These demonstrations are all over the country and many are getting on National TV. Some examples:
Sept 8, 2007 Geraldo Live
Oct. 19, 2007 — Bill Maher Show (Maher goes nuts)
Oct. 5, 2007 At Mitt Romney Event
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
From Wikipedia: Open air burning temperature of Jet Fuel:
500–599 °F. Maximum buring temperature: 1796 °F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Do you think the interor fire was open air or otherwise?
Second, The jet fuel mainly ignited the tons of burnables inside. Guess what temp they burned at? Hint: a fair bit higher than my oven: 700C on the lowest end.
Again: http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm
These are all scientific, repeatable results.
RBG
65 GF: From NIST’s own FAQ:
“Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
And the NIST bonus section for today:
“Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.”
RBG
Oops! Didn’t realize Building Seven was so heavily trashed prior to it’s collapse, I was going on what video I’d seen. It was also taller than I’d realized, meaning that when the top floors started moving Earthward, gravity would have made sure that they moved in a pretty straight line. Straight down, that is. A structure that tall and massive wouldn’t really act much like that termite infested storage shed in Grandpa’s back forty when it fell down.
As for the Two Towers, it’s interesting that the pilot of aircraft #2 seemed to have figured that the first guy had rammed the first building too high up and that it wasn’t acting like it was going down, so he planted his plane lower down to see if that would have gravity help out in bringing the second tower down. He was right in that the second structure failed first because of the increased loading on the damaged floors. I saw on a recent PBS special that the steel in the fires was weakened more rapidly because the blast and high speed debris blew off much of the sprayed on fire insulation. Also NIST re-examined a bunch of film and video from the event, and it seems that sagging floor trusses in the fire pulled the external and core upright framing members towards each other so that they finally failed. And down it came.
Guy Fawkes. I am not the one making wild claims about the destruction of the World Trade Center. All of the claims that you have made has already been discredited. Thermate? There was no evidence of Thermate at ground zero. Dr. Steven Jones who proposes it is a kook whose main “evidence” of Thermate/Thermite is the presence of sulfer which is in drywall.
I do not call for violence. I call for you to stand by your beliefs. If you really do believe that the government pulled off something this evil then act against such an evil. Sue the government for information. Create a political party. Or look closely and rationally at the claims being made by Loose Change, Alex Jones, and the like. Look at the debunking of these claims in a rational manner. Do not waste your life parroting things that make no sense. Go ever to the forums at the James Randi Educational Foundation. They will answer all of your questions. Be nice to them and they will be nice to you.
NIST did not examine the Tower’s collapses after the point of collapse initiation because after the exterior walls began buckling and the top of the buildings began tilting when the buckling spread to the core and remaining perimeter columns allowing the building top to begin falling straight down, the chaotic impacts of heavy floors and walls colliding could not possibly have been accurately predicted by even the most powerful computers. NIST only examined the collapses to the point where progressive collapse would have been inevitable and this took intense computer work.
Those WTC Tower buildings were built with long span, bar joist floor trusses which can collapse into catenaries (cables in suspension) from the expansion effects of heat on the steel truss components. Steel expands immediately when heated. NIST found that the differential expansion effects between the composite steel and concrete in the floors causes separation of the concrete and steel trusses and buckling of the diagonal struts in the trusses. This catenary effect starts at low temperatures of 4000 C to 5000 C before the steel itself even begins to weaken. This collapse the trusses into catenaries over several floors along with the additional ‘thermal bowing’ effect in some of the trusses, caused ‘pull-in’ forces on the exterior wall columns. Thermal bowing is caused by the bottom chords of the trusses expanding faster than the top. This allows the top chord to go into suspension exerting immediate increasing ‘pull-in’ forces on the exterior walls. Photos taken by the Police helicopters showed the exterior column walls in the Towers to be bowing inward, on the long span sides of both buildings well before the buildings started to collapse.
Added to the thermal weakness of the ‘long span’ trusses present in the Tower’s design was the absence of diagonal bracing in the core, the weak column splices in both the perimeter and core columns, one bolt connections of the truss to core columns, missing bolts in the exterior column splices, large open areas allowing extensive fire growth and enabling large areas of the buildings to be affected by heat, weak plaster board enclosures for stairways and elevator shafts, etc., etc.
Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which pealed away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, there were problems with water supply and the Fire Department decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) as is the procedure when discontinuing interior firefighting operations at an uncontrolled fire. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had already collapsed well before it actually did.
If you want to know how and why the WTC buildings collapsed read my book “Fire in the Skyscraper” available at Amazon.com.
Arthur Scheuerman,
Retired Battalion Chief, FDNY
This is like that scene from Annie Hall when the disagreeable fellow is erroneously going on and on about Marshal McLuhan’s media theories:
WOODY ALLEN: Oh, that’s funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here. Come over here for a second?
MAN: Oh–
WOODY ALLEN: Tell him.
MARSHALL McLUHAN: — I heard, I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
WOODY ALLEN: Boy, if life were only like this.
One question Arthur, Guy Fawkes in 56 above reports that one of your fellow chiefs(?), Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York
City Fire Department reported bombs in the towers. Do you know anything of this?
RBG
There were numerous loud sounds that can’t be described except by the word “explosion”. I can’t speak for the Chief but his was the only comment that used the word ‘bomb’. Most people described the sounds as ‘explosions’.
There was a typo in my explanation– 4000 to 5000 Degrees C should read 400 to 500 deg C. These are low temperatures and steel retains most of its strength at these temperatures. The collapse of the trusses into catenarys (like a cable in suspension) takes place in the long span (60 foot) trusses because of the expansion of steel acting against the columns and internally within in the trusses.
73. I take it that the graph to be found on this page showing the progressive loss of strength of steel due to heating is correct and is in keeping with your statement that steel retains most of its strength at 400-500 degrees?
I think the first photo on this page shows an example of what you call catenarys, correct?
http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm
RBG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDKa1Q1GwTQ
Collapse footage and witness testimony indicate that the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished with explosives.
Oral histories of 503 first responders offer strong corroboration to the controlled demolition hypothesis.
75. As it turns out, its been proved you don’t need the addition of a controlled demolition to bring down such a building or to make a political statement when a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into a building at 500 miles per hour is known to do the job just fine. It’s more likely those witnesses haven’t experienced such a jet-into-building occurance before and have only their past experience of what a demolition might be like, to draw upon, instead of engineering data. Having eye-witnesses didn’t prevent differing accounts of the jets themselves that hit during 9-11.
If Bushco didn’t easily salt the Iraqi desert with copious weapons of mass destruction to bolster their justifications in that country, it’s unlikely they would try such a convoluted plot in New York and unnecessarily risk being caught by unexpected and uncontroversial demo evidence left prior, during and post 9-11. Maybe there’s still not enough CSI programs on TV to show you how that works.
When you have a statement from a reputable demolitions company that says you can bring down a building with hardly a trace of the actual demo job, let me know. And when you have a statement from anyone involved in such a plot but had remorseful second thoughts as the result of all the unexpected 9-11 related deaths in the US and Afghanistan, and even the Iraqi fiasco, give me a call on that one too.
In the end, all you have is your own sad wishful thinking.
RBG
76 RBG
WTC 1 & 2 were designed to take the impact of a 707 which has a maximum takeoff weight of 333,600 lb. Source PBS documentary.
Interesting Read regarding WTC7: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
http://tinyurl.com/ytywct
From the actual words of the tower’s designer, Leslie E. Robertson:
“It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
“The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.”
http://tinyurl.com/mu7rl
RBG
You weren’t thinking of this PBS documentary by any chance?
^ “New York: A Documentary Film” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/newyork/
and quoted in Wikipedia:
While he had designed the buildings to withstand the possible impact a Boeing 707, which was the biggest plane of its time when they were built, getting lost in fog and crashing as it came in to land, he did not take into account the effects of subsequent fires, ignited by a fully laden plane’s jet fuel causing widespread fire in the initial minutes, but driven and sustained by the many tons of computers, desks, chairs, printers and office paper in the buildings.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Robertson#_note-0
RBG
NIST FAQ:
“NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
RBG