See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Rosie's new 9/11 theories: Steel moved, Command co
Source:
You Tube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vJVhRocFQ
Published: May 20, 2007
Author: The View
Post Date: 2007-05-20 21:19:19 by Zipporah
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1168
Comments: 88
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: nolu_chan, ladybug, ALL (#44)
This is misleading. Skillings was not necessarily saying the structure would survive the fires. What he wrote can easily be interpreted to mean only that he thought the structure would survive the impact. And indeed it did. Furthermore, it isn't clear who actually did this claimed impact analysis. Leslie Robertson, who by most accounts was the lead structural engineer on the project, said there was an analysis but only for an impact at relatively low speed (180 mph) based on the assumption that such a plane would only hit the towers if it was lost in fog. This load condition makes sense ... studying the survival of the towers for a high speed impact does not. No other building design had contemplated such a loading and no instance of a building impact other than a plane lost in fog had occurred. Furthermore, Skillings memo was intended to calm concerns about a number of issues related to the towers. With that as it's goal, Skillings could very well have chosen to exaggerate the towers' claimed safety. And the White Paper did not contain any details beyond what was quoted by nolu regarding the impact analysis. Whatever real documentation there was for those calculations was apparently lost in the intervening 40 years. Furthermore, keep in mind that the analysis tools available back in the early 60's to examine impact and fire problems were at best crude. They lacked the computers, the software, and, in many ways, even the physics and material underpinnings to state with any confidence that the towers would survive high speed impacts and the fires that would subsequently result. nolu_chan ... as usual, is trying to take something out of context. This is another attempt to deceive. NC is trying to implant the notion in your mind that there were only two small pockets of fire at the impact level of the South Tower just 7 minutes before it collapsed. This is clearly false, as both photo and video evidence proves. Furthermore, the complete transcript of Chief Palmer's remarks and other firemen who were on that floor at the time indicates that both group of firemen were trapped in the stairwells by the fires and thus could not have been in position to speak to the existence or size of the fires anywhere else in the impact level ... which by the way encompassed multiple stories above the 78th floor that Chief Palmer had not even reached when he made that call. Keep in mind with anything posted by nolu_chan that the context ... what he isn't telling you ... matters a great deal. Or you will be misled.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What nolu_chan doesn't want to tell ladybug (... to keep her in the dark) is that Dr Wood's ENTIRE career has been spent studying dental materials. Her expertise (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf) is in statics, not dynamics. In biological materials and composites, not steel, impact or fire. In moire interferometry ... as opposed to anything that would actually help one understand what happened to the towers that day. She is a member of the IADR (International Association for Dental Research), and the Academy of Dental Materials. ALL her published papers are on that subject. She doesn't even understand the concept of momentum as her billiard ball analysis proves. Her pet theory is that some star-war like energy weapon from space destroyed the towers. If you really want to see what a complete kook Dr Wood is, look at the following video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 In this video, Dr Greg Jenkins of DC 911Truth (and who has a PhD in physics) interviews her about her beam weapon theory. 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 anyway. They discuss the issue of whether the debris pile is too small afterwords for it to have been a simple collapse. 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, apparently ... which would be 15 stories. But it's not. It's much less, she says. 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. Then she claims that it was 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 a priceless moment in this whole saga. 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 his 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 ... except when someone like nolu_chan references her as an *expert*. Dr Jenkins was clearly 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 can't destroy her on camera. So instead 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?" Could Dr Wood be any more clueless? 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 Dr Jenkins (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. She is so nutty that 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. Now what was that you were telling ladybug about Dr Wood, nolu? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50387&SC=1&EC=40#C34 BAC #34: Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center was unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, with an eight-foot model.[27] So there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that any White Paper from 1964 affected the DESIGN. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50387&SC=41&EC=80#C45 BAC #45: The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964. Unlike BAC bullshit, there is incontrovertible evidence (repeated once again below) that Leslie Robertson was not even a licensed professional engineer until January 6, 1965. Design work on the towers began in 1963 and the design was presented to the public in January 1964. Leslie Robertson has never had an engineering degree and did not yet have enough experience under the tutelage of Chief Engineer John Skilling to obtain a license. Robertson was not yet a junior partner in Skilling's engineering firm, much less a named partner. Absent a license, the only engineering document Robertson could sign before 1965 was the lunch list. In addition, Glanz and Lipton write that, "every facet of the [WTC] design was almost a photographic expansion of something that Skilling and his staff had used on earlier jobs." That is earlier, as in still more years before Robertson gained enough experience under the tutelage of Chief Engineer John Skilling to obtain a license. The articles in Engineering News Record from 1964 do not even mention Robertson's name, nor was there any reason to do so. Absent a license, Robertson could not submit anything without getting his Daddy's signature. No matter how many "accounts" BACpimp can find echoed on the net, nothing will change the documented fact that Robertson did not obtain a license as a professional engineer until 1965. Source: New York State Education Department http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=16&plicno=034360 Name : ROBERTSON LESLIE E http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=16&plicno=039286 Name : SKILLING JOHN B A series of articles from Engineering News Record from 1964 to 1971, refer to either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson. I have boldfaced each name in each instance and have left no instance unquoted from the linked source. Robertson did not receive a mention until 1971. Prior to that there are repeated references to John Skilling, but nary a mention of Robertson. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD. ----- Architects are Minoru Yamasaki & Associates of Birmingham, Mich., and Emery Roth & Sons, of New York City. Structural engineers are Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, of Seattle. July 9, 1964 ----- The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124). April 2, 1964 ----- Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above. April 2, 1964 ----- Minoru Yamasaki and Associates, Birmingham, Mich., and Emery Roth & Sons, New York City, are the Architects. Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, are, the consulting structural engineers; Jaros, Baum and Bowles, of New York City, the consulting mechanical engineers; and Joseph R. Loring and Associates, New York City, the consulting electrical' engineers. These firms were assisted in the design by the World Trade Center Planning Division under the direction of Malcolm P. Levy, and the PNYA engineering department, John M. Kyle,' chief engineer. January 23, 1964 ----- Fig . World Trade Center's towers will rise 1,350 ft in New York January 23, 1964 ----- To maintain uniform column and spandrel dimensions, structural engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, of Seattle, specified a variety of steel strengths and sections to resist varying stresses throughout the frame. February 2, 1967 ----- Monti on management. Monti operates from the 10th floor of a building overlooking the WTC site. Although he concentrates most of his attention in areas where things go wrong, he maintains constant communication with the main contractors, with the architects and with the engineering consultants, Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson, Seattle, on structural design; Joseph Loring & Associates, New York City, on electrical work, and Jaros, Baum & Bolles, New York City, on mechanical. February 11, 1971 ----- "City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center," James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, pp. 123-4 The World Trade Center, the agency said, "required engineering ingenuity from foundation to roof." The truth was a little more prosaic. As outlandish as his design sounded to the Eastern engineering establishment, including the Port Authority's own hardheaded engineering department - which was deeply offended by Mal Levy's decision to have an outside firm do the work - every facet of the design was almost a photographic expansion of something that Skilling and his staff had used on earlier jobs. As far back as 1957, Skilling and Nathaniel Curtis, the New Orleans architect, designed a thirteen-story office tower in Pittsburgh that was among the first modern high-rises whose exterior walls would be built to resist all the lateral forces caused by wind - a system close to the "tube" concept of the World Trade Center. This design let Skilling and his engineers build fifty-seven-foot "clear spans," or floor spaces unencumbered by columns, just like the trade center. The design also used newly available high-strength steel, as the trade center would. Even the conversion of Yamasaki's pinstripes into structural elements had already been done in the IBM Building in Seattle, a twenty-story, 272-foot high-rise completed in 1963. The steel pinstripes, separated by less than 3 feet, were encased in prefabricated concrete covers, like the prefabricated steel panels of the trade center. Perhaps the most striking parallel, though, was embedded deep inside the Washington Building in Seattle. Ordinarily, the steel girders and beams supporting the floors get in the way of the ductwork, plumbing, and electrical wiring that must thread their way through the space between the ceiling of one story of the building and the floor of the next. From other engineers, Skilling borrowed the idea of using torches to cut a zigzagging pattern along the length of the support beams, sliding one of the halves a few inches horizontally and welding the pieces back together again. This "castellated beam" method left gaps for the ductwork to fit through, and it let Skilling reduce the total height of each story in the Washington Building by nearly a foot. He and his staff took the idea a step further in their design for the World Trade Center: they proposed replacing the beams entirely with airy, weblike networks of thin steel bars and angle irons called bar-joist trusses. Corrugated decking would be placed atop these floor trusses so that concrete could be poured on it to create the floors. The ductwork could run without obstruction, and the diaphanous floor trusses would complete a design for the World Trade Center without precedent in its feathery, ethereal lightness. Skilling engineers calculated that for every cubic foot of space inside the Empire State Building, that skyscraper weighed 17 pounds; the World Trade Center would weigh just 10.5 pounds a cubic foot, lighter by an amazing 38 percent. As with all of the Skilling innovations, the trusses came with several twists. First of all, the trusses that actually went into the building would be stouter than any similar support system ever devised, with cross-bracing and a redundant design unknown in the ordinary bar-joist trusses that are common in warehouse construction. Second, the trusses would be built in such away that the concrete of the floors would also add to the structural integrity of the system. Still, Skilling and his engineers had, once again, gone into a structural realm where no one else had been.
The BAC challenge to ladybug was to offer a name of a structural engineer who thinks the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Dr. Judy Wood holds a degree in structural engineering and holds the opinion that the towers were brought down by the means specified by BAC. Challenge answered with the name of a structural engineer. Just for good measure, Dr. Wood also holds a masters in Engineering Mechanics, and a doctorate in Materials Engineering Science. When last checked, Virginia Polytechnic Institute is not a Dental School.
Wednesday, January 18 2006 “[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed. Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers.1 (Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department.2) The Times then made these oral histories publicly available.3 Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. In any case, now that the oral histories have finally been released, it is time for Americans and the world in general to see what these brave men and women reported about that fateful day. If this information forces a reevaluation of the official story about 9/11, better now than later. That said, it must be added that although these oral histories are of great significance, they do not contain the first reports of explosions in the Twin Towers. Such reports---from firefighters, reporters, and people who had worked in the towers---started becoming available right after 9/11. These reports, however, were not widely publicized by the mainstream press and, as a result, have for the most part been known only within the "9/11 truth movement," which has focused on evidence that seems inconsistent with the official story. I will begin by summarizing some of those previously available reports. Readers will then be able to see that although in some respects the newly released oral histories simply add reinforcement, they also are revelatory documents: Some of the testimonies are quite stunning, even to people familiar with the earlier reports; and there are now so many testimonies that even the most skeptical reader is likely to find the cumulative effect impressive. The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the south tower, said: "There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing."4 A story in the Guardian said that "police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion.'"5 "Planned implosion" is another term for controlled demolition, in which explosives are placed at crucial places throughout a building so that, when set off in the proper order, they will cause the building to come down in the desired way. When it is close to other buildings, the desired way will be straight down into, or at least close to, the building's footprint, so that it does not damage the surrounding buildings. This type of controlled demolition is called an "implosion." To induce an implosion in steel-frame buildings, the explosives must be set so as to break the steel columns. Each of the Twin Towers had 47 massive steel columns in its core and 236 steel columns around the periphery. To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6 Rodriguez's account has been corroborated by Jose Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that "sounded like a bomb," after which "a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator."7 Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. "There was nothing there but rubble," said Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!" They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.8 Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."9 Some of the testimonies suggested that more than one explosion occurred in one tower or the other. FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."10 In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower: Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion. Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?? After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman "heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the elevator, "another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!"12 Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly "the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."13 Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: "I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions."14 Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: "[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."15 Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation of the collapse of the south tower from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: "I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces."16 Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be "individual floors, one after the other exploding outward," he thought: "My God, they're going to bring the building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions."17 A similar perception was reported by Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio, who said: "It just descended like a timed explosion, like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, 'They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to.'"18 A more graphic testimony to this perception was provided on the film made by the Naudet brothers. In a clip from that film, one can watch two firemen describing their experiences to other firemen. Fireman 1: "We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . ." Fireman 2: "We made it at least two blocks and we started running." He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: "Floor by floor it started popping out . . . ." Fireman 1: "It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . ." Fireman 2: "All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down."19 As these illustrations show, quite impressive testimony to the occurrence of explosions in the Twin Towers existed even prior to the release of the oral histories. As we will see, however, these oral histories have made the testimony much more impressive, qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The cumulative testimony now points even more clearly than before not simply to explosions but to controlled demolition. Testimonies in the Oral Histories Suggestive of Controlled Demolition Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. For example, Battalion Chief John Sudnik said that while he and others were working at the command post, "we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down."20 Firefighter Timothy Julian said: "First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."21 Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: "[W]e heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it."22 Ober's testimony suggests that he heard and saw the explosion before he saw any sign that the building was coming down. This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said: "There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."23 These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse, suggest that the sounds and the horizontal ejection of materials could not be attributed simply to the onset of the collapse. As we saw earlier, some people in the towers reported that there were powerful explosions in the basements. Such explosions would likely have caused the ground to shake. Such shaking was reported by medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: "I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened."24 According to the official account, the vibrations that people felt were produced by material from the collapsing towers hitting the ground. Penn's account, however, indicates that the shaking must have occurred several seconds before the collapse. Shaking prior to the collapse of the north tower was described by fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when "all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing."25 Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down," he said, "I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, "we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."26 The oral histories contain numerous testimonies with reports of more than one explosion. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski, for example, said: "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."27 Gregg Brady, an emergency medical technician, reported the same thing about the north tower, saying: "I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now."28 Somewhat more explosions were reported by firefighter Thomas Turilli, who said, referring to the south tower, that "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."29 Even more explosions were reported by Craig Carlsen, who said that while he and other firefighters were looking up at the towers, they "heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down."30 As before, "pops" were reported by some witnesses. "As we are looking up at the [south tower]," said firefighter Joseph Meola, "it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling--you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out."31 "Pops" were also reported by paramedic Daniel Rivera in the following exchange: Q. How did you know that it [the south tower] was coming down? A. That noise. It was noise. Q. What did you hear? What did you see? A. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'. That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.32 According to the official account, the "pancaking" of the floors began when the floors above the strike zone, where the supports were weakened by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires, fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began lower than the floors that were struck by the airliner and hence lower than the fires. Timothy Burke reported that while he was watching flames coming out of the south tower, "the building popped, lower than the fire." He later heard a rumor that "the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad, and that's why it popped at that floor." At the time, however, he said, "I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion."33 This same twofold observation was made by firefighter Edward Cachia, who said: "As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."34 Some witnesses reported other phenomena, beyond explosions, suggestive of controlled demolition. The Appearance of Implosion: When a building close to other buildings is brought down by controlled demolition, as mentioned earlier, it typically implodes and hence comes straight down into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not fall over on surrounding structures. As we saw above in the accounts that were previously available, both police and fire officials were quoted as saying that the towers seemed to implode. This perception was also stated in the oral history of Lieutenant James Walsh, who said: "The [north tower] didn't fall the way you would think tall buildings would fall. Pretty much it looked like it imploded on itself."35 Flashes: Another common feature of controlled demolitions is that people who are properly situated may see flashes when the explosives go off. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down. That's what I thought I saw."36 Flashes were reported in the north tower by Captain Karin Deshore, who said: "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash."37 Demolition Rings: At this point, Deshore's account moved to another standard phenomenon seen by those who watch controlled demolitions: explosion rings, in which a series of explosions runs rapidly around a building. Deshore's next words were: "Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."38 An explosion ring (or belt) was also described by firefighter Richard Banaciski. Speaking of the south tower, he said: "[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."39 A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."40 Horizontal Ejections: Another feature of controlled demolition, at least when quite powerful explosives are used, is that things are ejected horizontally from the floors on which the explosions occur. Such ejections were mentioned in the testimony of Chief Frank Cruthers above. Similarly, Captain Jay Swithers said: "I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion."41 Firefighter James Curran said: "When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chuchu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed."42 Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said: "I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . [T]he lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out."43 These reports by Curran and Dixon conform to what can be seen by looking at photographs and videos of the collapses, which show that various materials, including sections of steel and aluminum, were blown out hundreds of feet.44 Such powerful ejections of materials are exactly what would be expected from explosions powerful enough to cause such huge buildings to collapse. Dust Clouds: The most visible material ejected horizontally from buildings during controlled demolition, especially buildings with lots of concrete, is dust, which forms more or less expansive dust clouds. Some of the testimonies about the collapse of the south tower mention that it produced an enormous amount of dust, which formed clouds so big and thick that they blocked out all light. Firefighter Stephen Viola said: "You heard like loud booms . . . and then we got covered with rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen through the floor . . . because it was so dark you couldn't see anything."45 Firefighter Angel Rivera said: "That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. . . . The wind rushed. . . , all the dust. . . and everything went dark."46 Lieutenant William Wall said: "[W]e heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us. . . . We ran a little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud."47 Paramedic Louis Cook said that after the debris started falling, "everything went black" and "you couldn't breathe because [of] all the dust. There was just an incredible amount of dust and smoke." He then found that there was, "without exaggerating, a foot and a half of dust on [his] car."48 The kind of dust clouds typically produced during a controlled demolition can be seen on videos of the demolition of Seattle's Kingdome and the Reading Grain Facility.49 If these videos are then compared with photos and videos of the collapses of the Twin Towers,50 it can be seen that the dust clouds in the latter are even bigger.51 Timed or Synchronized Explosions: Some people said that the collapses had the appearance of timed, synchronized demolitions. Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio, speaking of the collapse of the south tower, said: "It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."52 Firefighter Kenneth Rogers said: "[T]here was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93."53 Given so many signs that the buildings had been brought down by controlled demolition, we might expect that debates about this issue would have taken place. And they did. Firefighter Christopher Fenyo, after describing events that occurred after the first collapse, said: "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."54 Firefighter William Reynolds reported on a conversation he had with a battalion chief: "I said, 'Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?' He said,'No.' . . . I said, 'Why not. They blew up the other one.' I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, 'If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.' He said, 'No, they're not.' I said, 'Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.' . . . He said, 'I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.' . . . I said, 'You got a fucking radio and you got a fucking mouth. Use the fucking things. Empty this fucking building.' Again he said, 'I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.' . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, 'They are evacuating this tower.' . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall."55 As both accounts suggest, the perception that the south tower had been brought down by explosives may have resulted in fewer lives being lost in the north tower collapse than would otherwise have been the case. If so many witnesses reported effects that seemed to be produced by explosives, with some of them explicitly saying that the collapses appeared to be cases of controlled demolition, why is this testimony not public knowledge? Part of the answer, as I mentioned at the outset, is that the city of New York refused to release it until forced to do so by the highest court of the state of New York But why did we have to wait for this court-ordered release to learn about these testimonies? Should not they have been discussed in The 9/11 Commission Report, which was issued over a year earlier? This Report, we are told in the preface, sought "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." Why does it not include any of the testimony in the 9/11 oral histories suggestive of controlled demolition? The answer cannot be that the Commission did not know about these oral histories. Although "[t]he city also initially refused access to the records to investigators from . . . the 9/11 Commission," Jim Dwyer of the New York Times tells us, it "relented when legal action was threatened."56 So the Commission could have discussed the testimonies about explosions in the oral histories. It also, in order to help educate the public, could have called some of the firefighters and medical workers to repeat their testimony during one of the Commission's public hearings. But it did not. Why, we may wonder, have the firefighters and medical workers not been speaking out? At least part of the reason may be suggested by a statement made by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that "there were definitely bombs in those buildings," Isaac added that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."57 Would we not expect, however, that a few courageous members of the fire department would have contacted the 9/11 Commission to tell their story? Indeed. But telling their story to the Commission was no guarantee that it would find its way into the final report---as indicated by the account of one fireman who made the effort. Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission's staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. "I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out."58 That Cacchioli's experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower."59 When reading The 9/11 Commission Report, one will not find the name of Cacchioli, or Rodriguez, or anyone else reporting explosions in the towers. It would appear that the Commission deliberately withheld this information, as it apparently did with regard to Able Danger60 and many other things that should have been included in "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."61 The definitive report about the collapse of the towers was to have been provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to Rodriguez, however, this investigative body was equally uninterested in his testimony: "I contacted NIST . . . four times without a response. Finally, [at a public hearing] I asked them before they came up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces."62 In light of this report of NIST's response, it is not surprising to find that its final report, which in the course of supporting the official story about the collapses ignores many vital issues,63 makes no mention of reports of explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition. It is sometimes said that the mandate of an official commission is, by definition, to support the official story. Insofar as that is true, it is not surprising that neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission saw fit to discuss testimony suggestive of explosions in the Twin Towers, since this testimony is in strong tension with the official story. At least most of those who offered this testimony did not, to be sure, mean to challenge the most important element in the official story about 9/11, which is that the attacks were entirely the work of foreign terrorists. For example, firefighter Timothy Julian, after saying that he "thought it was an explosion," added: "I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device."64 Assistant Commissioner James Drury said: "I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building."65 The problem, however, is that a bomb delivered by a plane, or even a few explosives planted "somewhere in the building," would not explain the many phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, such as explosion rings and other features indicating that the explosions were "synchronized" and otherwise "timed." As Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, "to bring [a building] down as we want, so no one or no other structure is harmed," the demolition must be "completely planned." One needs "the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges."66 The 9/11 oral histories, therefore, create a difficult question for those who defend the official story: How could al-Qaeda terrorists have gotten access to the Twin Towers for all the hours required to place all the explosives needed to bring down buildings of that size? It is primarily because they force this question that the testimony about explosions in the towers is itself explosive. Notes David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, where he taught 31 years. He has published some 30 books, including The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Books, 2004) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Interlink Books, 2005). (c) David Ray Griffin. 911truth.org hereby grants to all readers of this website permission to link to any and all articles found in the public areas of the website, www.911truth.org, so long as the full source URL (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192, in this case) is posted with the article.
Soffits are new to me but here is what my newly acquired knowledge indicates. Soffit: another way to say gypsum drywall. 4 ft soffit: a slab of gypsum drywall 4 feet wide and perhaps one-half to three-quarters of an inch thick. ================== From NIST Final Report: p. 144 The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance, the observed window breakage was an input to the fire simulations and the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted within the range of values derived from the subsystem computations. [nc note - adjust the variables until the building falls. By adjusting the variables, this methodology could provide faux proof that a bumblebee could fly into the wall of a tower and knock it over. Note that they were the sole judge of what was within the realm of "physical reality." The surreal Bush administration discovered the "physical reality" that maltreatment is not torture unless it causes organ failure or death. By this surreal Bushian definition, piercing the subject's liver with a knitting needle repeatedly would not be torture if the subject lived and did not suffer organ failure.] ----- From NIST Final Report: p. 126 * * * In Cases B and D, a more severe representation of the damage was to leave a 4 ft gypsum wallboard soffit that would maintain a hot upper layer on each fire floor. This produced a fire of longer duration near the core columns and the attached floor membranes. [nc note - the wallboard soffit was apparently indestructible. The ceiling soffit was assumed to all be dislodged and without effect.] =============== http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf Session VI - Structural Fire Response and collapse Analysis Observations for Structural Response Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact September 15, 2005 Therese McAllister ----- Page 25 Criteria for Dislodged Passive Fire Protection of Floor Trusses If the debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations), then the debris field was considered to extend high enough to be strong enough to dislodge the fire protection in the same floor area. If the debris field did not damage room furnishings, then the fire protection in the same floor area was considered to be intact. [nc note - if there was furniture damage in an area, all fire protection in the area was considered dislodged.] ============== http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/clifton.htm Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. * * * =============== NSTAR DRAFT REPORT http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-5ExecutiveSummary.pdf Executive Summary * * * NIST obtained architectural plans for most of the floors in the impact and fire zones of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These included the locations of interior walls, descriptions of the floor and ceiling construction, and additional features such as the locations of staircases within the tenant spaces. Since the ceiling system could have served as a temporary protective barrier to heating of the floor structure above, shaking table experiments were conducted to determine the magnitude of building impact that could have led to significant dislodging of ceiling tiles. Forces of the order of 5g caused significant damage to the framing. Since the aircraft impact forces were estimated to have been about 100g, NIST assumed there was not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection. [nc note - The NIST Final Report at p.120 below changed "not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection" to "assumed that the ceiling tiles in the impact and fire zones were fully dislodged."] ================== NSTAR FINAL REPORT ----- p. 92 LERA also developed reference models of a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings, and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors. ----- p. 97 ----- p. 120 The aircraft impact modeling did not include the ceiling tile systems. To estimate whether the tiles would survive the aircraft impact, the University at buffalo, under contract to NIST, conducted tests of WTC-like ceiling tile systems using their shake table (Figure 6-29) and impulses related to those induced by the aircraft impact on the towers. The data indicated that accelerations of approximately 5g would most likely result in substantial displacement of ceiling times. Given the estimated impact accelerations of approximately 100g, NIST assumed that the ceiling tiles in the impact and fire zones were fully dislodged. This was consistent with the multiple reports of severely damaged ceilings (Chapter 7). ----- p. 147 ====================
Great posts. Whats reality? In the NISTIAN world, anything is possible. What people need to know is, if there was ANY damage, say a broken desk, NIST then ASSUMES 100% damage of the entire area. In NISTs cartoon world, the soffits are as important as the removal of 100% of the fireproofing. NIST needs these to jack up and prolong the thermal gas temps from the trumped up multiple workstation burn tests. Just think of this, in the tweeked up severe cases, NIST "adjusts" the aircraft speed, size, weight and angle, then decreases the towers capacity. The aircraft destroys 5 floors(9 floors in the computer model)of floor slabs, trusses, office contents, SFRM, cement board, gypsum, severs and damages massive core girders and outer collumns, BUT low and behold, somehow the "magical" soffits remain. The NIST reports conclusions are false. Period. It covers the governments story and also covers its own ass. There is enough truth and evidence in the report in case NIST comes under fire, NIST can claim, "We had the evidence, but our conclusons were wrong."
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
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints... From your reply (#28) to me you claim that we now know that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, and that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers. How much fuel DID get "dumped" into each tower? From all accounts I have been able to find, the estimate is around 10,000 gallons. How much of that 10,000 gallons was consumed in the huge fireball OUTSIDE the building in the second impact? SOMETHING other than office furniture was the fuel source for that fireball... According to Boeing's website, a 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel. Considerably more than the reported 10,000 WHY would fire suppression systems NOT be functional??? IF it were because the main water line feeding the sprinkler system was severed by the impact of the plane the result would be a helluva "gusher" from the water pressure on the line... OR was the firewater line just "conveniently" turned off??? You ARE the one lacking REAL common sense. Rigorously Offering The Fucking Lackey's Old Lies
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
good one
Yes, that much is quite clear from viewing the ancillary NIST documents. They assume that -all- fire protection was completely removed and had no effect, and they assume that the plasterboard walls remained intact and were indestructible. The fire and hot gas presumably took out the steel beams before it was able to take out the indestructible plasterboard walls. As you noted, The aircraft destroys 5 floors (9 floors in the computer model) of floor slabs, trusses, office contents, SFRM, cement board, gypsum, severs and damages massive core girders and outer collumns, BUT low and behold, somehow the "magical" soffits remain. It seems that I missed that most obvious point. Apparently the magic soffits were made of the same stuff as that dude in the Terminator movie... after the plane went through it just reassumed the shape of a wall. Oh well, I now know more about soffits than I did a couple of days ago. Curiously, I found little or no mention of soffits in various sources and had to go the the original primary source material to post what I did. ----------- NIST FINAL REPORT http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm ----- p. 150 of PDF, numbered page 100 of document. The two tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. Below the lowest floors, springs were used to represent the stiffness of the columns. In the models, the properties of the steel varied with temperature, as described in Section 5.5.2. This allowed for realistic structural changes to occur, such as thermal expansion, buckling, and creep. [nc question - were "damaged" columns "removed"?] The forces applied to the models included gravity loads applied at each floor, post-impact column forces applied at the top of the model at the 106th floor, and temperature histories applied at 10 min intervals with linear ramping between time intervals. ----------- http://www.911blogger.com/node/7272 * * * Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report." -----------
NIST - COMPUTER MODEL CRITERIA pp. 150-154 of PDF pp. 100-104 of document. NIST FINAL REPORT http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm ----- p. 150 of PDF, numbered page 100 of document. Core Framing The two tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. Below the lowest floors, springs were used to represent the stiffness of the columns. In the models, the properties of the steel varied with temperature, as described in Section 5.5.2. This allowed for realistic structural changes to occur, such as thermal expansion, buckling, and creep. [nc question - were "damaged" columns "removed"?] The forces applied to the models included gravity loads applied at each floor, post-impact column forces applied at the top of the model at the 106th floor, and temperature histories applied at 10 min intervals with linear ramping between time intervals. ----- p. 151 of PDF, numbered page 101 of document. Under these conditions, the investigators first determined the stability of the core under impact conditions and then its response under thermal loads: Following each simulation, a pushdown analysis was performed to determine the core's reserve capacity. The analysis results showed that: Composite Floor The composite floor model was used to determine the response of a full floor to Case A and B thermal loads for WTC 1 floors and Case C and D thermal loads for WTC 2 floors. It included: [nc question - what did it not include?] ----- p. 152 of PDF, numbered page 102 of document. ----- p. 153 of PDF, numbered page 103 of document. Exterior Wall Exterior wall models were developed for the south face of WTC 1 (floors 89 to 106) and the east face of WTC 2 (floors 73 to 90). These sections were selected based on photographic evidence of column bowing. Many of the simulation conditions were similar to those for the isolated core modeling: removal of aircraft-damaged structural components, representation of lower floors by springs, temperature-varying steel properties, gravity loads applied at each floor, post-impact column forces applied at the 106th floor, and temperature histories applied at 10 min intervals with linear ramping between time intervals. The analysis results showed that: ----- p. 154 of PDF, numbered page 104 of document. Phase 3: Global Modeling The global models were used for the two final simulations and provided complete analysis of results and insight into the subsystem interactions leading to the probable collapse sequence. Based upon the results of the major subsystem analyses, impact damage and thermal loads for Cases B and D were used for WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively. The models extended from floor 91 for WTC 1 and floor 77 for WTC 2 to the roof level in both towers. Although the renditions of the structural components had been reduced in complexity while maintaining essential nonlinear behaviors, based on the findings from the component and subsystem modeling, the global models included many of the features of the subsystem models: [nc question - what was not included?] The inclusions of creep for column components was necessary for the accuracy of the models, but its addition also greatly increased the computation time. As a result, the simulations of WTC 1 took 22 days and those of WTC 2 took 14 days on a high-end computer workstation. The results of these simulations are presented in Section 6.14. ==========
NISTs "adjustments" were worked backwards, meaning NIST had the towers falling way too fast in their computer reality. The towers were falling in half their real time. This is where NIST started "mixing & matching" cases to get their times closer to the 56 min for the WTC 2 and 102 min for the WTC 1. This wasn't science or a forensic investigation, it was a computer research project.
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
Very little is known about these soffits, but they are critical in NIST getting their computer thermal gas temps to 1700-1800F. In the one out of 12 workstation burn test that NIST releases the gas temps, the temps are tweeked up because NIST doubles the known fuel in the area, installs the soffits, then over ventilates to to their desired outcome. NIST also ran their furnace tests at 2012F. No temps were even near this at the WTC. NIST claims it took around 13 min to heat a core collumn at 2012F to reach 650C. NIST removed all the sfrm from one side of the girder to get this result. NIST couldn't get its story straight on this, as a lead engineer stated it took 30 min at 1100c to reach 550c in their core tests. Now, which is it? 13 min to reach 650c, or 30 min to reach 550c?
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I believe around 4500-5000 gals were claimed to be left after the fireball, and this was burned off in minutes.
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
That doesn't mean he wasn't the lead structural engineer on the project. You don't have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer on a project. Nor must you have been the visionary who chose the design concept in order to be the lead structural engineer who carried it to completion. Nor do you have to be the boss of the design firm to be the lead structural engineer on a project that firm has with someone. As you well know, I can and have posted credible source after credible source (and I could have posted many more) saying that he was the lead structural engineer on the WTC project. Saying he was the engineer who was on site in NYC where the design was done. Saying he was the project engineer. Are all those sources part of the conspiracy, nolu? Are all of them now lying to us? Is that *your* theory? Is your theory that only conspiracy websites tell the truth? ROTFLOL! So what? Perhaps when Skillings ran things, he liked the limelight and therefore took credit, even where it was undeserved. That's not unheard of, is it? Curiously, none of those who also worked on the towers at the time have come forward to dispute the claim that Robertson was the lead structural engineer. Some have come forward to confirm it. Are they all part of the conspiracy too, nolu? Have they been paid off? Are they living in fear of Robertson? Are conspiracy website owners the only honest people on earth any more? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Well good for you, nolu. If you want to stand there and claim Judy Woods has ANY demonstrated competence in structures, steel, concrete, fire, impact or dynamics ... noting all that I noted about her in a previous post ... go right ahead. If you truly want to leave your credibility in shambles, I have no objection. And Steven Jones has a PhD in physics. But does he have competence in any of the areas related to buildings, demolition, impact, fire, steel, concrete, seismology or macro-world events? No. He, like Wood, has spent his ENTIRE career working on something TOTALLY unrelated to any of those topics ... sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. With nary a paper or project involving anything other than sub-atomic particles. But if you want to insist that makes him competent to challenge a world full of professionals who do have competence in buildings, impact, demolition, fire, steel, concrete, seismology and macro-world physics ... go right ahead. I have no objections if you want to destroy your own credibility in this manner. Nevertheless, her ENTIRE career has been devoted to dental and biological materials, and statics. One need only look at her billiard ball analogy of the WTC collapse to understand how little she grasps physics and dynamics. One need only watch her performance in that video to see her KOOKiness and total disconnect from reality. But if you want to champion her as your expert, NC ... go right ahead. You'll only end up destroying the truth movement's credibility. But perhaps that is your goal. Who do you work for, nolu?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
As I pointed out and proved earlier in this thread (post #38), the statements of Banaciski and Gregory that are quoted by Griffin are good examples of *quote mining* ... taking a portion of what someone says out of context to suggest they are claiming something which they clearly were not. Neither of these two are shown anywhere in any forum to believe that the collapse of the towers was a deliberate demolition. They were only describing what it looked like in the heat of the moment and with imperfect understanding of what was really happening. When the rest of what they said is considered, one sees that they loosely use the term explosion even in instances where they are clearly not suggesting a demolition, that they aren't claiming that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, and one will find that many portions of their descriptions are very inconsistent with notion of demolitions. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic that Griffin and nolu_chan seem to engage in repeatedly in their efforts to deceive the unwary about 9/11. This is just another example of dishonest quote abuse. Here is some of what Griffin and nolu_chan leave out of what he said: ********** http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF Q. So you were still over there when the second building collapsed? A. Right, because I ran back. Not too bright of me, of course. I ran right back in, and I was right -- I could actually touch the building when it collapsed, the second time when it collaped. But again, I was prepared because I heard that same noise. It was like a waterfall noise. That's when I ran. ********* And no where in his interview does he suggest bombs were what actually brought the towers down or that anyone other than terrorists in planes were responsible. So, nolu ... do you want to claim that the manner in which the WTC towers actually collapsed (from the top down) is consistent with Mark Loizeaux statement about putting explosives in the basement (which, by the way, is again taken out of context)? Go right ahead ... because that does nothing but hurt your credibility. You want to continue this game of quote mining and quote abuse? Go right ahead ... because that does nothing but hurt your credibility. Here is why ... http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005885.htm "Consider how the conspiracists have abused 20-year veteran New York City firefighter Louie Cacchioli. A People magazine article attributed this quote about WTC 7 to Cacchioli after the attacks: "We think there was [sic] bombs set in the building." But Cacchioli told Popular Mechanics he was misquoted: "I said, 'It sounded like a bomb.' I tried to explain what I meant [after the fact], but it was already out there." Cacchioli has been contacted repeatedly by people hoping he will say there were bombs in WTC 7, but he refuses to do so. According to the book, Cacchioli is "distressed at the inaccurate use of his name in conjunction with conspiracy theories."" Now I'm not going to bother addressing all the other eyewitness statements that are listed in your spam. I'm willing to bet that anyone who investigates will find more instances of quote mining and that very few of those people actually think bombs brought down the towers. If you and the rest of the *truth* movement were the least bit honest ... the least bit interested in the "truth" ... you'd remove the instances of quote abuse from your lists and articles. The fact that you won't is telling. So I'll not waste any more time on this with you. I've said my piece. I'll simply issue this warning to readers of this thread or any thread where you post: : Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that? They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways. Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. It can not be founded on quote abuse. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad. --------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
No, they did NOT fall into their own footprint. You do know what the term "footprint" means, don't you, innieway? Or is your knowledge about that just as flawed as your knowledge about steel? The foot print of a building is NOT an area with a diameter more than three times the width or depth of a building. "Fall into their own footprint" is a catchy phrase that folks who haven't bothered to actually look at the videos of what happened or who don't begin to understand what they saw in those videos say over and over in lieu of real thought and understanding. Pathetic. We know the planes had enough fuel to make a transcontinental flights. "Full" was probably a poor choice of words. Yes, we now know that the fire suppression systems on the floors in question were not functional (as a result of the damage done by the impacts). The issue was what engineers would likely have said about the prospects of the building IF they knew ahead of time that jet fuel would START large fires and that fire suppression systems would not be available to fight them? You are trying to follow this conversation, aren't you, innieway? Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the NIST reports about this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Here's his organization's website: It is filled with lies and disinformation. For example, it displays this: with the caption "Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Surely everyone who has signed his petition and claims to be an *expert* is sufficiently well informed to know that's not a photo of molten steel. No? They aren't? ROTFLOL! Here's another example of Gage's dishonesty and the evident gullibility of all those who supposedly have joined his organization. The website shows this image: " a="a" about="about" above="above" accomplished="accomplished" across="across" agreed="agreed" ahead="ahead" an="an" and="and" are="are" area="area" at="at" be="be" because="because" been="been" being="being" beyond="beyond" bother="bother" bottom="bottom" building="building" but="But" by="by" called="called" can="Can" caption="caption" caption:="caption:" clearly="clearly" clueless="clueless" collapse="collapse" collapsing="collapsing" columns="columns" conspiracy="conspiracy" contrary="contrary" could="could" crush="crush" debris="debris" democrats)?="democRATS)?" diameter="diameter" diameter.="diameter." did="did" didn't="didn't" distributed="distributed" do="do" during="during" either="either" equally="equally" example="example" explosives."="explosives."" fact="fact" fall="fall" first="first" first?="first?" floors.="floors." folks="folks" free-fall="free-fall" ft.="ft." got="got" ground="ground" happened="happened" have="have" image:="image:" implied="implied" in="in" is="is" just="just" left="left" level="level" lie.="LIE." look="look" material="Material" metal"="metal"" molten="molten" most="most" nearest="nearest" no="no" not="NOT" noted="noted" notions="notions" of="of" on="On" one="one" only="only" or="or" out="out" over="over" pancaked="pancaked" photo="photo" physicists="physicists" preconceived="preconceived" reached="reached" removing="removing" shows="shows" side="side" speed!="speed!" speed".="speed"." speed.="speed." src="http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/freefall.jpg" stacked="stacked" states="states" steel="steel" story="story" suggesting.="suggesting." that="that" the="the" there="There" these="these" they="they" they've="they've" this="this" though="though" thrown="thrown" to="to" tons="tons" too="too" tower="tower" tower!="tower!" towers="towers" until="Until" up="up" virtually="virtually" was="was" website="website" well="well" what="what" what's="What's" will="will" with="with" would="would" —="—"> with the caption "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling." This is a lie. Steel need only be softened then have force applied to it (say during a violent collapse) for something like this to happen. And here are some more lies. The site claims that "Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained." False. The EPA expert that Dr Jones quoted concerning these spheres has published a report explaining them. And it's an innocuous explanation. The website claims that this: "is the only photo evidence of fires in Building 7." FALSE. The website claims WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. FALSE. The east mechanical room on the roof disappeared into the roof more than 6 seconds before Mr Gage claims the collapse began. The website repeats the lie that "pull" is an industry term meaning "demolish". It repeats the lie that Silverstein told the NYC fire commander to "'pull' WTC 7". Get the idea, folks? Gage is as dishonest as conspiracists come. If he's who you seek out for the *truth*, you will be deceived AND USED. Just as NC, Kamala and innieway are trying to deceive and use you. The truth is that Gage's website is filled with one distortion or lie after another. It claims that 60 architectural and engineering professionals have joined it. But if you look at the names provided on the website, about 34 are architects (and there is a difference between an architect and a structural engineer). Many of the others are listed as electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers, or avionics engineers, or quality engineers, or urban planners, or water resource engineers, or manufacturing engineers, or land surveyors, or construction engineers, or chemical engineers. Let's examine the few that are listed as being structural or civil engineers: Was he really a structural engineer? Here's what his own son said about him: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Akol_Kem_386453870.aspx "His father, Haluk was an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945." And note that would make him over 80 years old. I can't find anything on the web about him. Nothing at the University of Texas either. Who does he work for? What has he been working on since graduation? When was that? Elsewhere, he's listed as belonging to ASCE and being a project coordinator. But again, what is his actual experience. Is it water treatment? Foundation engineering? Road construction? Without knowing more, it's impossible to tell whether he actually has any relevant qualifications. The Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website claims he is a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga site we find he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not? You are claiming he's an expert in that regard ... right? At http://www.topcomp.ca/bb/2007-04-23.mp3 has an interview with him where we learn that (1) he was born in Dallas Texas, (2) he got his degree at the Southern Methodist University, (3) he retired as a naval aviator in 1985, (4) he retired as a commercial pilot in 1991, (5) and he loves to join 911 truth organizations (member of at least half a dozen). Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. Why not? A little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims. He says there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon. But there was wreckage in numerous photos. Lots of it. The interviewer says "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." This is absolutely false as the photos I've posted have repeated proven. Here are some again: The distance from the left edge of the left side hole to the right edge of the right side hole was at least 70-80 feet. Some sources say is more than more than 90 feet across. The diameter of the fuselage of a 757 is about 13 feet. The outer edge of the engines on a 757 are at most 20 feet from the outer wall of the fuselage. So clearly, the engines hit the structure within the boundaries of the hole in those photos, proving the interviewer is a liar. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." Well that is absolutely FALSE. So clearly Ted is NOT the structural engineer he (or some conspiracy site) claims. Clearly, he's completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred. He is too lazy to even look at widely available photos that prove what he claims is wrong. Or he is too incompetent to understand them. Ted Muga would rather regurgitate the LIES of the interviewer because he, like the interviewer, has an agenda so the truth doesn't matter to him. And you folks consider him an expert. What can one do but laugh. ROTFLOL! In other venues, he claimed to have "worked in structural steel for years" and "studied major structural collapses." But all we really know about this guy is what he claims. We don't know where he's worked. We don't know what degrees he has. And the http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/l_lookup.htm site for searching California Professional Engineers returns no hits under that name. Again, there is no other reference to this person on the web than this. We have no idea if this a real person, where he got his degree, where he's been practicing engineering, what projects he's been involved in or what he actually thinks. ROTFLOL! Apparently, Rob Tamaki is not an expert in buildings. He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C. (http://www.bcwwa.org/committees/dwmc/documents/technicalguidelines.pdf ). He works for P.S. Turje & Associates Ltd. in Vancouver. Come on, nolu ... this just makes you folks look desperate. It's an embarrassment to the *truth* movement.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Sorry. The missing photo in the above (replaced with ???) is Don't ask me what the 4um software did because it looked fine in preview mode.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
BAC, you rely on "experts" that lie and then you ROFLOL because you think you have proved something. The only thing you have proved is that you can't think for yourself and continently rely on "experts" who believe that the government's theory is correct. You are cherry picking experts that support the government's theory and then calling everyone else kooks. You may need to rely on "experts" to form conclusions about what happened to the towers on 9/11, but many people do not. If the truth of 9/11 hits the main stream news one day then what the heck will you do? Act dumb and pretend you didn't know the truth? Or will it be an act? The truth is coming out, or at least a closer version of it, of that I am sure. If they didn't want it to come out they wouldn't have screwed up 9/11 so badly.
God is always good! While you do not have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer, you do have to be a licensed engineer. As you are well aware, Robertson's lack of such a license disqualified him to be the lead structural engineer. He eventually became the WTC engineer after completion of construction. He was not eligible to obtain a license as a Professional Engineer when the design work was done. Robertson did not obtain a license until 1965. THAT means he was not eligible to be the lead structural engineer of record before that time. The only paperwork he could lawfully sign for prior to 1965 was the lunch list. And as BeAChooser has authoritatively stated, "The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964." Source: New York State Education Department http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=16&plicno=034360 Name : ROBERTSON LESLIE E http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=16&plicno=039286 Name : SKILLING JOHN B
You lost. Deal with it.
" a="a" about="about" above="above" accomplished="accomplished" across="across" agreed="agreed" ahead="ahead" an="an" and="and" are="are" area="area" at="at" be="be" because="because" been="been" being="being" beyond="beyond" bother="bother" bottom="bottom" building="building" but="But" by="by" called="called" can="Can" caption="caption" caption:="caption:" clearly="clearly" clueless="clueless" collapse="collapse" collapsing="collapsing" columns="columns" conspiracy="conspiracy" contrary="contrary" could="could" crush="crush" debris="debris" democrats)?="democRATS)?" diameter="diameter" diameter.="diameter." did="did" didn't="didn't" distributed="distributed" do="do" during="during" either="either" equally="equally" example="example" explosives."="explosives."" fact="fact" fall="fall" first="first" first?="first?" floors.="floors." folks="folks" free-fall="free-fall" ft.="ft." got="got" ground="ground" happened="happened" have="have" image:="image:" implied="implied" in="in" is="is" just="just" left="left" level="level" lie.="LIE." look="look" material="Material" metal"="metal"" molten="molten" most="most" nearest="nearest" no="no" not="NOT" noted="noted" notions="notions" of="of" on="On" one="one" only="only" or="or" out="out" over="over" pancaked="pancaked" photo="photo" physicists="physicists" preconceived="preconceived" reached="reached" removing="removing" shows="shows" side="side" speed!="speed!" speed".="speed"." speed.="speed." src="http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/freefall.jpg" stacked="stacked" states="states" steel="steel" story="story" suggesting.="suggesting." that="that" the="the" there="There" these="these" they="they" they've="they've" this="this" though="though" thrown="thrown" to="to" tons="tons" too="too" tower="tower" tower!="tower!" towers="towers" until="Until" up="up" virtually="virtually" was="was" website="website" well="well" what="what" what's="What's" will="will" with="with" would="would" —="—"> LIAR!
That's not a requirement to be project manager or the lead engineer. The license is only required to sign the drawings and take responsibility. Skilling could have done that without ever having been involved in most of the design. Furthermore, I have yet to see a drawing that was signed so that we don't know when the drawings were actually signed or who signed them. Care to investigate that, nolu? This is obviously false since you indicated he got his license in January of 1965, no one has come forward to say he wasn't working on the towers then, and tower construction didn't actually begin until March 25, 1966 ... when demolition began on the 26 vacant buildings at the WTC site. Ground breaking for the towers didn't begin until August 1966. In fact, Tower 1 was not completed until 1972 and Tower 2 was not completed until 1973.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
The precise term you used repeatedly is "Lead Engineer of Record." It is impossible to lawfully hold that position in New York without first obtaining a license as a Professional Engineer. And as BeAChooser has authoritatively stated, "The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964."
No, they did NOT fall into their own footprint. You do know what the term "footprint" means, don't you, innieway? Or is your knowledge about that just as flawed as your knowledge about steel? The foot print of a building is NOT an area with a diameter more than three times the width or depth of a building. "Fall into their own footprint" is a catchy phrase that folks who haven't bothered to actually look at the videos of what happened or who don't begin to understand what they saw in those videos say over and over in lieu of real thought and understanding. Pathetic. No, it is YOU who is . If you honestly think for one second that even if CDI had been hired to "demo" a building that height, they could have reduced it to the pile of rubble it was reduced to AND keep that pile of rubble within the actual length by width dimensions of the building then you are even MORE IGNORANT than your blather makes you appear... That is why I said "To the extent that it's PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE" Just how big do you think the firewater line in each building was? I promise you it wasn't some dinky 2" line. Have you ever seen a water line burst under pressure? A lot of water is gonna be going somewhere... Perhaps you work for NIST. That would certainly explain why you're so fucking adamant about supporting NIST and this administration's lies, and (like this administration) refusing to answer (by dodging) logical questions which so far have yet to be answered...
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
Hilarious pictures!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
The WTC is replete with prior design innovations of John Skilling. The World Trade Center, the agency said, "required engineering ingenuity from foundation to roof." The truth was a little more prosaic. As outlandish as his design sounded to the Eastern engineering establishment, including the Port Authority's own hardheaded engineering department - which was deeply offended by Mal Levy's decision to have an outside firm do the work - every facet of the design was almost a photographic expansion of something that Skilling and his staff had used on earlier jobs. As far back as 1957, Skilling and Nathaniel Curtis, the New Orleans architect, designed a thirteen-story office tower in Pittsburgh that was among the first modern high-rises whose exterior walls would be built to resist all the lateral forces caused by wind - a system close to the "tube" concept of the World Trade Center. This design let Skilling and his engineers build fifty-seven-foot "clear spans," or floor spaces unencumbered by columns, just like the trade center. The design also used newly available high-strength steel, as the trade center would. Even the conversion of Yamasaki's pinstripes into structural elements had already been done in the IBM Building in Seattle, a twenty-story, 272-foot high-rise completed in 1963. The steel pinstripes, separated by less than 3 feet, were encased in prefabricated concrete covers, like the prefabricated steel panels of the trade center. Perhaps the most striking parallel, though, was embedded deep inside the Washington Building in Seattle. Ordinarily, the steel girders and beams supporting the floors get in the way of the ductwork, plumbing, and electrical wiring that must thread their way through the space between the ceiling of one story of the building and the floor of the next. From other engineers, Skilling borrowed the idea of using torches to cut a zigzagging pattern along the length of the support beams, sliding one of the halves a few inches horizontally and welding the pieces back together again. This "castellated beam" method left gaps for the ductwork to fit through, and it let Skilling reduce the total height of each story in the Washington Building by nearly a foot. He and his staff took the idea a step further in their design for the World Trade Center: they proposed replacing the beams entirely with airy, weblike networks of thin steel bars and angle irons called bar-joist trusses. Corrugated decking would be placed atop these floor trusses so that concrete could be poured on it to create the floors. The ductwork could run without obstruction, and the diaphanous floor trusses would complete a design for the World Trade Center without precedent in its feathery, ethereal lightness. Skilling engineers calculated that for every cubic foot of space inside the Empire State Building, that skyscraper weighed 17 pounds; the World Trade Center would weigh just 10.5 pounds a cubic foot, lighter by an amazing 38 percent. As with all of the Skilling innovations, the trusses came with several twists. First of all, the trusses that actually went into the building would be stouter than any similar support system ever devised, with cross-bracing and a redundant design unknown in the ordinary bar-joist trusses that are common in warehouse construction. Second, the trusses would be built in such away that the concrete of the floors would also add to the structural integrity of the system. Still, Skilling and his engineers had, once again, gone into a structural realm where no one else had been.
No need. The major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed almost a year before Robertson had enough training, under the tutelage of the master, John Skilling, to become a licensed professional engineer. ---------- http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opscr2?profcd=16&plicno=034360 Name : ROBERTSON LESLIE E
Relentless Oaf Tenaciously Fostering Lividly Obvious Lies
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
Portrait of BAC
liar.gif is right!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
I'll have to remember that one.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
That's not something I have ever claimed. But that is something that many members of the so-called *truth* movement have claimed on more than one occasion. In fact, if you watch that video I linked of Dr Wood being interviewed, you will even hear her say the material falling outside the perimeter of the towers was not debris. ROTFLOL! Well it didn't go on the fire. That much is clear. Nah. But I have taken the time to actually read a NIST report or too.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Don't forget to set aside some time for your ESL exam, two.
BAC, you are an illiterate person. But I'm sure you're quite literate in the language of a republican bath house.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Nah. ..who do you work for ?
Statements from the latest posts by Red Jones: "pakistan of 50-60 years ago had a significant christna population" "they do this in Pakistan. a christian can be merely accused of saying insulting things about Islam/koran/mohammed. and then found guilty. based strictly on a muslim's word. regardless of christian's testimony." What's with all the excess periods, RJ? Why don't you capitalize the first word of sentences? "Fuck you." How *literate*. "don't post an article critical of a Gold Star Mother!!!" Wouldn't a literate person know by now that Cindy Sheehan is NOT a Gold Star Mom? "It is a pattern familiar." Is that French? " They indoctrinated with poison against our country, and so are the Mexicans." Gee ... did you forget the "are" before indoctrinated? " that's 4 sure." You meant "for" ... not "four". But who is counting... "Please don't think I don't participate in trying to make the system work, I've tried to educate many people. It earns me enemies & grief. and I do vote." You do seem to have a problem with commas and periods ... for someone soooooo literate. Why are you homophobic, Red? Do you think it's a sin? Mind you, I'm not saying I'm gay or not gay. I'm just curious why you keep making comments about "gays" and "fags" (your word). You know, don't you, what a psychologist would say about that?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'll give you that much, you are OK with words. You just aren't that good with logic.
God is always good! "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."
However, Skilling said, "the building structure would still be there."
It should be noted that the firefighters did reach the impact zone in 2WTC. FDNY Chief Orio Palmer, who was a marathoner, led his group up to the 78th floor impact zone. He was the first to reach the impact zone of either tower.
At 9:52, Chief Palmer radioed, "We've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
#49. To: nolu_chan, ladybug, ALL (#47)
Dr. Judy Wood received her
* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992)
#50. To: All (#48)
[BAC] Leslie Robertson, who by most accounts was the lead structural engineer on the project
-- BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-20
-- BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-21
Office of the Professions
License Information
04/29/2007
Address : NEW YORK NY
Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 034360
Date of Licensure : 01/06/
Additional Qualification :
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 01/09
Address :
Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 039286
Date of Licensure : 06/08/62
Additional Qualification :
Status : DECEASED 03/05/98
Registered through last day of :
Until after the construction of the WTC was completed, Leslie Robertson had not yet risen to the level of junior partner in he engineering firm of John Skilling. Robertson was an employee, not a partner. Robertson eventually became a partner, but that did not happen until after construction was completed.
Fig . Proposed skyscrapers will dominate the skyline of downtown Manhattan.
Fig . Floorbeams will span from exterior columns to elevator-core walls.
Fig . Structural consultant John Skilling.
Fig . Architects Richard (left) and Julian Roth and Minoru Yamasaki.
#51. To: Ladybug, All (#49)
[BAC] Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
#52. To: All (#38)
(Edited)
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral
Historiesby David Ray Griffin
--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
--Paramedic Daniel RiveraPreviously Available Testimony Suggestive of Explosions in the Twin Towers
Multiple Explosions
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11Shaking Ground before the Collapse
Multiple Explosions
"Pops"
Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire
Other Indications of Controlled Demolition
Debates about Controlled Demolition
Why Testimony about Explosions Has Not Become Public Knowledge
Conclusion
#53. To: Kamala (#45)
If you ever have some time try finding and reading about the mysterious NIST "soffits".
One principal step was the determination of those variables that most affected the outcome of the various computer simulations. Sensitivity studies and examination of components and subsystems were carried out for the modeling of the aircraft impact, the fires, and the structural response to impact damage and fires. For each of the most influential variables, a central or middle value and reasonable high and low values were identified. Further computations refined the selection of these values. The computations also were improved to include physical processes that could play a significant role in the structural degradation of the towers.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. Cases B and D accomplished this in a manner that was consistent with the principal observables and the governing physics.
6.10.3 The Four Cases
Technical conference of the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer
17th September 2001, revised 19th September,
minor revision on impact force made 8th October,
minor revisions made 11 December (see elaboration (below)) The floor system comprised 900 mm (35.5 inches) deep bar joists (the FEMA report claims the trusses where 737mm (29 inches) deep) spaced at 2.04 m centers and braced by secondary joists. These secondary joists then supported a profiled deck on which was poured a 100 mm thick light-weight concrete slab. The top of the bar joists stood above the soffit of the decking and was cast into the concrete slab to make the bar joists composite in a similar manner to the Speedfloor system.
Extracted from
NIST NCSTAR 1-5 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster
Reconstruction of the Fires in the
World Trade Center Towers (Draft) E.3 BUILDING INTERIORS AND COMBUSTIBLES
Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software package for performing finite element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures. These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 100 stories above grade and the six subterranean levels. ...
Truss seat connection failure from vertical loads was found to be unlikely, since the needed increase in vertical load was unreasonable for temperatures near 600°C to 700°C.
6.9.4 Damage to Ceiling System
The four cases described in this chapter represented fires that were far more severe than this:
#54. To: nolu_chan (#53)
#55. To: BeAChooser (#46)
Except the WTC towers did not fall into their own footprint. That's just another lie you've been willing to accept just because "truth* movement leaders made that claim.
The range (according to the Boeing website) of a 767 would be able to fly from New York to Beijing. Yet the destinations were from East Coast to West Coast. For economic reasons, they would not fuel that flight to maximum capacity as that would cut back on a considerable amount of weight, thus making take-off easier and burning less fuel... I'm not the one who is lacking a REAL expert to back up what my views and claims.
ROTFLOL
#56. To: innieway (#55)
ROTFLOL Rigorously Offering The Fucking Lackey's Old Lies
#57. To: Kamala (#54)
What people need to know is, if there was ANY damage, say a broken desk, NIST then ASSUMES 100% damage of the entire area.
Core Framing
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
#58. To: Kamala (#54)
Just think of this, in the tweeked up severe cases, NIST "adjusts" the aircraft speed, size, weight and angle, then decreases the towers capacity.
#59. To: nolu_chan (#58)
#60. To: nolu_chan (#57)
#61. To: innieway (#55)
#62. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#50)
there is incontrovertible evidence (repeated once again below) that Leslie Robertson was not even a licensed professional engineer until January 6, 1965.
A series of articles from Engineering News Record from 1964 to 1971, refer to either John Skilling or Leslie Robertson. I have boldfaced each name in each instance and have left no instance unquoted from the linked source. Robertson did not receive a mention until 1971. Prior to that there are repeated references to John Skilling, but nary a mention of Robertson.
#63. To: nolu_chan, ladybug, ALL (#51)
The BAC challenge to ladybug was to offer a name of a structural engineer who thinks the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes.
Dr. Judy Wood holds a degree in structural engineering and holds the opinion that the towers were brought down by the means specified by BAC.
Challenge answered with the name of a structural engineer.
Just for good measure, Dr. Wood also holds a masters in Engineering Mechanics, and a doctorate in Materials Engineering Science.
When last checked, Virginia Polytechnic Institute is not a Dental School.
#64. To: nolu_chan, all (#52)
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories by David Ray Griffin
--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." --Paramedic Daniel Rivera
Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?? After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman "heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the elevator, "another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!"12
#65. To: innieway, all (#55)
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints...
From your reply (#28) to me you claim that we now know that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks,
and that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers.
How much fuel DID get "dumped" into each tower? From all accounts I have been able to find, the estimate is around 10,000 gallons. How much of that 10,000 gallons was consumed in the huge fireball OUTSIDE the building in the second impact?
WHY would fire suppression systems NOT be functional???
IF it were because the main water line feeding the sprinkler system was severed by the impact of the plane the result would be a helluva "gusher" from the water pressure on the line... OR was the firewater line just "conveniently" turned off???
#66. To: nolu_chan, kamala, innieway, ALL (#57)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
="
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer, Lafayette, CA
James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer Washington Dc
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA
Left side and center hole damage 
Center hole and right side damage. Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer, Thousand Oaks, CA
Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer, Miami, Florida
Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC
#67. To: All (#66)
#68. To: BeAChooser (#65)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#69. To: BeAChooser (#62)
That doesn't mean he wasn't the lead structural engineer on the project. You don't have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer on a project.
"The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964."
-- BAC #45 2007-04-21 Link
Office of the Professions
License Information
04/29/2007
Address : NEW YORK NY
Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 034360
Date of Licensure : 01/06/
Additional Qualification :
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 01/09
Address :
Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 039286
Date of Licensure : 06/08/62
Additional Qualification :
Status : DECEASED 03/05/98
Registered through last day of :
#70. To: BeAChooser (#63)
The BAC challenge to ladybug was to offer a name of a structural engineer who thinks the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#66)
="
#72. To: BeAChooser (#66)
#73. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#69)
While you do not have to be a partner to be the lead structural engineer, you do have to be a licensed engineer.
He eventually became the WTC engineer after completion of construction.
#74. To: BeAChooser (#73)
That's not a requirement to be project manager or the lead engineer.
"The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964."
-- BAC #45 2007-04-21 Link
#75. To: BeAChooser (#65)
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints...
Yes, we now know that the fire suppression systems on the floors in question were not functional (as a result of the damage done by the impacts).
Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the NIST reports about this subject.
#76. To: nolu_chan (#72)
#77. To: BeAChooser (#73)
Skilling could have done that without ever having been involved in most of the design.
"City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center," James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, pp. 123-4
#78. To: BeAChooser (#73)
Furthermore, I have yet to see a drawing that was signed so that we don't know when the drawings were actually signed or who signed them. Care to investigate that, nolu?
"The design of the major structural elements of the towers surely had to have been completed by February 1964."
-- BAC #45 2007-04-21 Link
Address : NEW YORK NY
Profession : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
License No: 034360
Date of Licensure : 01/06/
Additional Qualification :
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 01/09
#79. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Kamala, Red Jones (#66)
ROTFLOL
#80. To: robin (#76)
Hilarious pictures!
#81. To: nolu_chan (#80)
#82. To: innieway (#79)
Relentless Oaf Tenaciously Fostering Lividly Obvious Lies
#83. To: innieway, ALL (#75)
If you honestly think for one second that even if CDI had been hired to "demo" a building that height, they could have reduced it to the pile of rubble it was reduced to AND keep that pile of rubble within the actual length by width dimensions of the building then you are even MORE IGNORANT than your blather makes you appear...
A lot of water is gonna be going somewhere...
Perhaps you work for NIST.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#83)
Nah. But I have taken the time to actually read a NIST report or too.
#85. To: nolu_chan, BeAchooser (#84)
But I have taken the time to actually read a NIST report or too.
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
Perhaps you work for NIST.
#87. To: Red Jones, ALL (#85)
BAC, you are an illiterate person.
But I'm sure you're quite literate in the language of a republican bath house.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#87)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest