|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
 Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:18 am
|
 |
|
Excellent, Mech!!!!!!!!!!! Senator Byrd couldn't have said it better!!!
All who ask questions are true patriots indeed !!!
BC |
| |
|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:09 am
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with asking questions.
The problem is, you have to be willing to accept the answer even when it does not fit your preconcieved biases.
I think that we all can agree on that.
The problem that I have, is when people distort the data to fit their own preconcieved notions of reality. Again, I have not stated anything that anyone could object to.
Based on my review of the data presented so far in support of the "controlled demolition" theory, I have found considerable distortion of the facts. I have found an entire web page dedicated to proving that the WTC was built using constrution techniques that are in complete contradition to the available data. If that isn't an attempt to distort facts to fit a preconcieved notion, then I don't know what is.
There are a number of engineers trying to figure out the exact sequencing of the collapse. Engineers are a strange bunch. The tyupe of mind that makes a good engineer does not make a good conspirator. I do not believe it is possible that the engineering comunity as a whole could be fooled by a "fake collapse that was really a controlled demolition."
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Wolf_Larson on 10-05-2003] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:54 am
|
|
|
LARSON: The problem that I have, is when people distort the data to fit their own preconcieved notions of reality."
I don't see my data or my sources as "distorted"...I see the MAINSTREAM sources as "distorted". Kind of like how the MEDIA went along with this corrupt governments charge that "Uranium was being purchased by Saddam from Niger"..an OUT AND OUT LIE.
If you want to put your trust in mainstream media YOU call "DATA" be my guest.
Dont ask the rest of us to swallow it.
Some of us here think what you call "data" to be 100% pure fabrication to suit an agenda.
I know that the TRUTH will come out VERRRRRRRY shortly and all the lies about Sept. 11th will be right in all of our laps.
I wonder if you will still be in denial when that happens...and it will.
-------
http://www.letsroll911.org/
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 05-07-2004] |
| |
|
|
Theh0661t
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 25
Location: san bernardino, CA USA |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:56 am
|
|
|
 What the heck is all this about the WTC being set up with demos?! Sounds like some people are out of their trees. If the people who are saying this have any evidence, who would do this and kill a couple of thousand people besides those terrorists? How would they have pulled it off? And why have I never heard of this before I logged on tonight?! Unless someone replies to all of my questions with a thoughtful (brain used) answer, I have no reason to believe the core was not melted by jet fuel. I also heard that the fire retardent was blown off by the impact and THEN the steel was exposed to the heat. It didn't 'melt,' it became soft and then collapsed.
------------------
I can't write haiku
Something about syllables
I don't understand |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:04 pm
|
|
|
Here's another hypothesis:
BinLaden and Hussein are under command of rogue elements in the US government, and trained human robots over there to perpetrate flying planes into buildings, and are under a witness protection plan of sorts.
BTW, talked to 2 building engineers and construction bosses over the weekend with 80 years experience between them, and both say kerosene and paper could not reach the temperatures needed to turn steel into puddles of liquid. |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:50 pm
|
|
|
Although this article is slightly off topic, it does indeed relate to the possiblity that the CIA outing case might indeed run into 9/11 territory. All information and investigations connecting dots will be essential to revealing the whole story.
Larson: I understand what you're saying and I hear you saying researchers bend information to fit their presupposed assumptions. Is this how you see the surviving wives of 9/11, too? They're looking for answers as well. How can you look at the Pentagon pics of the building and not see obvious aspects of the photos? This alone is an amazing testimony to the very thesis you present -- a kind of blindness and I don't mean that vehemently at all. It just smacks! At least spend some time on that Pentagon photo at various sites to prove to yourself that the media story and the pic do not go together! As far as demolition, it will come out as Mech says, it will.
New member: Welcome! Please read all of the links of the discussion, familiarize yourself with the internet sites and the arguments and then from there , you will have more understanding. The links given are quite sufficient to get yourself going in this topic. OK? It is shocking, I know. I was there and I continued to stay open and read. It is well worth the effort.
Remember that all theories are theories until the facts and evidence pile up to present a clear and logical picture.
We need opposing logical refutations for all theories -- so those of you who disagree with any of them, arm yourself with evidence.
You can just sit and disagree all you want, but that won't help, you must use supportive factual argumentation, as factual and logical as you can find.
BC
Fair Game
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 6 October 2003
Officials within the United States government have determined that attacking the wife of a vocal critic in order to silence that critic, and to silence the hundreds of other analysts who know full well the breadth and scope of the lies that have been told, is acceptable behavior. In other words, wives are now “fair game.”
The wife of Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, was an extraordinary person doing an extraordinary job. In the lexicon of the intelligence business, she was a CIA agent with a ‘non-official cover,’ otherwise known as a ‘Noc.’ An Associated Press report about Plame described Noc status as, “the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create, often involving especially dangerous jobs.” In Plame’s case, her Noc status was created so she could covertly work to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
You might recall the Tom Cruise film ‘Mission Impossible,’ the plot of which revolved around Cruise working to retrieve something called a ‘Noc List’ which had fallen into the wrong hands. The ‘Noc List’ was a list of extreme deep cover agents whose exposure would lead not only to their deaths, but to the destruction of several valuable intelligence networks. That’s just the movies. The real world, Valerie Plame was on a Noc List, and now her cover has been blown by Bush administration officials. She and her husband now report that they are living in fear that Plame’s life is now in jeopardy because her undercover status has been removed.
Plame was not the only person to have her cover blown by the Bush administration’s desire for petty revenge and political cover. On her W-2 tax form, Plame cited her employer as being a company called Brewster Jennings & Associates. This has since been revealed to be a CIA front company, and was likely the ‘employer’ for a number of other deep-cover agents who have, along with Plame, been blown by the Bush administration. Robert Novak, the columnist who first exposed Plame in print, disgraced himself further on television when he said, “"There is no such firm, I'm convinced. CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told.” Actually, Robert, the company does exist, and deep-cover operatives ‘work’ for companies like this to keep their CIA status a secret.
So, to recap, the wives of Bush administration critics are fair game. CIA operatives are likewise fair game. If said CIA operative is working to defend our national security by keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, that does not matter, because they are fair game. Also, front companies used to protect the identities of CIA operatives working to defend our national security, and by proxy all of the agents whose lives are protected by that cover, are fair game as well.
Seeing as how this is the case, that the barest standards and principles no longer have a place within this administration, that the national security of the United States can be sacrificed for low-rent political retribution, that George W. Bush and his people have been exposed as the rankest and bloodiest hypocrites in the history of American government, that everything is now fair game, I say let’s have at it. If politics is now nothing more than a WWF cage match, I want in. I have a fighter in my corner who also believes in the idea that everything is fair game.
My fighter is an independent counsel. Let’s call him James.
James will ask what motivated Colin Powell to say, on February 24, 2001, “Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” James will ask Powell what he based this statement on. James will ask Powell why, in light of his February 24th comment, he said "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more" before the United Nations on February 5th, 2002, and why he said, “"I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction" on May 4th, 2003.
James will want to know which version of reality was the truth, and which version was the act of a company man hauling water for a pack of professional liars. James will have dozens and dozens of such contradictory statements to check out, from Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld (“We know where they are,” said Rumsfeld of the WMDs on March 30. “They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”) and Rice and Wolfowitz and Perle and all the others who promised us there were weapons in Iraq that posed a direct threat to the United States.
James will ask what in the world happened to the 26,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the 500 tons of sarin and mustard and VX, and the 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these terrible substances. This is all listed on a White House web page called ‘Disarm Saddam Hussein.’ The claim that Iraq attempted to procure uranium from Niger to begin a nuclear weapons program is also on this page, months after that story was completely discredited. James will want to know where all this stuff is, and why it is still listed on a government website as a legitimate cause for war.
James will want to know why George W. Bush said, “We found the weapons of mass destruction!” on Polish television on May 29th. James will want to know if Bush was lying, stupid, or both.
James will be able to go on and on in this vein. That’s what makes James a dangerous man in a cage match. That is also what is making the White House sweat about this. Valerie Plame was attacked because Joseph Wilson blew the lid off the fact that the White House lied about that Niger uranium. The Niger uranium issue will become central to James’ investigation. Pull on that Niger thread, and the entire tapestry of lies surrounding the Iraq war will come spinning to the ground.
In a fascinating twist, James will in all likelihood also be able to act as a powerful and credible investigator into what really happened on September 11th. After all, connecting 9/11 to Iraq was a central note within the administration’s rhetorical push for war. James will be forced to get to the bottom of this, and to the bottom of 9/11 itself, to make clear what connections there were between that terrible day and Iraq’s terrible leader. James will have to investigate every corner of 9/11 to make sure there were no Iraqis skulking around in the shadows.
If everything is fair game, surely the Bush administration won’t mind these types of questions. Anyone who would torpedo an undercover agent and harm our national security should appreciate the bare-knuckled approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.
-------
http://www.truthout.com
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Boomer Chick on 10-06-2003] |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:23 pm
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a repeat, but maybe it bears repeating. Larson, weren't you asking about this seismic spike?
BC
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
NEW SEISMIC DATA REFUTES OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Two unexplained “spikes” in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center’s twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
Exclusive to American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”
Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”
These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, “Think of the jet fuel.”
Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.”
However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.
Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be “a smoky smoldering pile.”
Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.
This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.
The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.
Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.
This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.
The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick.
Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, “Everything went simultaneously.”
“At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down,” Hufschmid writes. “If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?”
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, “That’s the $64,000 question.”
Loizeaux said, “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.”
SEISMIC ‘SPIKES’
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained “spikes” in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
A “sharp spike of short duration” is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.
Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”
Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,” reflect “the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,” according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.
“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.
One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.
These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground.
“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”
Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage—but not causing significant ground shaking.”
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.
“I am not a metallurgist,” Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.
Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia.
* Painful Questions (Item# 1051, $20, 160 pages, softcover) Is available from First Amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003. Call 1-888-699-6397 to order by Visa or MasterCard.
|
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:26 pm
|
|
|
This might be a repeat, too, but there are some sites to investigate that seem legitimate. I'll try to find the summaries on some of these sites. OK?
BC
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767.
by What Really Happened. • Sunday December 01, 2002 at 06:03 AM
The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, hence (by default) they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 767.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767.
Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
Information on the Boeing 707 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
Information on the Boeing 767 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
From http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm The World Trade Center Demolition. 740 KB
or from http://www.thepowerhour.com/911-nerdcities/World%20Trade%20Center%20Demolition.htm 740 KB
ALSO, there is the following from the page
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm 850 KB
This is a critique of Chapter One of the FEMA report. The FEMA report is enclosed within <<-- -->>
<<--The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.-->>
That the WTC was designed only to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at a nearby airport, and therefore low on fuel, is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are fully laden with fuel.
<<--However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger-->>
(Not true. Somewhat larger, would be more accurate.)
<<--with significantly higher weight, or mass-->>
(Also, not true. Using the weights quoted by this article, in fact, in the very next sentence, the Boeing 707 considered by the designers, weighed 263,000 pounds and the Boeing 767s that hit the towers weighed about 274,000 pounds. This is a difference of 4%. Yes, four percent. Nobody thinks 4 percent is a "significantly higher weight". Incidently, the maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.)
<<--and traveling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.-->>
What evidence do we have that the designers only considered impacts by planes that were flying close to stall speed (the stall speed, is the speed below which the aircraft falls out of the sky). Apparently, we only have this articles word for it. And we already know that they are quite willing to lie and exaggerate the facts.
Another reason that we know that the authors are just making up "facts" here, is that the WTC was designed to handle extreme wind loading and would thus survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design of the building (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading). All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.
Clearly, for an aircraft like the Boeing 707 to accidently impact one of the towers, the pilots must have lost control. Most aircraft crash during take off or landing, however, there is also the possibility of mechanical failure at altitude, that causes the pilots to descend without full control. In this scenario the plane would impact the tower at high speed. Who is to say that the designers did not consider this possibility?
To see how willing to "stretch the truth" the authors of this article are, compare Figure 1-10 to the original (that can be found by clicking here). Notice that they have "accidently" quoted the length, height and wingspan of one of the early 707's (possibly the Boeing 707-120) and the weight, fuel capacity and speed of the more common Boeing 707-320B (the aircraft that most people associate with the name, Boeing 707). I have edited the graphic so that it is now presents a more accurate picture.
<<--Including aircraft impact as a design load requires selecting a design aircraft, as well as its speed, weight, fuel, and angle and elevation of impact. Figure 1-10 compares the design characteristics of several large aircraft that were in use or being planned for use during the life of the WTC towers. The maximum takeoff weight, fuel capacity, and cruise speed shown for each class of aircraft are presented for comparison of relative sizes and speeds.-->>
So summarizing the data from above, we have that:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
Information on the Boeing 707 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
Information on the Boeing 767 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
Also, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRY THESE FOR A LITTLE MORE TRUTH ABOUT 9-11.
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm The World Trade Center Demolition. 740 KB http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/south-tower.htm Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse. http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm Chapter One of the FEMA WTC collapse report (with comment). 850 KB http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm Chapter Two of the FEMA WTC collapse report (with comment). 1.9 MB http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon The Pentagon Crash Hoax. 1.4 MB http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/STF/stranger-than-fiction.htm Stranger Than Fiction. 600 KB http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm Video of the demolition of WTC7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi Another video of the demolition of WTC7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif Small animated-gif of the demolition of WTC7. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif Large version of the animated-gif. Large 3.3 MB file. http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/Schmid/WhoBlewUpWTC.html Who Blew Up the World Trade Center. http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/Schmid/CloudsOfConcrete_2.html What Identifies A Demolition? http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/Schmid/index.html Full listing of Eric Hufschmid's early web articles. http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/arabs-not-to-blame.htm Arabs Not To Blame For 9-11. http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/ang-mission.htm The Treasonous Air National Guard's Mission And Vision Statements. http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html The World Trade Center Demolition from serendipity.magnet.ch http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/mslp_ii.htm McMichael's Analysis Of The World Trade Center Demolition. http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/insurers.htm The World Trade Center Demolition As An Insurance Scam? http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm Many Hijackers Still Alive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm Hijackers Still Alive From the BBC. http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian Full list of articles from http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian
For faster downloads you can find 3 of the above articles mirrored at http://www.thepowerhour.com/911-nerdcities/nerdcites.htm
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911-nerdcities/World%20Trade%20Center%20Demolition.htm The World Trade Center Demolition. 740 KB http://www.thepowerhour.com/911-nerdcities/Chapter%202%20-%20The%20WTC%20Report.htm Chapter Two of the FEMA WTC collapse report (with comment). 1.9 MB http://www.thepowerhour.com/911-nerdcities/American%20Airlines%20Flight%2077.htm The Pentagon Crash Hoax. 1.4 MB
www.nerdcities.com/guardian
add your comments
Why bother with Science when there are rumors to spread?
by spam buster • Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 12:31 PM
FORENSIC ENGINEERING
Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing
(11/04/2002)
By Nadine M. Post
The most comprehensive study yet on the destruction of the World Trade Center concludes that columns robbed of fireproofing failed first--not floor trusses--when the twin 110-story towers collapsed after being hit by terrorist plane attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The proof is in the smoke that emanated from the burning towers before the collapses.
"There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure," says Matthys P. Levy, chairman of Weidlinger Associates Inc., the New York City-based engineer that led the study.
"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," says the report. Levy describes the floor truss system as "not unsubstantial," acting more like a membrane than a one-way system. "There was nothing wrong with it," he says. If the floor trusses had collapsed first, there would have been a mass of smoke as opposed to differentiated smoke, floor by floor, he adds.
IMPACT SEQUENCE
ONE WTC TWO WTC
HITS Planes caused different damage
(Graphics courtesy of Weidlinger Associates Inc.)
The report also exonerates the steel's sprayed-on fireproofing. Computer models that identify the columns affected by the planes' impacts and flying debris confirm that columns with intact fireproofing did not succumb to the jet- fuel-triggered fire. The report also says, of the fireproofing knocked off the steel, that "no fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts."
Levy echoes preliminary reports. "The buildings were well-designed, rugged and withstood a tremendous impact," he says. "The fact that they did not collapse on the planes' impacts saved tens of thousands of lives."
SMOKE PROOF Engineers say smoke patterns are evidence that columns failed first, not floors. (Photo by Tom Sawyer for ENR)
Questions brought into the limelight by Sept. 11 include whether there is a better way to fight fires in tall buildings, says the engineer. "It's always been a problem," says Levy.
Another issue is whether less-frangible fireproofing should be considered for steel structures considered vulnerable to blasts and attacks. Experts might also reconsider location of fire stairs and the strengthening of the core, says Levy. But he cautions, "You can never anticipate exactly what the threat is going to be."
Regarding building materials, Levy says: "Concrete is not foolproof either."
The Weidlinger-led study was commissioned by Silverstein Properties Inc., the New York City-based leaseholder of the World Trade Center, to help support a $7-billion insurance claim. The research team also included LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group; ARUPFire; Hughes Associates Inc.; SafirRosetti; Hillman Environmental Group; RWDI; W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA WTC study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp.
Silverstein's insurers claim the collapse of the south tower, Two WTC, rendered the north tower, One WTC, unsalvageable even before it collapsed. If they prevail, Silverstein would receive only $3.5 billion (ENR 10/7 p. 11).
SECOND DOWN
North tower lasted longer due to impact site.
(Graphics courtesy of Weidlinger Associates Inc.)
The insurers commissioned their own engineering study, written by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates Inc., Los Angeles. Also released, the report disagrees with the Weidlinger findings, but mostly on points relating to the insurance battle. Engineers from Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Associates Inc., Northbrook, Ill., also working for the insurers, would not comment on their work.
In the Silverstein study, engineers put forth similar but not exact failure scenarios for both towers: The planes and flying debris hobbled the buildings at the zones of impact. Intact columns, their fireproofing knocked off by flying debris, ultimately lost strength and failed in the fuel-triggered fire.
Though hit by the second plane later than One WTC, Two WTC fell first, "primarily" because the plane struck it off-center and at an angle and caused damage that compromised the southeast corner of the core. "This confirms an earlier theory," says Levy.
FIRST DOWN
Plane took out corner of core, which hastened collapse.
(Graphics courtesy of Weidlinger Associates Inc.)
At each tower, exterior wall and core columns, connected by a steel "hat truss" at the building's top, initially redistributed loads away from the damaged areas to remaining columns. In Two WTC, the hat truss eventually could not deal with the situation of the corner columns gone, says Levy.
The team determined that the initial hits destroyed 33 of 59 perimeter columns in the north face of One WTC and 29 of 59 perimeter columns in the south face of Two WTC. Computer analysis showed that the impact of the planes also destroyed or disabled some 20 of 47 columns in the center of the core of One WTC and some five of 47 columns in the southeast corner of the core of Two WTC.
The Silverstein findings are based on analysis of original structural drawings, thousands of photos and dozens of videos. The team used computer modeling, including a program called FLEX developed by Weidlinger for the Dept. of Defense, and fire evaluation techniques to simulate the condition of each tower at critical times, creating impact and collapse sequences.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which recently began a two-year technical study on the World Trade Center disaster, is using both team's studies to perform a "very systematic" analysis, says S. Shyam Sunder, chief of NIST's materials and construction research division, Gaithersburg, Md. "The real question is whether there was one dominant failure mechanism or a combination," he adds.
enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Boomer Chick on 10-06-2003] |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:59 pm
|
|
|
It's a neverending circle.
Debunkers cite spurious explanations that
materials burned twice as hot as ever before or since.
the last post cites a study that claims impact took out part of the core.
Causing a collapse by taking out the core is exactly opposite to the last spurious claims:
eg: that the towers main support was on the perimeter walls.
Expose the obvious lies about one bogus official explanation and andother crops up.
Expose that one as a lie and the first pops up with demands:
"Prove this false again and again until we wear the truth out by reiterating the lies endlessly."
Regardless of the validity of any conspiracy theory;
The official explanation is an obvious lie!
Caught in that lie;
the bushies pile lie upon lie and demand we disprove each lie endlessly.
Look at it from a courtroom testimony viewpoint.
Once caught lying;
every other word from the same source is also forever suspect.
conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth.
Bush's administration is trying to cover up the truth.
We already know Bush is lying.,
so any evidence from "official" sources can be taken with a ton of salt.
Anyone can view videos of controlled demolitions, then watch the WTC collapse and see the exact same scenario.
Basic fact is that buildings collapse into themselves, only via deliberate sequentially controlled explosions.
Natural results of a side impact and fire, is a localized collapse.
Left to natural forces, both towers would be standing (below the impact damage)
and the only collapse would have been floors above the impacts.
|
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:14 pm
|
|
|
Another pro-demolition theory:
http://www.attackonamerica.net/argumentforexplosivedemolitionatsouthtower.htm
An Argument For Explosive Demolition At The South Tower
By Jerry Russell, Ph.D. http://www.regena.com
Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are quite difficult to destroy.
Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not bring down that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. No modern steel frame structure has ever been destroyed by fire, at least not until Sept. 11.
How to destroy a skyscraper.
So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example.
A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city.
An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball.
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as explosive demolition or implosion. The trick is to distribute explosives to the all the vertical columns of the building across at least one level. In very tall buildings it is typical to destroy more than one level, to help prevent the upper part from tipping. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The vertical columns must be destroyed over a height of several feet, so that the building is in free fall long enough to build up substantial kinetic energy. Finally, the entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Explosive demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.
The World Trade Center collapses had the appearance of explosive demolitions. But were they? Let's look further...
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
An article by this title by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou appeared in the on-line version of Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, with the first version dated 9/13/01 and revisions dated 9/22/01 and 9/28/01. With such rapid publication, it is evident that the paper must have been rushed, with no time for full peer review. Let's take a critical look at this paper. The basic theory of Bazant & Zhou is explained as follows, and sketched in their Fig. 1:
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep—an increase of deformation under sustained load). This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Bazant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2). Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube (stage 5, at left). The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down (stage 5).
The first problem with the model proposed by Bazant and Zhou is that there is no evidence that the columns were ever heated uniformly to anywhere near this temperature. An article "Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers" by engineer G Charles Clifton of New Zealand argues that temperatures must have been less than 700 Deg. C, well less than the 800 degree threshold noted by Bazant and Zhou. Clifton states:
In my opinion the fires had a less important role to play in the collapse of both towers than the damage from the initial impact. It took both to cause the collapse, however the fire was in no way severe enough to have caused the collapse on its own. The reasons for this opinion are as follows:
1. If the temperatures inside large regions of the building were in the order of 700+ deg C, then these regions would have been glowing red hot and there would have been visible signs of this from the outside. Also there would have been visible signs of flames. If one looks at the photos of the Cardington fire tests, the flames and glowing of the steelwork is clearly visible even in the large enclosure test where the maximum fire temperature was only 700 Deg C. In contrast, the pictures of the towers after the impacts and prior to the collapses show sign of severe burning over only relatively small regions of the tops of the towers, even pictures taken from the air looking horizontally into the impact region .... Photos of the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in the early 1990s show what appears to be greater heating effects and over larger regions than were apparent in either tower.
[....]
2. When fully developed fire conditions ( temperatures of over 700 deg C) are reached within a region of a building, this results in the breaking of glass in any external windows within that region. This continuous breakage of glass as the fully developed fire spread through the floor of the First Interstate Bank, for example, was the most hazardous feature of the fire to those at ground level around the building. In contrast, once the blast and fireball effects of the impacts had subsided, there appeared to be little ongoing window breakage from either tower, either as evidenced from pictures/video footage or as reported from the ground. Significant areas of window even remained intact within the impact region .... This is further evidence that fully developed fire conditions did not spread much through and beyond the initial devastated region, following the impacts.
So the basic premise of Bazant and Zhou is seriously flawed. But let's move on to their next analysis:
For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution. According to this hypothesis, one may estimate that C 71 GN/m (due to unavailability of precise data, an approximate design of column cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose).
Why would all the impact forces go into the columns as compression? In a tube structure, the columns would bend outwards, placing stress on the perimeter frame and the floor trusses. The entire tube and core system is a complex box which is much stronger than the columns alone. Therefore, the number 71 GN/m is probably a very serious underestimate of the strength of the underlying building.
As if to recognize the problems with Bazant and Zhou, Clifton proposes a buckling theory for the South Tower which is similar, but is based on locally focal structural defects rather than any uniform distribution of stresses, and which does not require uniformly high temperatures.
Immediately after the impact the perimeter frame in the South East corner would have been severely weakened, being reduced to an unknown number of intact box columns in towards that corner on each of the two sides. However, these columns would have lost the lateral support from the floor slabs over many levels and would have had to function as isolated columns spanning multiple storey heights. They would likely have suffered blast damage and loss of alignment, however immediately following the impact they still retained sufficient compression capacity to resist their share of the loads from the 30 or so floors above the impact region.
The fires started by the impact would have then progressively weakened the vertical load carrying capacity of the remaining core, causing progressively more load to have to be carried by the perimeter frame system. In my opinion, based on the footage taken of the building over that time, the fire would have had little impact on the strength and stiffness of the perimeter frames, even in the damaged corner. The stiffness of this system above the impact region would have distributed this load approximately uniformly around the perimeter frames, increasing the loading on these frames through the impact region, including on the residual columns in the damaged corner.
Finally the combination of increasing compression load on these damaged columns, with second order effects from this load acting on the buckled shape of these columns over their unsupported length, would have caused their collapse. This collapse would have initiated in the damaged corner and spread rapidly over the impact region, causing the tower above to fail by toppling sideways with the floors above the impact region momentarily in an intact condition.
Clifton's argument seems almost reasonable, from a structural engineering point of view. The problem is, it doesn't fit at all with the facts. It is the very opposite of the facts.
Why did the South Tower collapse -- true analysis.
Videos of the South Tower collapse clearly show huge clouds of concrete dust emerging from the sides and base of the skyscraper, while the top part of the building stood solid and immobile for several seconds. I have spoken to an eyewitness of the collapse, and his statement was that shards of glass flew out from the sides of the building, and then the entire face of the building appeared to bow out for a moment before the upper part began its collapse. I have not had time to find all the videos available of the South Tower collapse, but my eyewitness believes his observations will be confirmed by the video record.
This brings up another scenario for the destruction of the towers, one which is now commonly cited only for the North tower. In this version, the floors of the building started to collapse, one on top of the other. This process would accelerate until all of the floors pancaked into the ground, leaving a weakened shell of a building above.
No credible structural engineer that I am aware of, has ever proposed a mechanism for the initiation of this pancaking process in the South Tower. Because of the asymmetrical damage, if any floors collapsed they should have done so gradually, starting from one corner and working around. This would have protected the floor below from any massive build-up of kinetic energy.
But from the video and eyewitness accounts, we know that the pancaking of floors did occur in the South tower, culminating in a massive blow-out at the base of the tower, which showered debris in the direction of Building 7. This crash would also have sent a tremendous shock wave up the building, which I suggest may be the event which triggered the crushing process described by Barant and Zhou and also by Clifton.
How it might have been done.
The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been possible for the owners to gain access to various parts of the building. Critics of the demolition theory have often remarked on the difficulty and expense of explosive demolition, requiring tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, drilling into structural members, and months of time. However, a particularly diabolical structural engineer with a clear understanding of the unique flaws of the WTC architecture, might have hatched on the plan of exploding the trusses supporting a single floor. This would have been sufficient to bring about the sequence of events which destroyed the towers, with the added benefit that if an airplane strike had occurred, the upper stories would appear to fail at the location of the strike.
This theory might be confirmed by carefully observing film of the collapse, to determine the point at which the floors started to pancake. Was it at a location consistent with the air strike, or was it elsewhere?
Have we been lied to?
At the very least, there has been plenty of confusion and controversy. The first question was that the role of the load of fuel from the aircraft. Early reports were that the hot fire was responsible for the collapse, but other observers pointed out that no kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.
A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. This seems like common sense, and the analysis of Bazant & Zhou may not be sufficient to disprove it.
The events of 9/11, summarized.
Aside from explosives, there may have been more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee.
Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments.
Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher.
A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country.
The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students.
At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons.
First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers.
Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them.
For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for many years now.
But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was operating them?
The World Trade Center towers are designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers.
If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been explained.
While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the US military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight was also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently struck down by some sort of missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania.
Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has continued to the present day. Our traditional American form of government, unfortunately, may not survive -- the Patriot Act appears poised to supersede the Bill of Rights.
Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that the Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day.
The author has a master's degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon.
Here are links:
Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com
Michael Rivero http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Eric Hufschmid http://geocities.com/erichufschmid/index.html
Jared Israel http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
Mark Elsis http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net
Source: http://www.regena.com/demolition.htm
September 11, 2001 Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Informative Websites About September 11th
StandDown.net: Exposing The NORAD Wag The 911 Tale
911Timeline.net: A Minute By Minute Timeline Of 911
MyCountryRightOrWrong.net: Questioning September 11th
AttackOnAmerica.net: More Than 500 Great Articles
9112001.net: Audios, Videos, Photos, Petitions And Polls
CarlyleGroup.net: Bush, bin Laden, And War Profits
OilCompanies.net: The History Of Oil And War
GeorgeWalkerBush.net: Articles, Photos, Books And Polls
Was An F-15 At The Scene Of The South Tower Crash?
NORAD 911 Stand Down Math For Dummies
36 Or 37 Missing And 70 Percent Empty
What Would You Do? by Paris
911 Timelines Direct Action
My 911 Work by Mark R. Elsis
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Boomer Chick on 10-06-2003] |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:21 pm
|
|
|
Shatoga,
You are 100% correct. Like the JFK assasination, everybody with a clear mind knows the "officail" story is bunk, and the real perps never got caught.
The same with this. As the smoke clears, sort to speak, most people will know that this "offical" explanation is garbage too.
Funny, how one year after JFK was murdered, we had a BIG LIE around the Gulf of Tonkin, to push the US into war. 58,000 Americans and 3,000,000 Vietnamese killed for a lie.
One year after another BIG LIE, the WTC bombing, a war with Iraq, also based on fabrications.
Why should we believe the lies of liars? |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:56 pm
|
|
|
single source website.
Bushies will disparage this poor working person for having only one page.
This individual has argued, at length, with me
and
I am convinced;
gave a great deal of thought to every aspect of
the overwhelming evidence presented at:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
>Most people -- or certainly many people, especially in the U.S. -- believe the complete structural failure and total collapse
of the World Trade Center towers was caused by the combustion of large quantities of jet fuel,
dispersed and ignited after "hijacked" jets crashed into each tower on Sept. 11, 2001.
That is the scenario promulgated to the far corners of the globe
by official U.S. government sources.
Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid --
burns at roughly 875 degrees.
Whether a little or a lot of fuel is burned,
it still burns at roughly the same temperature.
Now:
Think about all the kerosene burning in all those kerosene heaters (and lanterns),
constructed primarily of thin, low-grade, steel sheet metal.
Think about all those kerosene heaters burning merrily away,
with temperatures perhaps approaching 875 degrees at the hottest.
Think about how parts of all those kerosene heaters
would then turn into bubbling pools of melted steel
before the horrified eyes of countless poor souls
who had no idea the fuel used in their heaters
would actually "MELT" the heaters themselves.
Of course, this does NOT happen -
- which gives us a pretty good idea
that what had been sold far and wide by the U.S. government and innumerable media outlets
as the "cause" of the trade center towers' collapse is in fact absolute fiction and fantasy,
without the slightest shred of scientific fact
or collaborative evidence and testimony to support such monstrous and utter nonsense.
Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders
needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees
to actually melt,
and temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften,
The official version of the collapse of the WTC towers is -
- again -
- that burning jet fuel
eventually melted or liquefied the massive
and seriously hard steel beams of the WTC tower(s),
to the point where the beams all gave way,
unilaterally and simultaneously throughout both the gigantic structures
and causing their total and nearly instantaneous collapse.
Well, if such doesn't happen with kerosene heaters,
you can bet it doesn't happen to huge steel-beamed buildings -
- and indeed it never has;
especially when the fires
which supposedly "caused" such total structural failure
had in fact long since largely burned themselves out.
In fact,
nearly a year after the monumental and treacherous catastrophe
which struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001,
an audio tape of firefighter communications was finally released -
- which proves that the actual conditions
at and near the point of impact in the north WTC tower
only moments before the building's collapse
were totally inconsistent with the conditions which had to have existed
for the official version to be even minimally correct....< http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/articles/21
Far far more well documented evidence at links.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by shatoga on 10-06-2003] |
| |
|
|
Wolf_Larson
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea |
|
Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:38 pm
|
|
|
Shatoga, to date the only evidence that the steel beams “melted” is a unsubstantiated third party account by a contractor. I doubt that that contractor has any experience in fire investigations.
The steel beams did not melt. They softened and lost strength. This coupled with the damage caused by the impact weakened them to the point where they failed. Once one column began to fail, the load was shifted to the other columns. These in turn began to fail, accelerating the collapse so that it appeared to be simultaneous, but in fact the evidence indicates that it was not, the collapse occurred over several seconds.
Furthermore, look at the video of the collapse a couple of pages back. Notice the flames shooting out of the building at least 10 floors above the impact site. This does not look like it was burned out by any stretch of the imagination.
I dispute the notion that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes. I believe that the fuel managed to soak the carpets and penetrated into the floor cavities, cracks, furnishings, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc. Thus the fuel burned for quite some time.
In addition, I think that the edges of the fire and the fire in the core areas were quite well ventilated. The stack effect in such a large building would have fed those fires oxygen like a blast furnace. (not to mention the tremendous burst of heat that must have been generated by the rushing air at the moment of the collapse itself.
|
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:06 am
|
|
|
Larson said:
quote:
I dispute the notion that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes. I believe that the fuel managed to soak the carpets and penetrated into the floor cavities, cracks, furnishings, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc. Thus the fuel burned for quite some time.
Why would the jet fuel you talk about not have ignited when a source of heat was present? It makes no sense that the fuel spread as you say without igniting.
You do not refute the seismic explosions present before each building's collapse, either. How do you explain that?
Just to say "I think" this and "I believe" that are pretty flimsy refutations.
Weakening of intersections of beams through low heat could be a good theory if all steel beams were weakened at the same time on all floors. But the fire was localized and the heat from the jet fuel burned off immediately. The rest was office equipment and other substances which again, even if they could melt the jumctions, were only localized on a couple of floors. Many firemen have testified that fires in high rises do not cause pancaking. So just through common sense, you know the pancaking had to have help and strong help indeed.
A pathetic try, but at least a try!
BC
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 10:22 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
