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: 459
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
#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? "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
9/11 Eyewitness 1 of 3 "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
911 Eyewitness 2 of 3 "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Bookmarked.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
911 Eye witnesses 3 of 3 "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
David Ray Griffin - 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions A lecture by David Ray Griffin about the "9/11 Commission Report" and his latest book " The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and ... all » Distortions". Here he debunkd the entire Kean commission and the report as an enourmous lie through ommissions. "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Proof Bush Knew WTC Attacks Well Before 'Pet Goat' Reading President knew of WTC crash before leaving hotel
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
911: The Greatest Lie Evers Sold - By Anthony Hilder Only by"Exposing the Creators" of the first World ... all » Trade Center bombing in (1993), could we have prevented the creation of the second bombing of the World Trade Center on 9-11! We failed to make it ... "PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE" that the 1993 bombing was - Encouraged by "AGENT PROVOCATUERS" of the FB-LIE The fact is U.S. taxpayers "bought the bomb." Worse still, since September 11, 2001 most of America's sheeple "BOUGHT THE LIE" that 19 angered Arabs & Osama bin Laden carried out the greatest act of terror in U.S. history The stark, raw reality is that the 9-11 "story" is THE GREATEST LIE EVER SOLD. American's are being prepped for the next "staged event" Agents of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the propaganda press will then white-wash "USAMA BIN BUSH!" Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Kissinger & crew will blame the innocent to protect the guilty What's it all about? Bush & zee Boys from der "Brotherhood of Death," "Skull & Bones" are preparing us for a POLICE STATE. Bush will try to surrender the Constitution & Bill of Rights. His goal? - establish a "New World Order" WARNING: This video contains no lies, or "White House" spin! "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You liar! Only those with really low IQs would buy the crap you are peddling. I vote to end this little spammers posting privileges on this forum. He contributes absolutely nothing of value anymore.
God is always good! Time to launch this deliberate disruptor with a good kick to the rump.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Yeah, he will probably sneak back on, but it's time to end the chooser screen name. I have to wonder why he chose that name. Pro-Choice?
God is always good! Ricky, you make it so easy to discredit anything you say. ******** http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 The Madrid Windsor Tower Building Fire, 14-15 February 2005 * Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. * Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. * The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors. * The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns. * NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout. * This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction. ... snip ... The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor. ... snip ... Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. ************* Are you afraid of facts, Ricky?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
No, Ricky ... it comes from a book titled "Beggars and Choosers".
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm Fire at ESP plant (pic - Tom Poole) A toilet paper factory in Worcestershire has been severely damaged in a major fire. About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning. The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said. ----- Here is a picture of that toilet paper plant that BAC equates to a steel-frame hi-rise tower. Damn. Just Damn. BAC is right. A fire that leapt 45 feet into the sky took out a toilet paper plant. Of course, a fire leaping up 45 feet from the bottom of 1 or 2 WTC would have still been deep in the basement. On the other hand... regarding steel frame high rise towers... and the reinforced concrete Edificio Windsor... In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building's 38 floors but, said the FEMA report, although "beams and girders sagged and twisted ... under severe fire exposures ... the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage." In 2004, a fire in a 50-story building in Caracas, Venezuela raged for more than 17 hours, gutting the building's top 20 floors, yet the building did not collapse. In 2005, another spectacular high rise fire occurred when the Edificio Windsor in Madrid turned into a raging inferno for 16 hours on February 12 with only the top floors partially collapsing. The building is only partially comparable to the WTC towers in that it was built of reinforced concrete. But, by the same token, the WTC towers, being steel-framed, were even stronger. The fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Caracas were hot enough to break windows. The WTC towers fires were not. SOURCE: Barrie Zwicker, "Towers of Deception," 2006, ISBN 13: 978-0-86571-573-8, p. 71
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.
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
BEACH ooze r = Bee-ach ooze = Oozing bitch That's my best guess.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
The Great Conspiracy [Barry Zwicker] "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
The claim made by the filmmakers is that NO BUILDING (not just hi-rise towers) EVER collapsed from fire. And that's the claim to which I responded. Aren't you capable of seeing the distinction? Because if you are, then it should be readily apparent that is a false claim. Aren't you capable of seeing the many differences between the WTC case and the First Interstate Bank Building case? The official United States Fire Administration Technical Report (http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm ) states the fire "was controlled only through the massive and dedicated manual fire suppression efforts" and that "a total of 383 Los Angeles City Fire Department members from 64 companies -- nearly one-half of the on-duty force of the entire city -- were involved in fighting the fire, mounting an offensive attack via four stairways." That sort of firefighting effort never happened in the WTC case. The bank building fire was on the 12-16th floors and relatively easily reached by firemen. It took firefighters nearly an hour just to reach the impacted floors in the WTC, then they were mostly trapped in the stairwells by the fire. The firemen in the bank building didn't have to concern themselves primarily with rescue as those who entered the WTC towers had to do. The building was mostly empty and rescue was possible off the roof with helicopters. The bank building firemen could immediately concentrate on the fire. In the bank building firemen were able to use the building fire pumps to get water to their hoses. WTC firemen had to pump water from the ground level using their own equipment ... difficult to do when the fire is 80 stories up. Still another difference ... the bank firefighters had access to the building's 85,000 gallon reservoir in the sub-basement. The WTC firefighters depended solely on the street level public water system. Even with this huge reservoir in the bank building "there were fears that the tank would be emptied". Indeed, "the tank was down to less than one-third of its capacity when the fire was controlled." Unlike the WTC tower case, the fire started in one location and had to spread slowly. The above report says the fire "extended at a rate estimated at 45 minutes per floor". In the WTC tower, the impact and release of jet fuel simultaneously created fires on multiple floors and over wide areas of those floors. Surely even you, NC, can understand these differences are important in why one building survived and the other didn't. As far as construction is concerned, the above report also notes "unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire". Contrast that with the WTC case where according to experts the impact severely damaged what some experts feel was already inadequate fire coatings. You do understand what fire coatings do, don't you, NC? You do understand that when the report states the fire on each floor lasted about 90 minutes that is less than the time the fire coatings were rated. Or do you think they are decorative? And finally, note that the First Interstate Bank Building has a very different type of frame than the WTC towers. The WTC towers had something very innovative which, in hindsight, engineers now say was more vulnerable to the type of collapse the WTC towers experienced than previous steel frame skyscrapers. Or do you think all these engineers are part of the conspiracy, NC? Again, there are many significant differences between the Meridian Plaza fire and the WTC fire ... differences that *truthers* seem intent on ignoring. The United States Fire Administration Technical Report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf ) states "this fire was finally stopped when it reached a floor where automatic sprinklers had been installed." There were not automatic sprinklers working in the WTC fire, were there, NC. The Meridian fires again happened on floors that were much lower than the fires in the WTC towers. So firefighters and their hoses could more easily get access to the fires. Even so, exhaustion of the firefighters from climbing the stairwells "was a problem for the duration of the incident." And again, the fires spread relatively slowly compared to the WTC tower fires. Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that. As in the bank fire, the fire protection coatings on the steel members in this building were intact. The report states the building columns had a 3 hour rating and there was a 2 hour rating on horizontal beams and floor/ceiling systems. The fire on each floor generally exhausted itself in those times. Even so, the report suggests they had some reason to be concerned. The report states "Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." The reports states "Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage." Fortunately, the construction of the Meridian tower was significantly different than that of the WTC towers. The floors didn't come loose from the columns. So the columns retained their integrity from buckling. And that's the most importance difference. As noted in http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html "In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor)." Remove that restrain, as happened in the WTC towers, and the strength of the columns falls dramatically. Now is that beyond your understanding, NC? Again, you simply ignore the many difference between the two cases. That's not the way to find *the truth*, NC. And it never will be. In this case, we again find that the fire started slowly and slowly spread. How slowly? Well the fire spread at the rate of one floor every 2 1/2 hours. Compare that to what happened at the WTC. We again find a structure with intact fire coatings on steel members. And a structure that was not damaged by the impact of a large plane. We find a fire that started low enough in the structure that firefighters and their hoses could reach it. So they were able to fight the fire ever step of the way. Eventually, they even dropped water on it from helicopters, which they say was instrumental in finally bringing the blaze under control. One source (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1389 ) states "Also crucial in putting out the fire were army helicopters, which unloaded water onto the side of the building, in order to cool it off and thereby prevent structural damage to it." I forget. Did anything like that happen in the WTC case? Again, the building was empty so firemen could concentrate on fighting the fire rather than rescuing occupants. Although still a steel frame, the building had a very different construction. Surely that must be obvious to you in this image, NC. One source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200503/ai_n13602042 ) describes the construction this way: "The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete "macroslabs" that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second-floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There's no central core. Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofmg. According to Cafco's Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems. Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe. You do understand that little details like that can affect whether a structure fails. Don't you? In addition to many of the differences noted in the cases above (a fire that was actually fought by firefighters, a fire that started locally and spread slowly, a structure that was NOT damaged by impact), the tower in this case has an entirely different construction from the WTC towers. Not only do the core and all floors below the 17th rely on a reinforced concrete frame but the span between the core and the outer walls is much less than that in the WTC towers. Plus, the steel frame in the upper stories is of an entirely different design ... one less susceptible to the type of failure NIST OBSERVED in the WTC case. This source (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm ) provides many details about the building and the fire. Of particular note is that it burned down through the ENTIRE building. But only the portion of the structure that relied solely on a steel frame collapsed and ALL of that collapsed. At the time of the fire, the steel from the 17th floor on up did NOT have fire proofing. That article says that "a large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed. It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building. The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished." By the way, your claim that a steel frame is stronger than a reinforced concrete frame is simply silly.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Did you know that you are an obsessed kook?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
He posts with one hand on the mouse, and the other on his tiny version of he male 'joystick' getting his jollies in conducting his bait feast. This sort of semi-sexual game is an addiction the sufferer of lacks control needed to end. Out of concern for our wanker here, we should cut him off from posting and return him to lurking status. He is pulling for himself anyway, so why not spare ourselves of the task of being enablers of this auto-erotic perversion? Just a though, because I care. ;-)
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Kook!
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
And that's the claim to which I responded. Aren't you capable of seeing the distinction? I can make the distinction. Where others might be discussing steel frame hi-rise towers, BAC might be discussing aluminum sided mobile homes.
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.
With 2WTC, after less than an hour of smoke (much less 11 hours of uncontrolled fire) there was no longer any structure. There were numerous explosions, however.
"Also crucial in putting out the fire were army helicopters, which unloaded water onto the side of the building, in order to cool it off and thereby prevent structural damage to it." I forget. Did anything like that happen in the WTC case? No. In less than an hour (much less 17 hours) they were dealing with a pile of rubble.
1. To: out damned spot, ALL (#0) Thanks. I hadn't realized the Israelis might not have received these munitions yet. If not, EVERY effort should be taken to get them in the hands of the Israelis YESTERDAY. Even if we have to strip them off American planes to do it. If they'd had the GBU-28's, everyone in those bunkers they hit with 23 tons of bombs would probably be dead and this war might already be over. BeAChooser posted on 2006-07-22 02:04:17 ET He is a kook alright. One that would strip U.S. warplanes in order to make sure the Israelis get exactly what they want, when they want it. It is obvious whom this kook serves in here, and equally obvious he has failed so badly we are not the only ones who should 'fire' him, but the Israeli/neocon set should demand he stop shilling for them on the grounds he does nothing but hurt their cause with his activities.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That's why we call him BeAChooserStein.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
What's the problem, ferret? Feeling a sudden desire to change the topic from the collapse of the WTC towers and the damage at the Pentagon ... that a *truther* movie LIED ABOUT?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
If you stopped being such a hate filled little twit people would stop laughing at you.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Now if you don't want to RATIONALLY discuss that example, that's fine with me, buckeroo. I am finished with you, BAC. BOZO for you. buckeroo posted on 2006-07-20 23:52:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, Goldi, so much for your notion that folks come here to debate. BeAChooser posted on 2006-07-20 23:56:01 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=150818&Disp=110&Trace=on#C110 There is nothing about your baiting ame that resembles 'discussion.' As we see in the above quoted posts, even a tempermental, usually drunk and combative kook found you too much to take and bozoed you. So, why shouldn't the rest of us feel much the same way? Not only that, you whined to Goldi about it. Nobody likes a kook, kook. Especially a whiney one who runs to mama rrubbing his sore butt where someone gave them a well deserved smack.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Are you pinworm over on LP?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
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.
The Great Deception - The War On Terrorism An Alternative View "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
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!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Do you drool and pant when you post? Most obsessed kooks do.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
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.
No it's not. The damn official reports cite the same time. Yes it was longer, but still not long enough for the supposed progressive collapse that was claimed. BAC, you rely on the official story, so why do you deviate from it here?
God is always good! I should have realized that whatever that is you have been doing so much of, it has made you go blind and you can neither view video nor read. TIME OF COLLAPSE 9-11 REPORT http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf 9/11 Commission Report, page 304 "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed , killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals -- both first responders and civilians -- in the concourse, in th Marriott, and on neighboring streets."
Since you insist on defending Judy Wood as an expert, you'll find this interesting ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 In this video, Dr Greg Jenkins of DC 911Truth interviews Dr Wood about her space based weapon theory for WTC destruction. She doesn't come across very well ... to put it mildly ... especially near the end. It starts off with him asking her what type of weapon would have done what she claims. She says she doesn't know. Then she doesn't want to get distracted by the figures for the energy required to "dustify" the structures. Dr Jenkins starts to tell her his calculation about the amount of energy needed to evaporate the steel in the towers and she objects. She wants to talk instead about "nanofying" the structure instead. He asks if that's been done in the laboratory ... turn steel into dust. She says "uh-huh". He asks for details. And she starts waving hands. He tells her he doesn't know of a way to "dustify" steel in any situation. And her response is laughable. Wood is way out of her depth. Since she can't seem to explain to Jenkins how it happened they move on to the issue of what happened which is where she says they need to focus before going further. They discuss the issue of whether the debris pile is too small afterwords. Based on a comparison of the collapsed volume to the original volume of other structures that have collapsed (like the KingDome) she says the height of the debris pile at the WTC should have been much higher ... somewhere around 12% of its original height ... which would be 15 stories or so. But it's not. It's much less, she says, ominously. Jenkins points out that the King Dome collapsed inside it's foot print whereas the WTC towers did not. He tells her that the WTC collapsed in a radius six times its footprint. She responds that it is more like a million times its footprint because it went into the upper atmosphere. She keeps talking about the stuff in the upper atmosphere when the video started out by showing all of us with pictures from that day that no cloud went upward during the collapse. It's priceless. When he points this out during the interview she argues with him saying he didn't look at the pictures. She apparently thinks, because of the angle the tower was viewed at in one picture, that there was a column of dust rising upward into the atmosphere from the south tower. He points out that was smoke from the North Tower (which is proven at the beginning of the video). She then wisecracks ... "you mean the smoke from the smoke bombs?" and then insists that it is dust going up into the upper atmosphere. It just doesn't get any funnier folks. Except when he shows that he was little unprepared for such a silly response. Because he didn't have the other images they show at the beginning of the video clip handy to show her, he suggests they go back to the issue of how wide the collapsing debris spreads and she quips "because this wasn't working for you, you want to change to another subject?" It just doesn't get any funnier folks. And the interview goes downhill from there. She is so out there and so unable to grasp the reality of what she is looking at that even another 911 *truther* ends up scratching his head in puzzlement as to why she doesn't see falling debris in a picture that clearly shows falling debris. As to why she finally insists the towers "did not collapse". And you just have to see the last couple minutes of the video when they show image after image of the debris that Dr Wood claims didn't exist. I love it when the truth movement makes fun of the truth movement. But it is a good sign. I have to thank Dr Jenkins for conducting this interview and posting it after adding the images at the beginning to give viewers a proper prospective. It shows how utterly irrational Dr Wood is, as I've been saying from the beginning. While certain people around here and at LP continue to defend and quote her work as that of an *expert*. Like I said ... maybe when it comes to dental materials. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
How come you haven't been posting on Log Cabin this week?
Your last post even merits a few new cartoons on Judy and the other top truthers... --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You seem to be homophobic, Trace. I had a discussion about this phenomena with several other 4um members who took up your clarion call in your absence. I notice they don't want to talk about it any more. But if you want, we can explore why you feel "gay" is a term you can use as an adhominem? Is there something in your history or what your parents taught you or what your church teaches you that makes you view homosexuals negatively? Do you think they are inferior as a group (and as individuals) to you (and your *kind*)? Do you consider them a corruption ... a blight ... a scourge on the human race? Do you think they should be punished for being gay? Should they be rounded up and put in camps? Should they be chemically altered so they are more *normal*? Should they be only allowed in the back of the bus or forced to ride separate buses? Should they be prevented from voting or being elected to office? Aren't you afraid that you might touch something that they've touched? Drink from the same water fountain? Breath the same air? Now, of course, you have no actual basis for suggesting I'm gay. Nowhere in my posting history have I taken much interest in gay issues. Nowhere have I said I'm gay or anything that might suggest I'm gay. You actually know nothing about me since I've been careful not to reveal much of anything about myself on any internet forum. I think for good reason given they are populated with folks like you. So I find the fact that you (and a few others here at LP) toss out the gay innuendos, as if you think that will discredit me, quite fascinating. I think we are actually learning more about YOU than me. No, you seem to have a particular *thing* about homosexuality. A deep seated fear, perhaps. Is there is some reason that you throw out that label when verbally attacking someone you disagree with about some issue that has nothing to do with homosexuality. And even if that person were gay, what would that have to do with the issue? You seem to think there is something VERY wrong with gays and that being gay totally invalidates everything else that person might say, believe or do. So again, I must ask ... what is the source of YOUR problem with gays? Why are you so homophobic? Did you have a bad encounter with a priest? Did your father or a brother give you special attention? Do you belong to a religious sect that feels particularly strong about that? Is your neighbor gay and you just don't like him? Is it the mannerisms ... the differentness ... that trouble you so much? Do you resent the fact that as a group, they are wealthier than most? What is it about gays that makes that label your preferred adhominem? You know, trace ... some psychologists say that calling someone gay is a reaction to being afraid one is gay. Are you afraid of that possibility? Do you lie awake at night fighting off the feeling? Well if so, don't be afraid. Despite what your mom or dad may have told you, or your preacher, or whoever it was who so badly warped your opinions of homosexuals, most of them are pretty nice people. Now I'm not going to confirm or deny your assertion. That would just play to your deepseated fear of gays. I'm not afraid of gays, whether I'm one or not. And I'll not be put in the position of being YOUR enabler. So tell us Trace, why do you think "gay" is a insult?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
As you are the expert, can you explain how "The Spire" disintegrates in mid-air? Please explain how lower Manhattan came to be showered with sheets of paper but there were no remains of filing cabinets found. There was no identifiable anything... not a desk, not a filing cabinet, not a doorknob. If the floors pancaked, where was the stack of floors or pancakes?
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. Actually, your claim is woefully misbegotten. You forget the kinetic energy needed to completely pulverize the floor below into dust. Your idiotic analysis assumes the floors pulverized themselves into dust without using any energy to do so. In fact, the energy needed to pulverize the floor exceeded the available gravitational energy which seems to prove that the observed result could not possibly have resulted from forces of gravity alone. Another force is required, be it an explosive such as HMX or a Directed Energy Weapon, or a death ray from Mars. It matters not what additional force was required to create the observable phenomena, if the force of gravity would not do it, then the scientifically unsupportable theory of a gravitational fall is disproven. As Dr. Wood points out: Let's consider the "Pancake Theory" According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse." Dr. Wood addresses the issue of conservation of momentum and demonstrates the idiocy of the BAC nonsense: Consider reality: QUESTIONS:
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.
Damn, BAC, you must have been badly flustered. This is 4um. And over at LP, you seem to be pinfish rather than BeAChooser since they banned BeAChooser.
And by the way, BAC, did you know that NIST gave the contract for WTC 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND COLLAPSE HYPOTHESES to a purveyor of star-wars like beam weapon technology? I kid you not. And not just any star wars like beam weapon technology, but the specific technology, directed energy, hypothesized by Dr. Wood. Did you know that APA not only worked on directed energy, they won an award for it? And they are the NIST "go to guy" for studying collapse hypotheses for 9/11. ==================================== NIST CONTRACT AWARDED TO ARA http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm Contracts WTC 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND COLLAPSE HYPOTHESES Under solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186, a fixed price purchase order has been awarded to APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico: ARA is an engineering firm founded in 1979 that performs research and design studies for complex defense, security, environmental, transportation, and readiness problems. This study will be managed from the Silicon Valley Office of ARA that specializes in finite element analysis and nonlinear structural dynamics under blast and impact loading, impact and penetration mechanics, failure analysis, and blast effects and the analysis of progressive collapse in buildings. Specific examples of the team’s past work include: Studies on the degradation and failure of structures subjected to localized thermal loading. Evaluation of combined effects of material degradation and geometric changes resulting from dynamic temperature profiles. ARA will conduct analyses, in collaboration with NIST, to determine the location and cause of the initiating event (i.e., the first component or group of components that failed) that led to global collapse of WTC 7. The analyses will determine the series of component and subsystem failures subsequent to the initiating event that led to global collapse that are consistent with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence. NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses. [SNIP] ================================= http://www.ara.com/careers/awards.htm ARA Awards and Recognition * * * External Awards The Society of American Military Engineers - Outstanding Member Award: The Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) is a non-profit professional engineer association, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia with chapters worldwide. Founded in 1920 to engage military and federal government engineers with those in private life for the purpose of improving the engineering potential of the United States. The Society today has nearly 27,000 members from industry, military and government organizations, and academia. ARA is proud to have been recognized by the Society as an Outstanding Member and an Outstanding Sustainer Support. : ARA was recently recognized at a directed energy symposium in Washington, D.C. as a Founding Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). DEPS was founded in 1999 to foster research and development of directed energy technology for national defense and civil applications through professional communication and education. ================================== The Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) fosters research and development in directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave (HPM) technologies, for national defense and civilian applications through professional communication and education. More about DE programs, DEPS, and other DE organizations. -------------------- http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/Programs.html Several Directed Energy (DE) programs are described here. These programs were selected to show some of the breadth of DE as well as because they have web links available. All photos are courtesy of Air Force Research Laboratory. Note: These links take you outside the DEPS web site, and the content is beyond our control. http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEPSinfo.html DEPS Mission: The Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) was founded in 1999 to foster research and development of Directed Energy (DE) technology for national defense and civil applications through professional communication and education. We intend to be recognized as the premier organization for exchanging information about and advocating research, development and application of Directed Energy. http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/extLinks.html The Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) has complied this list of links to web sites that are potentially of interest to the DE Community. Note: these links take you outside the DEPS web site, and the content is beyond our control. =================================
I know, all the people on Log Cabin would out you if you denied it. But Jeez, I only asked why you hadn't been posting over there this week.
I've never ever claimed to be an expert. I do like to quote people I consider experts. The spire didn't disintegrate. The video you posted very clearly shows it sinking into the ground. Are you blind? **************** http://911review.com/errors/wtc/spire.html ERROR: 'The North Tower's Spire Turned to Dust' The destruction of the Twin Towers involved phenomena never seen before. While normal controlled demolitions shatter a building into many pieces and produce copious dust, the thoroughness of the destruction of towers and the quantities of dust produced were of a higher order of magnitude. In the towers' collapses there are many other features that appear unusual, such as the persistence of large portions of the core structures until after the rest of each tower had been destroyed. The North Tower 'spire' -- a portion of the tower's core that remained standing for 30 seconds after the start of the tower's collapse -- is such a feature. Based on videos of the spire's collapse, some have concluded that it turned to dust. ... snip ... The interpretation that the spire turned to dust is an easy one to make given its appearance in the videos. However, there is a much less exotic alternative explanation. That is that as the spire fell, it released dust which obscured its visibility. The photo on the left shows detail of the lower portion of the spire. It shows what are apparently short horizontal sections of floor connecting several core columns, two of which are visible. Those horizontal sections would have held a great deal of dust, which would be expelled as the spire collapsed from below. **************************** You look at this video nolu ... all of it. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903 You look at it starting around 19:00 until about 21:00. You will clearly see a shot of the tower that does NOT show a cloud of nanodust moving into the upper atmosphere, like your expert claimed. You will clearly see a downward collapse of the tower, not a disintegration like your expert claimed. And if you look closely, you will even see part of the core still standing for a time and the "spire" as it decended towards the ground. Staring you in the face as it has been for years now. You've just got your *truther* blinders on. First, the debris pile was more than 5 stories high in places. Plus there were multiple basements into which the building collapsed. Now ask yourself what percent of the building was air. 90%? Ask yourself over what area the building debris was dispersed. Just looking at the above video it has to be many times the area inside the perimeter. Answer those questions HONESTLY and apply SOUND logic and you will conclude that the debris pile height is completely consistent with the notion that the structure simply collapsed and wasn't evaporated by super secret energy beams, mini-nukes or tons and tons of thermite. Here's even a chunk of debris that was made up of several floors of structure, pancaked on one another. Of course another of the dishonest 911 *Truth* leaders tried to fool the unwary into thinking that was slag from a pool of molten steel. Now I'm "almost" done with you on this thread. If you want to persist in spouting complete nonsense and disinformation that is harmful to finding the real truth, as well as harmful to this country, go ahead. You'll be talking to yourself. You will only embarrass yourself. Because I'm confident those who haven't already succumbed to the "truther" mentality of denying what is clearly proven by videos and photos from that day will draw the right conclusions about what happened to the towers, about you, and about the so-called *truth* movement as it now stands.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'll just point out to the unwary that Jim Hoffman is a software developer. His theory is that giant, super secret, microwave *projectors* were installed in the basements of both towers and that accounts for their collapse and dust cloud. He wrote "So this rather Sci-Fi theory that I have can be described as a kind of microwave interferometry, but it's a particular configuration of microwave beams that could have been driven by some kind of device that was, say, trucked in to the basement of the towers. Now, there were subterranean roads and things in this deep sub-basement of the towers, so there is a way that you can drive a truck into there, and you could have a maser, say, which is pumped by some source of energy, and I don't know how you pipe the energy in. Based on my analysis of the North Tower dust cloud I'm thinking that energy in the neighborhood of 1.5 gigawatt-hours were required to produce this destruction and that energy would to have had to been delivered in about fifteen seconds because that's how long it took this wave of demolition to travel from the crash zone down to the ground. However it seems ... and that's a huge amount of energy and it kind of stretches the imagination to wonder how they would have piped that much energy into this device that created these microwave beams, but I calculated that it would take something like a copper cable of maybe a foot thick or maybe a little less, to deliver that much energy. Furthermore, since Building Seven straddled a ConEd electrical sub-station that might have had something to do with the delivery of energy, or maybe even the storage of the energy -- perhaps they had banks of super capacitors or something -- to provide the energy, to deliver it when the towers were actually destroyed." It is odd, however, that the towers collapsed from the top down. Do microwaves work that way, nolu? And do you know that Hoffman has also claimed "a tall structure like that wouldn't just collapse through itself, just ripping itself apart and going straight down. It would topple one way or the other. It wouldn't even have to be made out of steel. It could be made out of toothpicks and the flimsiest materials, but it wouldn't fall through itself. That's not even physics. It's just basic intuition." I suspect a great many structural engineers and demolition experts around the world would be surprised to learn that ... "basic intuition". Yes, that's your newest *expert* talking. I wonder what Dr Jenkins would do to him in an interview? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Yeah, the immediately preceding events had not been violent enough to shake off the dust.
In that case, I will just point out that BAC is an asshole.
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: All (#2)
#4. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, *9-11* (#0)
#5. To: robin, All (#4)
#6. To: All (#5)
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: All (#7)
#9. To: All (#8)
#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."
#11. To: BeAChooser, christine, Zipporah (#10)
Furthermore, the Windsor Tower in Madrid did experience a fire that destroyed all portions of the structure that depended on a steel frame.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#12. To: RickyJ, Minerva (#11)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
Time to launch this deliberate disruptor with a good kick to the rump.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#14. To: RickyJ, christine, ALL (#11)
"Furthermore, the Windsor Tower in Madrid did experience a fire that destroyed all portions of the structure that depended on a steel frame."
You liar! Only those with really low IQs would buy the crap you are peddling.
I vote to end this little spammers posting privileges on this forum. He contributes absolutely nothing of value anymore.
#15. To: RickyJ, ALL (#13)
I have to wonder why he chose that name. Pro-Choice?
#16. To: BeAChooser, Itisa1mosttoolate (#10)
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:
Major fire at toilet paper plant
In 1988, a blaze in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for three and a half hours and gutted four and a half of the building's 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage.
#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
#18. To: nolu_chan (#16)
The Madrid "collapse" of the lightly framed outer facade took 4 1/2 hours.
#19. To: RickyJ (#13)
Yeah, he will probably sneak back on, but it's time to end the chooser screen name. I have to wonder why he chose that name. Pro-Choice?
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
#21. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#16)
Here is a picture of that toilet paper plant that BAC equates to a steel-frame hi-rise tower.
In 1988, a blaze in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for three and a half hours and gutted four and a half of the building's 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage.
In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building's 38 floors but, said the FEMA report, although "beams and girders sagged and twisted ... under severe fire exposures ... the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
In 2004, a fire in a 50-story building in Caracas, Venezuela raged for more than 17 hours, gutting the building's top 20 floors, yet the building did not collapse.
In 2005, another spectacular high rise fire occurred when the Edificio Windsor in Madrid turned into a raging inferno for 16 hours on February 12 with only the top floors partially collapsing. The building is only partially comparable to the WTC towers in that it was built of reinforced concrete. But, by the same token, the WTC towers, being steel-framed, were even stronger.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#21)
#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.
#24. To: Minerva (#22)
"Did you know that you are an obsessed kook?"
#25. To: BeAChooser (#23)
#26. To: BeAChooser (#21)
The claim made by the filmmakers is that NO BUILDING (not just hi-rise towers) EVER collapsed from fire.
#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:
#28. To: BeAChooser (#21)
Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that.
#29. To: BeAChooser (#21)
In 2004, a fire in a 50-story building in Caracas, Venezuela raged for more than 17 hours....
#30. To: Minerva (#25)
(Edited)
From LP at >http://libertypost.org/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151115&Disp=1#C1
#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.
#32. To: Ferret Mike, BeAChooserStein (#30)
He is a kook alright. One that would strip U.S. warplanes in order to make sure the Israelis get exactly what they want, when they want it.
#33. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#30)
#34. To: BeAChooser (#33)
What's the problem, ferret? Feeling a sudden desire to change the topic from the collapse of the WTC towers and the damage at the Pentagon ... that a *truther* movie LIED ABOUT?
#35. To: BeAChooser (#33)
105. To: BeAChooser
(#100)
110.
To: Goldi-Lox, buckeroo, ALL
(#105) I am finished with you, BAC. BOZO for you.
#36. To: BeAChooser (#33)
#37. To: BeAChooser (#31)
No, that is NIST saying ESSENTIALLY freefall.
#38. To: Minerva (#36)
9/11, the CIA, Bin Laden and the oilirachy. 2002
#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 
#40. To: BeAChooser (#39)
#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.
#42. To: BeAChooser (#31)
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 was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#43. To: BeAChooser (#39)
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.
#44. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#41)
BAC means this Judy Wood.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#44)
#46. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#41)
#47. To: Trace21231, ALL (#45)
How come you haven't been posting on Log Cabin this week?
#48. To: BeAChooser (#44)
#49. To: BeAChooser (#39)
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
So, if motion must be restarted at every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, if any. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.
(1) How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time?
(2) If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint?
(3) What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?
#50. To: BeAChooser (#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
#52. To: BeAChooser, Trace21231, ALL (#47)
So I find the fact that you (and a few others here at LP) toss out the gay innuendos
#53. To: BeAChooser (#39)
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.
Awards
#54. To: BeAChooser (#47)
Now I'm not going to confirm or deny your assertion.
#55. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#48)
As you are the expert, can you explain how "The Spire" disintegrates in mid-air?
If the floors pancaked, where was the stack of floors or pancakes?
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)"
#56. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#50)
by Jim Hoffman
#57. To: BeAChooser (#55)
The interpretation that the spire turned to dust is an easy one to make given its appearance in the videos. However, there is a much less exotic alternative explanation. That is that as the spire fell, it released dust which obscured its visibility.
#58. To: BeAChooser (#56)
I'll just point out to the unwary that Jim Hoffman is a software developer.
#59. To: BAC backs up Gov't CT (#58)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
){kind=link}