|
|
Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions
The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
[…]
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
[…]
“As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department’s oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.
If the towers were wired with explosives by terrorists prior to the planes, that would imply a lack of security on a massive scale that would be worth hiding. On the other hand, how do you hide that much work to rig buildings like that? If terrorists didn’t do it, why would the towers be rigged with explosives? Leaving aside the wacko’s government conspiracies, are other buildings routinely wired to blow to bring them straight down if something happens to prevent them falling onto other buildings? An interesting ‘protection’ scenario for the neighborhood that would be worth hiding for many reasons.
And then there’s this article from a few months ago with quotes from military experts like this one:
“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
>>those doing the manipulation were in the
>>employ of two people in the US Administration
>>via a Pakistani money man.
Exactly. And the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED.
RBG,
Instead of glowing platitudes, which your diligence so rightly deserves, I’ll just say,
You da man !!!
I have been busy lately with a video project, kid’s soccer & softball, and a yard sale. Hoepfully I’ll get some time later to respond to EE’s nut case blather.
>>RBG, Instead of glowing platitudes, which
>>your diligence so rightly deserves,
“A platitude is a trite, meaningless, bias or prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original.
Mission accomplished.
#378, EE
Your refuge here is the golden rule of the deniers: “Only officially certified evidence may be used to impugn the official story.”
No, I never suggested that. Typical response of idiots. Make up crap so the opponent’s argument fails. There is a question of validity. Any time you cite a fact, the source should be either original or traceable to the original. This is especially true if the picture is a copy appearing on an agenda driven site. If the picture was taken by Joe Smoe, NY Firefighter and the original is still available then it passes the credibility test. If your agenda driven site credits Joe Smoe then it will probably also be good.
Since your “Fourteen Points” report is by five experts who properly referenced their sources, it doesn’t need more credibility.
RE: Steel melting:
Point 6, no mention of melted metal. No mention that the test trusses were actually coated in the same fireproofing that was blown off in the WTC crashes.
Point 7, no mention of melted metal,
Point 8, :”NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”
to which the report’s authors reply
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel.
RE: Thermite:
Point 11, No evidence of thermite in this point.
Point 14, This is where the authors totally lost it. They agree that NIST did not investigate for thermite then turn around and state that under National Fire Prevention Association Guidlines they were obligated to check. The guide is a guide, not a regulation.
We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your time.”
Thermite residue contains ALL relatively common elements. It is just basically powdered aluminum and steel with a small amount of binder / petrochemical accelerant.
NOTE:, drywall is commonly made from gypsum, which is calcium sulphate.
The NIST Report states
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation
…
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001
Gawd says: Next time you have a fire going outside, drop a flat object, suck [sic] as a block on it. …
Even when your block turns to dust in midair…? …
Ok, drop another, larger block on top of first block. Then drop an even larger block on top of them. All within a fraction of a second. You will get dust.
Even with an explosion, little of the smoke and dust comes from the actual bomb. It comes from the material being blown up. Since you enjoy “controlled demolitions” so much, just take a look at the amount of dust they kick up.
*
Your “experts” didn’t provide any new information and have obviously erred on several points. Yes, it would have been very nice to have pursued every avenue, no matter how ridiculous. The sad part is that there is a limited amount of money, time, and experts available. Many other crackpot ideas, such as aliens using a death ray, being staged in a warehouse, and spontaneous combustion were also not followed.
In accident investigation, you start at the end and work backwards to determine the sequence of events. After analyzing copious amounts of evidence, the NIST came to the conclusion that the planes damaged the buildings sufficiently that the resulting fires weakened the support trusses enough to sag. The damaged outer wall then exceeded their load limits and failed.
*
Next time you have a point, make it. referring to someone else without a summary is very lazy. Do your own fucking homework.
Shoot !!! Sorry, I didn’t close the tag in #393.
Mustard,
Did you have a point to contribute?
RBG spent a lot of time researching to find relevant information. It appears all you can come up with is denigrating that effort.
Hey RBG, you’re definitely sticking to the game plan here with your barrage of replies to my last post. To wit: “Generate masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility, the emphasis being on quantity, while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies…”
You got busted on your cut and paste posting: “The reason it is cut at a 45 angle is two-fold; It reflects the heat from the cutting flame away from the operator, and it creates a strategic point of separation, so that the column can fall towards a certain direction (usually in a safe and predictable manner)” and now you’re frantically trying to redeem yourself…
Then there was the batteries thing, where you say, “All that matters is that the temperatures present would melt the copious amounts of lead (melting Point: 327.5 °C 621.5 °F) in them which would run down the damaged floor and out the side of the building accounting for the melted metal outflows.” But that metal spilling from the building was glowing brightly, near white hot, and anyone who’s used a soldering gun can see the fallacy there…
Then in a classic double-team, Gawd implements the second part of the denier’s strategy: “Create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.” You’re a veritable whirling dervish of circular reasoning Gawd, but the only person getting dizzy from it is you…
Keep at it guys. The beauty of discussions such as this is they demonstrate to others that the 9/11 case is far from closed and expose more and more people to the glaring discrepancies in the official account.
I first got into these kinds of controversies some months ago on another thread, when I posted a link to http://www.ae911truth.org/ noting that a new group, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! had formed. At the time it had about 300 total members. I note today that it comprises 387 architectural and engineering professionals and 1505 other supporters.
In #294 RBG said, “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been exposed. They do NOT check ANY credentials of ANY of their supporters. They will accept any application to join immediately. As an example I have successfully added George W Bush, Architect and Richard Head, Scam Artist to their list. Sign up and expose this scam.” As a check of his veracity, we may reference the list at http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
EE,
John Robert Russell, Professor Emeritus Landscape Architecture
Karen Renick, NY State License in 1983, though license is now lapsed
Yup, fine group ya got there Jethro. And that is just two that signed up.
Then looking at some of their bios, we get comments like:
The “pulling” of building seven has to my knowledge not been explained.
Which has been explained repeatedly.
Or, Buildings do not collapse in that manner. Without suggesting how 11 story tall buildings should collapse.
Presentation by Richard Gage was convincing. So instead of examining the evidence, he has been naively led astray bu one person.
It is impossible for the lightest ‘upper’ part of a building to plow through the strongest ‘lower’ section through the force of gravity alone. Really? Even if the lightest part weighs hundreds of thousands of tons and lands unequally upon a damaged floor?
The collapse of WTC 7 denies every aspect of moment frame design in its symmetrical and near-free fall speed during collapse. Does it? What if an integral section of that design was damaged? What if several sections were damaged? What if several sections were damaged, the foundation was cracked, and fires were burning out of control, partly fueled by fuel oil stored in the basement?
Very hard to understand the ‘complete’ lack of concrete rubble in the debris field. Even had the basements filled with concrete topping slab debis. There should have been a stack of jumbled building elements about 9 more stories above grade. So the fact the debris pile approached 20 stories, that the WYC towers were only 40% concrete / 60% steel (most buildings are 60 / 40 concrete / steel) is meaningless. Not to mention the concrete dust that covered the entire downtown Manhattan area.
Skeptical of symmetrical and rapid collapse of towers … Who said they were symmetrical? They weren’t. There is this thing called gravity that a habit of pulling things down to earth. Quickly.
It looked exactly the same as pre-wired building demolition and implosion. Now here is a guy stating that is is EXACTLY the same as a pre-wired demolition. Not similar as Col. Bowman has stated. But EXACTLY the same. Wow, do I notice a bit of disharmony in the twoofer crowd?
The buildings appeared to have been destroyed by an engineered demolition. Oopps, looks like another twoofer is in disagreement.
The official theory of complete structural failure of WTC 1, 2 and 7 coupled with a free fall into their footprint, is without merit; a challenge to common sense. Which is why this bullshit argument is bullshit. They didn’t fall into their own footprints. They damaged every building around them from the debris. Several other buildings were later demolished because of the damage.
Well that is enough of checking out your bio’s comments. It seems that architectures and engineers can be just as loony, stupid, gullible, and naive as the rest of the twoofers.
EE,
You got busted on your cut and paste posting: “The reason it is cut at a 45 angle is two-fold; It reflects the heat from the cutting flame away from the operator, and it creates a strategic point of separation, so that the column can fall towards a certain direction (usually in a safe and predictable manner)” and now you’re frantically trying to redeem yourself…
Not quite. RBG is correct. I can tell you have never used a cutting torch on anything large. Cutting on an angle blows the slag away from the cut. Otherwise the slag has a tendency to run back, partially filling the void and holding the metal together. By starting at the top and running down, the cut remains clean. You do want the heat to go into the metal and not back towards the operator which is what will happen if cutting (burning) horizontally. The flame will hit pockets of molten steel and blow back. I’ve seen it dozens of times. In a case as this, if the pieces were cut horizontally, they would topple back onto the base while still molten, thus re-welding themselves.
But that metal spilling from the building was glowing brightly, near white hot, and anyone who’s used a soldering gun can see the fallacy there…
But the twoofers keep telling us the fires never got hot enough to melt steel. So why not YOU tell us what the bright white stuff is. Or do you disagree with the other twoofers claiming the fires weren’t very hot?
Yup, a soldering gun. Is what, 300 F? Riiiiight !!!
Gawd implements the second part of the denier’s strategy: “Create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.”
When you put something in quotation marks, mention who said it. I didn’t write that. Mind you, you have just written so much baseless garbage it also could not apply to you as you wouldn’t know what scientific legitimacy is.
You are still an idiot.
#396 Mr. Gawd Almighty said,
Hey Gawd (you don’t mind if I just call you Gawd instead of Mister Gawd, do you?), you picked some examples from the list at http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
and denigrated their credentials. Here’s a few more for you… I’m sure you’ll have nasty things to say about them as well.
Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., former full professor of engineering. Ph.D. Materials Engineering, RPI
Chevy Chase, MD
Richard F. Humenn, P.E., Electrical Engineer
Licensed NY, NJ, CT, D.C. New Jersey, NJ
John Philip Anderson, Doctoral Candidate BSE, MS, Engineering, U of Michigan Okemos, MI
Richard Paul Sheridan, Professional Engineer, New York. Lic: 51289 1974 Dec. Civil Engineering
New York, NY
John Edward Anderson, Ph.D. Professor Ph.D. Astronautics, M.I.T. Minneapolis, MN
As for the rest of your nitpicking comments in this post, you seem to barely have a clue as to what this discussion is about… You’re all over the map with your quibbles, but the big picture has clearly escaped you, as this comment of yours proves: “Without suggesting how 11 story tall buildings should collapse.”
400…”that no one but they”
make that “someone other than they”
400? Sheesh. Eds: If you even think about moving this to the top of the blog list, I will hunt each of you down til my last dying breath.
RBG
>>Did you have a point to contribute?
Yes, Mr. G, my point was that in spite of Mr. Blue Green’s maniacal posting, there still seem to be significant doubt, even among qualified experts in the field, as to what actually happened on 9/11.
It’s unlikely that dvorak dot org slash blog is going to solve all the mysteries of what actually happened that day.
This needs further investigation, and those who object to this would seem to have a hidden agenda.
402. You’re wrong, MM. All the “mysteries” have been solved, or solved enough, and are publicly available, as I have been able to demonstrate in the samples above. The not-so-hidden agenda is to prevent the flakes from having a legitimized national forum to peddle their flakery to the Great Unwashed. I can just see it years later: On page 1,269 of the new investigation testimony… what could he really have meant by “it’s not not the way it was…”
There’s also not not not going to be a fake moon-landing investigation.
RBG
EE, thank you for pointing out my typo. That should have been 110 story building.
Mustard,
I can only refer you to RBG’s extremely adroit posting, #400. As he so correctly points out, there are many “professionals” claiming conspiracy theories. The links RBG missed is all those scientists claiming that “Intelligent Design” is a true science, or that believe in a supreme being. That could rack up some numbers. Shall we re-examine the earth to see if it really is flat?
Messrs G. and Blue Green:
Sorry, but there are still unanswered questions. And they need answering by a neutral investigative body.
As to Mr. Blue Green’s “adroit posting”, I checked out one of his links ( http://tinyurl.com/6y6lrr ), and it was just a bunch of comments referring to an article in Slate that no longer seems to be available.
So much for “adroit”ness. Pfft.
MM. The link is still good and provides the quote I cite. At the end of the item is a link, marked “link” that takes you to the article as originally published by Newsmax. You can lead a… a gentleman to water…
http://tinyurl.com/6gvrqu
If there are still unanswered questions, it behooves someone to first come up with a list, because it sure ain’t any of the ones uppermost in the minds of those above.
RBG
Mr. Blue Green:
“Over a long time, things that people learn purely out of curiosity can have a revolutionary effect on human affairs.” -Frederick Seitz.
#404 Mr. Gawd Almighty said,
“EE, thank you for pointing out my typo. That should have been 110 story building.”
Oh okay, a typo… you had me REALLY worried for a second… maybe there IS a spark of sanity there somewhere, so let’s try to give it some oxygen…
In #396 Gawd said, re: Buildings do not collapse in that manner. “Without suggesting how 11 story tall buildings should collapse.”
I think virtually everyone else who has spent some time on this subject knows the truther contention is that the characteristics of destruction by fire are 1) slow onset with large visible deformations. 2) asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance. I already posted this info in #381.
In #396 Gawd said, re: Presentation by Richard Gage was convincing. “So instead of examining the evidence, he has been naively led astray bu one person.”
Total non sequitor… I too found Gage’s arguments convincing. After seeing the full two hours of the video of his “How the Towers Fell” lecture at the University of Manitoba, I emailed the link to some friends. From their feedback and links on the ae9/11truth page, I started discovering how much more there is to this subject than appears in the official reports.
In #396 Gawd said, re: It is impossible for the lightest ‘upper’ part of a building to plow through the strongest ‘lower’ section through the force of gravity alone. “Really? Even if the lightest part weighs hundreds of thousands of tons and lands unequally upon a damaged floor?”
Ever seen a pile driver or a wrecking ball at work? Notice that on a given project, the driver/ball selected is harder than the material it will drive or demolish. (Do you have any idea why?) According to your theory, the upper floors of the towers worked to hammer down on the floors below and turn them to dust. But according to Newton’s 3rd law of motion, “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
So if the upper section impacted the lower section with enough force to turn it to dust, it would be experiencing a similar force. Hence, if the upper section’s kinetic energy was sufficient to pulverize the material below, it too would be pulverized in the process. Moreover, the core beams were being broken into pieces at the same time. The blueprints for the towers show that the steel at the base was much thicker than that of the upper floors. Recall, moreover, that HUGE volumes of concrete and steel were being ejected laterally and hence this material was not available to apply a downward force on the lower stories. (The symmetrically distributed debris field had a diameter of 1,400 feet.) A natural question then is, “how could something as light as the dozen or so stories of WTC1 stay together long enough to smash through the 90+ progressively stronger stories below.”
The blueprints for the towers, withheld for five years have been leaked and are now available on the net. There’s an interesting backstory there:
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers’ “collapses” — FEMA’s and NIST’s — are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA’s Study nor NIST’s Report discloses dimensions for core columns — dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Now, a curious question for the proponents of the official story:
Twelve employees of the American Bureau of Shipping … were on the 91st floor of the north tower when the first plane hit almost exactly at their level. But they were on the northwest corner of the building. The bulk of the plane’s fuselage entered the building about 100 feet south of them. The plane’s left wing, banked toward the ground, wiped out the east side of the floor. But the plane’s right wing, banked toward the sky, sliced through the office above them.
George Sleigh had been at work at ABS since about 7:30 a.m. He was in his cubicle, surrounded by technical shipping manuals. “I heard this unusual sound. A roaring sound,” he said. “As I looked up I saw the plane. I thought: ‘This guy is really low.’ ”
A wing flashed past his eyes, followed by the plane’s smooth belly. Then the world caved in. Down the hall from ABS, an office was obliterated. Above them, Marsh USA Inc., an insurance and risk management firm that occupied the 93rd through 100th floors, was hit badly. It would later report as many as 400 workers missing.
Sleigh, who occupied the easternmost desk in the ABS office, was buried under a pile of ceiling tiles and bookshelves. His colleagues were fine, as surprised they were still alive as they were that a plane had just crashed into their building. They dug Sleigh out, and they all escaped. [Los Angeles Times]
An 800°C inferno supposedly engulfed the levels impacted Flight 11. To put this in perspective a photograph of the Windsor Building Fire in Madrid which did burn at 800°C is shown on the right.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
Why weren’t the above WTC survivors affected by the searing heat of an 800°C inferno?
The zionist press pushed the “whacko” button when anyone questioned “The Magic Bullet Theory.” The zionist press pushed the “oppsi, it was a mistake” when the USS Liberty was attacked. The zionist press pushed the Sirhan Sirhan deal when the scientific proof pointed to RFK being killed from close range and from behind. The dancing Mossad 911 agents in Jersey failing lie detector tests for a few months, Israeli bull dozers rolling over American peace activists, radiation spikes coming out of the Israeli Embassy on the East side of Manhattan, “Lucky” Larry Silverstein turning $300 million into 7 billion plus in two months, Israeli hedge funds making millions on American Airline puts 911, only 1 Israeli dead 911, Patriot Act and Rabbi Chertoff head of Homeland “Gestapo” Security, Gulf of Tonkin a fraud, Brown and Root wins billions in no bid contracts, Brown and Root merges with Halliburton, Halliburton wins billions in no bid contracts, trillions missing from the Pentagon thanks to another rabbi, Former Mayor Koch calling today “The Golden Age,” … oh yeah, aviation fuel melts steel, and 19 guys controlled by a guy in a cave did 911. Anyone tells you different is a whacko.
Now tell me, you don’t think the “jews” did 911?
After serious consideration, I have decided to get a petition together to have Congress re-evaluate that the earth is NOT flat. I’m sure that all of those that have eyes and can see that the earth is not round will support our endeavor.
Please sign our petition.
#398 RBG said, on May 26th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
#395 It should be clear to you that any fine point about why or why not a cut would be made at 45 degrees is now a moot, irrelevant point since the ground level/first floor exterior steel beam lattice work all show 45 degree cuts.
EE says: You don’t have much of an eye for angles… I see some approximate 45s on one of the sections, but it is to be expected that in the course of disentangling the wreckage it would sometimes be expedient to make angled cuts. There is no evidence in that photo of the standing column beam to suggest that a cleanup crew has even reached it yet.
RBG said: Just because your solder melts does not mean it should glow…
THAT’S RIGHT… perhaps you’re catching on here… The glow emitted by the metal spilling from the tower indicates it’s at the temperature of molten steel, about 2500°F. This temperature exceeds the melting point of lead by nearly 2000°F and is about double that of aluminum. The point is that solder (or lead or aluminum) runs as soon as it becomes a liquid and one would need to confine it somehow to get it to glow so brightly. But what will contain it as you bring it up to such a high temperature?
It appears, prima facie, that a structural element of the building has suddenly melted. But, WHATEVER IT IS, how did it get that hot?
#410 Mr. Gawd Almighty said, on May 27th, 2008 at 4:54 am
“After serious consideration, I have decided to get a petition together to have Congress re-evaluate that the earth is NOT flat. I’m sure that all of those that have eyes and can see that the earth is not round will support our endeavor.
Please sign our petition.”
If it was anyone else but you Gawd, I’d think this was a joke…
EE
Ever seen a pile driver or a wrecking ball at work?
Good point. You are starting to understand basic physics.
Notice that on a given project, the driver/ball selected is harder than the material it will drive or demolish. (Do you have any idea why?)
Obviously you don’t. If they used something with a similar hardness as what they were hitting, such as concrete, it would shatter into dust. Just…like…the…WTC… did… as… it… fell. Gee, are you beginning to see the picture.
Wrecking balls use a soft steel it will deform elastically instead of shattering. Even then, wrecking balls have been know to break. Concrete, on the other hand, is very inelastic and will shatter. Concrete is excellent at compressive loads, not so good on tensile strength or deformation.
According to your theory, the upper floors of the towers worked to hammer down on the floors below and turn them to dust.
According to the NIST report, the fires softened the horizontal steel trusses causing them to sag. The trusses in turn pulled the exterior walls, that supported 50% of the weight of the building, in. Since the exterior columns were already damaged, this put catastrophic loads on the other columns causing them to fail. With no exterior support columns the interior support columns, also believed to be damaged, exceeded their load limits. No longer capable of holding up the building, the weight of the top floors fell onto the floors beneath. The now overloaded lower floors were unable to withstand the massive weight and in turn collapsed.
You, and several other twoofers apparently think that the top section should just have fallen off the building. The problem is that the entire building is interconnected. It couldn’t just fall off to the side as a complete unit. Those trusses that pulled the exterior columns also held the entire floor to the exterior and interior columns. The unit failed.
Recall, moreover, that HUGE volumes of concrete and steel were being ejected laterally and hence this material was not available to apply a downward force on the lower stories.
Ok, against my better judgment, I will assume. So let’s assume that 50% of the collapsing debris was ejected. That means that half of hundreds of thousands of tons of material was raining down on the floors. Yup, I still think they would collapse.
And I do believe concrete chunks, which most of the concrete debris was, is still capable of a high degree of kinetic energy. Especially if there are (half) hundreds of thousands of tons coming down. Not to mention that the vibration of the collapsing building would be causing the lower floor concrete to shatter even before the mass from above hit it.
A natural question then is, “how could something as light as the dozen or so stories of WTC1 stay together long enough to smash through the 90+ progressively stronger stories below.”
Who said it did? The top section would not need to remain homogeneous in order to damage the lower part. You think the entire top part just flopped down on the next floor in one piece? As NIST reported, the failure was progressive. One part collapsed which would put the extra load on the next support exceeding its limit so it would also collapse. This is a chain reaction causing a massive cave in onto a floor not designed to hold that amount of stress. The individual supports could hold much more load than normally seen, but not when exerted in a pile driver fashion.
the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.
You are such an idiot. I followed your links and no where does any official report state that there were no core columns. Wishful thinking does not make fact. No, I will not argue semantics because the twoofers are plain wrong.
The dimensions of the cores are unimportant. The same applies to the quote : The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels . That also means nothing. The important aspect is the rated load limit for each column and their combined load limit as a structure since they were connected.
To put this in perspective a photograph of the Windsor Building Fire in Madrid
Apples and oranges. One had a plane being flown into it while the other didn’t. One was only 40% concrete while the other was 60%. One used blown insulation to fireproof the steel supports while the other used concrete.
As I said before, if ya can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, then baffle ’em with bullshit. Your seemingly single purpose.
Question, is #409 representative of all the twoofer’s? Would you answer for him?
#411, EE
There is no evidence in that photo of the standing column beam to suggest that a cleanup crew has even reached it yet.
Then provide some evidence that no rescue operation had occurred yet.
This is the importance of using valid sources. You don’t know the circumstances under which the picture was taken yet you want to suggest things that are most likely not true. You then have the audacity to tell RBG there is no evidence … blah blah.
THAT’S RIGHT… perhaps you’re catching on here… The glow emitted by the metal spilling from the tower indicates it’s at the temperature of molten steel, about 2500°F.
You have still not demonstrated that there was molten metal dripping / flowing / running / whatever from the building. It is conjecture on your part without proof. Because you can’t prove what it was, don’t tell RBG what it isn’t.
If you suggest that this supposedly molten metal was from a thermite charge, then I have a couple of questions for you, such as, how could the metal from an interior column flow all the way to the exterior without cooling? How could a thermite charge melt that much metal without burning it first?
Somehow you (and most twoofers) feel that they have a copyright on the truth. As a group you deny mechanical physics. You see things where objective people know there isn’t. You claim things there is no evidence for and decry those challenging that take as deniers.
*
During an autopsy the coroner finds the deceased died of a gunshot to the head. Are the number of stab wounds relevant to the death? Is the persons clogged arteries a factor? What about the fact he ate a chili dog for dinner? How about if his softball team had a high ranking official’s brother playing catcher? The answer is NO. The cause of death is the gunshot to the head.
# 397 Mr. Gawd Almighty said:
EE, I can tell you have never used a cutting torch on anything large. Cutting on an angle blows the slag away from the cut. Otherwise the slag has a tendency to run back, partially filling the void and holding the metal together. By starting at the top and running down, the cut remains clean. You do want the heat to go into the metal and not back towards the operator which is what will happen if cutting (burning) horizontally. The flame will hit pockets of molten steel and blow back. I’ve seen it dozens of times. In a case as this, if the pieces were cut horizontally, they would topple back onto the base while still molten, thus re-welding themselves.
Well actually I have used a cutting torch on large steel beams. They were driven into the sea floor vertically and had to be topped off square. The piece to be removed was rigged to a crane on a barge and a smaller barge was the work platform. Some of what you say above is a consideration, but, in general, if the tip of the torch is angled to the surface and the cut is through the metal so sparks can fly out to the other side, horizontal cuts are routine.
Gawd said, quoting EE: But that metal spilling from the building was glowing brightly, near white hot, and anyone who’s used a soldering gun can see the fallacy there…
Gawd replies: But the twoofers keep telling us the fires never got hot enough to melt steel. So why not YOU tell us what the bright white stuff is. Or do you disagree with the other twoofers claiming the fires weren’t very hot?
I must say that I’m amazed to be replying to such a question at this stage. But I’ve also see you pose it elsewhere, and it’s evidently sincere, so I’ll do my best to clarify this for you. Yes, one objection to the official theory is that “the fires never got hot enough to melt steel.” Even NIST’s own data confirmed that the flash fire from the jet fuel and the smoldering of the buildings’ contents would have barely softened the structural steel, much less melted it. Yet there was the spill of molten metal from the corner of WTC2, steel members in the debris piles that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures and pools of molten metal beneath all three buildings. So you see, what we have here is an ENERGY DEFICIT. The fuel and office furnishings admittedly DID NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL, yet THERE IT IS. Since no satisfactory explanations have been offered in the official accounts for this serious and significant discrepancy, it requires that the INVESTIGATION BE REOPENED. Capiche?
#400 RBG said, on May 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
#395 Empirical Evidence
387 architectural and engineering professionals. Wonder what percentage of the US architects and engineers that comprises?
EE says…
392 architectural and engineering professionals
and 1512 other supporters as of today… given this kind of growth, a reasonable extrapolation is 70% within two years.
Your conflation of those who don’t accept the government’s story about 9/11 with anyone else who has a beef with consensus reality isn’t really going to get it. After all, when you go to the http://www.ae911truth.org/ website, you see this: (note that an 8 and ) together becomes a smiley face)
WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits ALL the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics) 1) Rapid onset of “collapse” 2) Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse 3) Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed. 4) “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment. 5) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds. 6) Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?) 7) Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. 8) FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 9) Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional. 10) Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY. And exhibited NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e: 1) Slow onset with large visible deformations. 2) Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires). 3) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel. 4) High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
More and more people are recognizing that there are serious questions here. A new investigation WILL ensue…
416 Ee
I imagine there once was a 50% increase in membership in one day when the second guy joined.
But come off it, already. I’ve dealt with just about every one of your questions above. And you know that.
RBG 157. The slow onset (of collapse) with large visible deformations. The prediction that the building would fall based upon measurement and sustained damage. (That in itself should be enough.)
The BBC getting that news in a “very, very, very sketchy” manner prior to the collapse.
The retrofitting of WTC over a power transformer station.
The use of thermate cutting lances.
The abundance of thermate precursors on the site.
Any of this ringing a bell?
#294, #43: Cold fusion nutbar and fired physics professor Steven E. Jones thoroughly debunked here:
http://tinyurl.com/3tbyxc
And on. Just more proof why an investigation could never satisfy the conspiracy woo.
RBG
oops
#416, EE,
1) Rapid onset of “collapse”
see #2,
2) Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse
I don’t know as a fact, but it most likely would have been the inside supports collapsing.
3) Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed.
WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom up. In other words, they pulled the floor out from beneath the next floor. There was no resistance.
4) “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment.
Yup. If the foundation and bottom floor supports collapsed, the building would fall on itself.
5) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds.
Nope. You don’t know what a pyroclastic flow is. FYI, it is a superheated flow of volcanic gas and dust.
6) Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)
Say what? Again, all the twoofers keep telling us the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel. I wish you guys could go with ONE tale.
7) Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
He took his dust samples from around the lower Manhattan area, not from the collapsed heap. Guess what the slag would have shown him?
If 1,000 lbs of thermite were used and the WTC complex weighed a total of 10 million tons, if powdered aluminum and steel make up the major part of thermite and a small amount of accelerant / bonding agent. That means that he would have found traces of the very materials that they built the plane out of and the building from. Similar hydrocarbon based products were used through out all the buildings in everything from coffee cups to carpets to bowling trophies to the soles on the shoes of the people working in the buildings.
8) FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
(don’t you like the way the 8 and bracket give you a smiley?) 8) Well now we are talking here. That is an indication that the heat was sufficient to soften the steel into a phase change.8)
9) Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional.
Ya right. Another expert that doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. What corroboration are you saying he backs up? Pulling firefighters means they will blow up the building?
10) Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY. And exhibited NONE of the characteristics of destruction by fire,
Sometimes things are just evident. For some time the FDNY knew the WTC 7 would collapse. There was insufficient water, the fires were out of control, the front of the building was seriously damaged, and they had lost enough fire department personnel already that day.
While some here doing the Circle J, arguing
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
consider this:
Cheney and Rumsfeld were acting under orders to
get a group of militant Islamists to plan their
part o 9-11 (the part that involves flying schools and box cutters). It was on a need-to-know basis.
They only needed to know they had a mission. Only
one knew the day in advance.
Cheney took care of having war-fighting simulations occur the same morning. The military
had no idea their scenario was the real thing.
They didn’t know the Saudi Flying Circs was
booked for a performance that morning.
The US is plannning to nuke Iran in August.
It will take a false flag operation to ‘enflame
the American public’, literally, to go along
with an insane attack on Iran.
It’s not relevant that that the Third American Empire is indeed insane..
Think $5.00 a gallon for gas is bad? Wait until
August when it hits $12.00 gallon.
I’m laughing, because your country deserves
all the shits that’s coming down soon. What
goes round comes around.
Dig it?
While some here doing the Circle J, arguing
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
consider this:
Cheney and Rumsfeld were acting under orders to
get a group of militant Islamists to plan their
part o 9-11 (the part that involves flying schools and box cutters). It was on a need-to-know basis.
They only needed to know they had a mission. Only
one knew the day in advance.
Cheney took care of having war-fighting simulations occur the same morning. The military
had no idea their scenario was the real thing.
They didn’t know the Saudi Flying Circs was
booked for a performance that morning.
The US is plannning to nuke Iran in August.
It will take a false flag operation to ‘enflame
the American public’, literally, to go along
with an insane attack on Iran.
It’s not relevant that that the Third American Empire is indeed insane..
Think $5.00 a gallon for gas is bad? Wait until
August when it hits $12.00 gallon.
I’m laughing, because your country deserves
all the shit that’s coming down soon. What
goes round – comes around.
Dig it?