine particles of concrete and other solids in gasses consisting mostly of air. Since concrete was the dominant solid, I will ignore the others, which included glass, gypsum, asbestos, and various hydrocarbons. The small size of the particles, being in the 10-60 micron range, would assure rapid equalization between their temperature and that of the embedding air. Therefore any heat source acting to raise the temperature of the air would have to raise the temperature of the suspended concrete by the same amount. Assuming all 90,000,000,000 g of concrete was raised 720 degrees (300 K to 1020 K), the necessary heat, given a specific heat of concrete of 0.15 is:
90,000,000,000 g * 720 degrees * 0.15 = 9,720,000,000,000 calories
= 11,300,000 KWH.
2,000,000,000 g * 73 degrees * 0.24 = 35,040,000,000 calories
= 40,744 KWH
The associated sink of heating the suspended solids to this temperature would be:
90,000,000,000 g * 73 degrees * 0.15 = 985,500,000,000 calories
= 1,145,000 KWH.
4.2. The Water Vaporization Sink
200,000,000 feet^3 - 58,617,000 feet^3 = 141,383,000 feet^3
= 4,003,542,000 liters
2,383,000,000 g * 540 = 1,286,820,000,000 calories
= 1,496,000 KWH
4.3. Which Energy Sink Was Dominant?
Summary
energy, KWH source or sink + 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m) - 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder) ignoring water vaporization - 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K) - 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K) assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited - 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water) - 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K) - 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K) Conclusion
#51. To: BeAChooser (#46)
Demolition of the Twin Towers is Provable Through Simple Analysis
End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
){kind=link}