posted 10-13-2003 02:45 PM            

I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

Eyewitness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York, recalled events in the South Tower: 2

Paul descended the 46 flights of stairs and made it to the Concourse just as the second plane hit Tower 2. He moved through the Concourse, smelling jet fuel and trying to avoid the chaos along the way. Once up and out on the streets, he described a troubling scene, including luggage from the planes strewn all over Church Street and a woman crying over someone's body.

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack: 3

I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.
...
As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

Firefighter Videos
Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations in the he South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___
just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battallion car,
I hid under the car, I was watin' to die.

In another video, a worker at Ground Zero describes what was found in the rubble in the way of objects other than the Towers' steel.

You have 2 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.

Other Eyewitness Reports
The following eyewitness compared the scene to a Hollywood disaster movie, as did many other people.

When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F_____?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood. 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1Online petitions allow 9/11 skeptics to speak out,Daily Beacon,2/6/02
2On the Scene at the WTC,Electrical Wholesaling,2/1/02
3An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks...,The Planetary Society,
4Broadway Electrical Supplys Jeff Birnbaum recounts his experience...,ceenews.com,2/13/02
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

posted 10-13-2003 02:51 PM            

FEMA Misrepresented the Towers' Construction
Chapter 2 of FEMA's report, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", appears to be carefully crafted to support the "truss theory" or "pancake theory". The comments added to the chapter exposes many deceptive techniques employed in the article.1 Those techniques are nicely summarized by a comparison of The following two structural framing plans of a typical floor of the Twin Towers. The first is taken from a the book "Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel"2, and is corroborated by several other sources. The second is from FEMA's report.

It is clear that the FEMA plan is misleading because of the far too small dimensions of the core column cross-sections. If the first drawing can be believed -- and unfortunately it cannot be verified because accurate building drawings have not been made public -- then one can surmise that the FEMA plan has the following misleading characteristics.

The core columns (red boxes in the turquoise region) are neither shown to scale nor in their correct positions. They are drawn far smaller than their actual dimensions.
It fails to show the structures connecting the core columns to eachother, implying the core is entirely dependent on the floor diaphrams for bracing.

All trusses are shown with a spacing of one truss for every other perimeter wall column, instead of a truss for every column, with alternate spacing used only for the cross-trusses.

What do all of these misrepresentations have in common?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1WTC 1 and WTC 2,,
2Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Second Edition,,

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Thowing this out for interpretation!

posted 10-13-2003 03:03 PM            

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38 floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss 2. 3. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections 4. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damaged the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire: 6.

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

posted 10-13-2003 03:22 PM            

Only Demolition and Earthquakes Have Leveled Highrises

That people would readily embrace the official story that plane impacts and/or fires caused the total collapse of three skyscrapers on September 11th could be predicted from the currency of the concept of building collapse, supported by the periodic reports of thousands dying from collapsing buildings in severe earthquakes. Lost are distinctions between building types, between building standards, and between degrees of collapse.

Nearly all the buildings that claim earthquake victims are heavy masonry low-rise structures, not steel framed high-rise structures.
Collapses of buildings of any type of construction are rare in the developed world, whose building standards anticipate severe stresses.
Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.

Excepting the 9/11/01 anomaly, the only documented cases of highrise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.

A 21-Story Office Building In Mexico City
On September 19, 1985, Mexico city was rocked by a massive earthquake measuring 8.1 on the Richter scale, which severely damaged numerous buildings. At least one steel frame office building experienced total collapse, according to the NOAA website. 1 However, the photograph shows that the remnants of this 21 story building included several apparently intact stories. This contrasts with the pulverized remains of the 110 and 47 story skyscrapers of the World Trade Center.

The total collapse of steel frame buildings appears to be an extremely rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved. In the Kobe and Mexico City earthquakes, many such buildings were severely damaged, and some experienced partial collapse. The 21 story office building appears to be the only such structure that suffered total collapse in these events.

Mexico city 21 story earthquake collapse 8.1 Richter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1Earthquake Damage in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19, 1985,,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

Go to link to access the Mexico City page! And other research!

bc

posted 10-13-2003 03:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Your logic leaves much to be desired, Larson. If the building was "ripped" as you say, then why don't the laws of physics apply? People were leaving both buildings that WERE intact even up until the moment of collapse! You answer none of my questions and you referred to the towers as "tower" when it was obvious that the jet fuel of Tower II was mostly burned off! Your analogy of a barge on swamp water was ridiculous!

The discs on a center pole was a much closer one!

You deny that the buildings were intact under the impact sights and that amazes me!

---

BC, I suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse.

To begin with, the impact of the plane affected the entire building. A number of columns were damaged, the building rocked back and forth under the force of the impact. The columns loads were redistributed to the remaining columns. Yes, the impacts affected the loading and stresses of every structural member of the buildings.

Physically, the building under the impact zone, was relatively unaffected by the impact, but there were significant changes in terms of how much weight each columns was supporting.

Go back to my analogy. As the first floor failed, the columns on that floor shifted, twisted tore and sheered off. This happened even as the top of the building was falling that 13 feet from one floor to the next. When that weight hit the next floor, the shock wave from that impact caused the same movement and destruction of the integrity of the lower columns and beams causing the failure of that floor as well. As that floor fell the same thing happened to the floor below. As the mass fell, it accelerated. The movement of the columns and structural elements accelerated also, just a millisecond ahead of the mass, but it was there.

“The discs on a center pole was a much closer one!”

That is the wrong way to visualize the structure of the building. I think that a lot of your misconceptions come from a basic misunderstanding on just how and why buildings stand up.

quote:

---

Time and energy are directly correlated, you cannot separate them! And when you argue gravity verses demolition, you must adhere to the argument and not try to veer off into another explanation. Either the building collapsed due to gravity or it collapsed with some help. Your adding a "ripping" theory just adds another element of non-reality to it because without the weakening of underfloors due to fire, even your "ripping" theory has no teeth! Why would the ripping occur in the North Tower? And why would it collapse AFTER the South if it was more damaged by jet fuel burning? Hmmmm?

---

Perhaps rip was the wrong word; I was trying to put it in terms that you could understand. The failure of the floors propagated ahead of the falling mass of the upper building because the falling mass was causing the columns, beams and trusses on those floors to move even before the mass reached those floors. This is why the during the collapse the upper part of the building was almost in free fall.

quote:

---

You're avoiding testimonies and common sense!

Was everyone who heard explosions hallucinating? Were those who were burned and blown across the street before the collapse, lying? Where those who took pictures of lights on various floors and experienced shock waves --- lying?

Please!

I'll now go to Shatoga's links and read!

TTFN!

bc

---

The buildings were 95 % air. As they fell that air had to go somewhere. The building was like a giant piston descending. Some of the air was blown out of the floors from the windows, some was forced down the shafts and blown out the bottom of the building.

I mistrust the timeline of any of the witness’s claims that they heard things before the collapse. I suspect that if they did hear sounds it was the shock waves and sounds from the start of the collapse that they heard. How did they know that they heard these things before the collapse had even started? How did they know exactly when the collapse started? Where were they in exact location to the building when it collapsed? Were they in a position to be able to hear the “explosions” in the basement at the same time as they were looking at the top of the building and at a reasonably safe distance from the building so that they didn’t have to run like hell when the collapse started? Logic tells me no.

Have fun reading those links BC, but remember that I have shown that most of the so-called proof on those pages is totally wrong.

posted 10-13-2003 03:40 PM            

Do you concede that if the fuel burned off in 15 minutes as you claim then that means that the intensity of the heat released would very probably have caused the temperatures in the building to go even higher than 1000° F?

If the temperatures in normal office fed fires can exceed 1000° F, then is it reasonable to expect that the temperatures in a jet fuel fed fire to go even as high as 1200° F?

posted 10-13-2003 03:42 PM            

What was the mass of the jet plane?

Assuming that 75% of the mass of each of the planes remained inside the building after the impact, and that 75 % of that was located on one floor, what was the additional floor loading from the plane?

(that is if we assume that none of the plane burned up adding more fuel to the fire)

posted 10-13-2003 03:52 PM            

Explosions

Explosive Events in the Twin Towers

While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.

Eyewitness Reports


Many eyewitness who were near to South Tower when it began it precipitous collapse reported sights and sounds of explosions. Several accounts are described in the evidence section.

Energetic Ejections of Dust and Objects
Explosive ejection of dust early in the collapse of the South Tower is clearly visible in the NBC video taken from far to the east, and in still frames from that video, portions of 5 of which are shown on the right. In addition to the large ejections of white dust from the left wall, the video shows a small high-speed ejection toward the back of the right wall, visible as a small white fleck in the first frame to the right.

Many of the photographs of the tower collapses show solid objects, such as sections of steel columns and aluminum cladding of the outer walls, being thrown ahead of the expanding dust cloud. This pattern is characteristic of explosive demolitions. According to Chapter 1 of FEMA's own report pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers. The distribution pattern they diagram suggests that, with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward. This is corroborated by the shape of the vertical holes in WTC 6.

South Tower Demolition Wave

A 3 second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about 3 seconds into the plunge of the tower's top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accouting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach 44th floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run. The
movie (mpeg) was found on plaguepuppy's cafe with the following description. 1

Though the view of the building is brief, looking at it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected out horizontally at high speed. To account for this very rapid ejection of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.

If you look closely as the wave travels down it seems to spare the corners, perhaps letting them lag behind to help keep the implosion aligned. The demolition wave is clearly advancing ahead of the actual collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down. The delays between demolition charges would have to be very precisely controlled to create this effect, suggesting to me that each floor was wired to a separate detonator, with control of the sequencing most likely done remotely. This would also allow the collapse to be triggered from the point of impact of the plane to make it look more realistic. Such sequencing could easily be done from a laptop connected wirelessly to the towers, as long as each floor could be detonated separately.

posted 10-13-2003 03:59 PM            

quote:

---

Have fun reading those links BC, but remember that I have shown that most of the so-called proof on those pages is totally wrong.

---

You haven't shown nor proved SQUAT !

posted 10-13-2003 04:04 PM            

Common sense! Buildings stayed up quite comfortably for quite a long time. No creaking or buckling from weight -- just explosions that actually created smoke clouds!

Tower II with it's corner hit -- the most obvious example of lack of internal structure damage and fire, yet it was the first to go!

PL - EEZE!!!

posted 10-13-2003 04:17 PM            

The Column Failure Theory

Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles

Any explaination of the total collapse of the towers would have to account for the collapse of the columns extending the height of the towers. Why not have the fires directly attack the columns directly, then the rest of the collapse will be easy. The column failure theory was quickly introduced to replace the claims of "structural engineers" on the day of the attack that the jet fuel had melted the towers' steel. This theory requires that all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, well below the over 1500 degree melting point of steel. At 800 degrees, the steel would lose about 90% of its strength and the weight of the building above would cause the columns to buckle, and the top to begin to fall.

Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual Twin Tower fires precludes those conditions.

The fires apparently cooled after the jet fuel burned off.
The fires apparently did not cover an entire floor of either tower. Hot fires would have to cover an entire floor to heat the columns to 800 C.
The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the South Tower, and never spread to the other side of the building.
The exterior columns were not glowing red-hot, as they would have they were above 700 degrees C.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

The fire theory even with the weight and impact does not compute! I addressed all of these questions and criteria when you first mentioned them. Will never compute and is a failed and incomplete theory compared to all other evidence -- films, eyewitness accounts, and behavior of similarly constructed buildings.

You're beating a dead horse!

posted 10-13-2003 04:24 PM            

Good articles! Thanks!

posted 10-13-2003 04:38 PM            

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Like all Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand 5 times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the remaining columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1,rense.com,

The horse is beat! Let it die! Or better yet, shoot it in the head!

posted 10-13-2003 05:02 PM            

Professor Eagar

Another Credentialed Individual Helping to Explain the Collapses

Dr. Thomas Eager, became an early spokesperson for the truss theory. Although not a structural engineer, his credentials as a professor at MIT were sufficient for his role in "explaining the collapses". In the following post Jeff King points out some of the absurdities advanced by Eagar in his NOVA interview.

Do tall things topple over?
by Jeff King Thursday December 05, 2002 at 01:16 AM

Professor Eagar's statement has been floating around for the past year, but doesn't really make sense at several levels. He implies that the laws of gravitation are somehow not linear, that if a small object of the same proportions (6.5/1 height to base ratio) tends to topple, a much bigger object of the same proportions will not be similarly unstable. A wooden box 1' square and 6 1/2' tall has the exact same geometric relations of center of gravity to base as a big steel box 1300' tall and 208' on a side. Nothing changes with a change in absolute size, this is the most basic Newtonian physics. Yet Eagar says "There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big." This is complete and utter nonsense.

It also ingnores the fact, as noted above by Pete Wagner, that the top of WTC-2 had clearly "broken off" and begun to tip. A big chunk of building had begun to topple, and now had linear momentum in the direction of the lean, as well as angular momentum as it was rotating about its own center of gravity. Momentum doesn't just go away without some kind of external force being applied.

Describing one of the the WTC towers as "a building that is mostly air" sounds profound but is no more valid than saying that atoms are mostly empty space, and so matter should collapse implode at any provocation. It is a clever rhetorical flourish that does a great injustice to the structural integrity of these buildings, implying that they were houses of cards waiting to tumble down. In fact they were very rigid and had far more compressional strength than needed to avoid collapse. Each core had 47 steel box columns, all interconnected with steel plates at each floor, and trussed box columns at the corners that can be seen in the picture above supporting construction cranes. The outer "tube" comprised 256 14" square steel box columns tied together with 52" tall steel plates at each floor.

This "tube-in-tube" design, with 110 floors acting as braces that linked the two tubes together, created an extremely strong geometry allowing redistribution of stresses. To think that such a structure would magically disintegrate rather than allow itself to be tipped over is simply bizarre.

More common sense approaches to the pancake and truss theory.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/eagar.html

Visit link for more info.

bc

posted 10-13-2003 05:16 PM            

Collapse Theories
Theories Purport to Explain the Unexplainable

All theories to be taken seriously must explain the collapses of the Twin Towers as the result of some chain of events triggered by the the jet collisions. To this end a variety of "theories" have been advanced. They range from vague notions of forces too immense to imagine, to incomplete arguments with abundant handwaving nevertheless dignified by publication.

Core meltdown is more a notion than a theory. It is invoked though comparing the heat of the building fires to that of nuclear power plants. This theory can be used in conjunction with a pancake theory, but usually the idea of core meltdown is so compelling by itself that the pancake scenario isn't required.

The pancake theory is the root of all the official building collapse theories. The mass of the overhanging part of the building simply crushes the part underneath, accelerating as it falls. Pancake theories are sometimes called progressive collapse theories.

The column failure theory holds that the fires weakened the columns on at least one floor sufficiently to cause the columns to buckle, and the upper section of the building to come falling down. To explain how all the columns on one level could suddenly collapse, column failure theories sometimes feature collapse initiation theories.

The creep buckling theory explains how the weakening of some columns due to heat could cause them to buckle, starting the spread a kind of buckle contagen through the remaining columns.

The truss theory blames trusses under the floors, and/or their connections to so-called angle brackets, which are more easily heated than columns. Their failure precipitates a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. To explain how a whole floor could fall, despite uneven fire stress, requires a truss failure contagen theory.

The zipper theory explains how all of the trusses on a floor could fall in rapid succession so as to cause the entire floor to fall.
Once the first floor falls on the second, it must somehow exceed the design loads of the one below, which should have been able to easily absorb the weight of the first floor falling about 9 feet, especially if it didn't fall all at once. Theories that explain this generally blame some aspect of building design and/or materials.

The angle bracket theory explains the cascade floor collapses below the fire zone by suggesting that engineers forgot to apply normal overdesign rules when designing the column connections of the floor trusses. Describing the welded steel shelves that supported the truss ends as angle brackets helps us imagine this.
Once the floor diaphrams have started to pancake down between the core and outer wall, it is still necessary to dispose of the dense steel grid constituting the outer wall, and steel lattice of the core structure. This requires some form of sudden column disintegration theory. Such theories are usually only implied in tellings of the truss theory. The outer wall and core structure are supposed to destroy themselves because of the lack of lateral support from the floor diaphrams. Since the outer wall and core structure were easily self-supporting except in the most severe winds, sudden column disintegration theories usually take some liberties in describing the architecture of the perimeter wall and core structures.

The column splice failure theory has the outer wall breaking up along column splice connections between the 3 story high by 3 column wide prefabricated sections. This theory is easier to accept if one forgets that every set of three column splice connections was surrounded by 6 continuous column spans on both sides, bound to the spliced columns above and below columns by spandrell plates 4 feet high.

The freestanding core column theory has the core columns suddenly buckling catastrophically due to lack of lateral support from the floor diaphrams. This theory depends at least on the core columns being free standing, in contrast to construction photos that show them to be cross-braced by horizontal beams and diagonal trussing.

The shockwave theory postulates some unspecified "shockwave" which travels ahead of the crushing mass, breaking up the building.

Shockwave theories tend to be found in amateur attempts at accounting for the building collapse.

Realize all of these exclude the demolition theory which all evidence so far has supported IMHO and that of others as well.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html

bc

posted 10-13-2003 05:18 PM            

Guess you know I used it completely!

Smooch!

posted 10-13-2003 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Larson:

You haven't shown nor proved SQUAT !

bc

---

Well then obviously you have not bothered to read any of my posts.

Lets see

Fallacy #1: There were hidden, undocumented floor beams on each floor

Fact: The building design was just as it has been said to be.

Fallacy # 2: Jet fuel fires can not exceed 600∞ F.

Fact: Even common house and office fire routinely produce hot gasses with temps exceeding 1000∞ F.

Fallacy # 3: The fire temperature was not hot enough to melt steel

Fact: True, but it did not need to be. Steel looses up to 80% of its strength at 1200∞ F.

Fallacy # 4: Seismic evidence indicates an underground explosion before the collapse

Fact: No it doesn’t. There is no evidence of any underground explosions in the seismic data associated with 9/11.

Fallacy # 5: The collapse was a controlled demolition becase it looked like a controlled demolition.

Fact: It looked like the collapse of a building. That is all. Since no one has ever witnessed the collapse of such a large structure before, there is no basis on which to judge weather it looked "right" or not.

Fallacy # 6: The core columns of the building were reinforced concrete

Fact: No they were not. In fact the WTC towers were rather unique in that they were built without any masonry in the construction. Core firewalls consisted of double sheet drywall.

Fallacy # 7: The building floors can be visualized like platters on a central pole (the core)

Fact: That shows a singular lack of understanding of basic engineering principles. The core and the perimeter worked together to support the building floors. The floors worked to keep the core and perimeter columns from buckling under their own weight.

I could go on and on.

posted 10-13-2003 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Weight of airliner? Was already addressed and as it burned it contained more carbon and less weight!

Common sense! Buildings stayed up quite comfortably for quite a long time. No creaking or buckling from weight -- just explosions that actually created smoke clouds!

Tower II with it's corner hit -- the most obvious example of lack of internal structure damage and fire, yet it was the first to go!

PL - EEZE!!!

bc

---

So if the plastic airliner burned up, wouldn't that have added heat to the fire????

How much did the airliner weigh?

Tower 2 as you state was indeed hit in the corner, It also hit at an angle, i.e. the wings struck different floors. In addition, the plane debris also struck more of the perimeter columns as it passed through the building. More damage, more fireproofing knocked off, more damage to the floor joists.

posted 10-13-2003 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Your theory, Larson:

The Column Failure Theory

Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles

---

quote:

---

Any explaination of the total collapse of the towers would have to account for the collapse of the columns extending the height of the towers.

---

Yes. That is right. Once the failure started, no column design in the world could have possibly withstood the falling weight of the top of the building. Note that these columns did not need to be heated up. They simply could not withstand the forces acting on them.

quote:

---

Why not have the fires directly attack the columns directly, then the rest of the collapse will be easy. The column failure theory was quickly introduced to replace the claims of "structural engineers" on the day of the attack that the jet fuel had melted the towers' steel. This theory requires that all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, well below the over 1500 degree melting point of steel. At 800 degrees, the steel would lose about 90% of its strength and the weight of the building above would cause the columns to buckle, and the top to begin to fall.

---

It would not have been necessary to have all of the columns reach that temp, just enough to overcome the built in redundancy.

quote:

---

Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual Twin Tower fires precludes those conditions.

The fires apparently cooled after the jet fuel burned off.
The fires apparently did not cover an entire floor of either tower. Hot fires would have to cover an entire floor to heat the columns to 800 C.

---

quote:

---

The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the South Tower, and never spread to the other side of the building.

---

quote:

---

The exterior columns were not glowing red-hot, as they would have they were above 700 degrees C.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

The fire theory even with the weight and impact does not compute!

---

quote:

---

I addressed all of these questions and criteria when you first mentioned them. Will never compute and is a failed and incomplete theory compared to all other evidence -- films, eyewitness accounts, and behavior of similarly constructed buildings.

You're beating a dead horse!

bc

---

no. you are hitching you wagon to a bunch of Asses that don’t know what they are talking about. But please keep it up, this is getting quite entertaining.

posted 10-13-2003 07:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Truss Theory

. .
Professor Eagar's statement has been floating around for the past year, but doesn't really make sense at several levels. He implies that the laws of gravitation are somehow not linear, that if a small object of the same proportions (6.5/1 height to base ratio) tends to topple, a much bigger object of the same proportions will not be similarly unstable. A wooden box 1' square and 6 1/2' tall has the exact same geometric relations of center of gravity to base as a big steel box 1300' tall and 208' on a side. Nothing changes with a change in absolute size, this is the most basic Newtonian physics. Yet Eagar says "There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big." This is complete and utter nonsense.

---

quote:

---

It also ingnores the fact, as noted above by Pete Wagner, that the top of WTC-2 had clearly "broken off" and begun to tip. A big chunk of building had begun to topple, and now had linear momentum in the direction of the lean, as well as angular momentum as it was rotating about its own center of gravity. Momentum doesn't just go away without some kind of external force being applied.

---

quote:

---

Describing one of the the WTC towers as "a building that is mostly air" sounds profound but is no more valid than saying that atoms are mostly empty space, and so matter should collapse implode at any provocation. It is a clever rhetorical flourish that does a great injustice to the structural integrity of these buildings, implying that they were houses of cards waiting to tumble down. In fact they were very rigid and had far more compressional strength than needed to avoid collapse. Each core had 47 steel box columns, all interconnected with steel plates at each floor, and trussed box columns at the corners that can be seen in the picture above supporting construction cranes. The outer "tube" comprised 256 14" square steel box columns tied together with 52" tall steel plates at each floor.

This "tube-in-tube" design, with 110 floors acting as braces that linked the two tubes together, created an extremely strong geometry allowing redistribution of stresses. To think that such a structure would magically disintegrate rather than allow itself to be tipped over is simply bizarre.

---

It is bizarre only to someone who does not fully comprehend the properties of steel and concrete and the value of engineering which allows these structures to be built in the first place.

posted 10-14-2003 09:47 PM            

"Fully comprehend" and "obtuse" are name-calling devices that do not belong in an intellectual debate.

I will participate no further in this discussion. I have presented all information to refute Larson's claim to any one of the various illegitimate excuses given for the collapse of the WTC towers. The one question he never answered within his own delusional paradigm is this:

If the damage in the North Tower, the first one hit, was more extensive, why did it then collapse second instead of first? More jet fuel,more heat, more weight, and thus more damage -- but the second one to fall. This is according to Larson's theory of course.

To whisk away the eye witness accounts as not believable is to destroy the whole legal system of evidence. But Larson accomplishes this in a single sentence.

Larson explains the dust clouds that eject pulverized particles of matter below and above the impact sights as merely dust from compaction, but the clouds were recorded as ejecting BEFORE the collapse itself. Again, this is ignored.

Larson refuses to look at surrounding evidence of complicity in terms of building ownership and connections with other building owners. None of this could have a bearing on the reality of any outcome in Larson's mind. In a court of law, it's called MOTIVE. Again, he sweeps the courtroom clean of such trivialities by ignoring them.

Larson continues to claim that the buildings' collapsed mess was quite large. All photos show amazingly little refuse radiating out from the building foundations. So Larson must be right.

Larson seems to have inside information on whether a whole floor was burning with jet fuel, even though people were escaping from upper floors after the impact in both towers. More were trapped in the North tower, but yet some managed to get out. Yet Larson's theories contain the assumption that all heat factors were constant and extremely high in order to facilitate a perfect pancake collapse! How wonderful to be so smug in one's absolute assuredness!

Common sense, along with quite well- documented links and information on heating, fuel capacities, weight of aircraft, and load-bearing capacities of the structure were given, but that wasn't good enough for Larson. His views over-rode the information and he wouldn't even accept the numbers given. He must have inside information is all I have to say.

After all was given, and I did read his links, his theory holds less weight than the demolition theory according to all information.

I have concluded my research for now and will concentrate on the Pentagon situation in the next few weeks.

All are entitled to their opinions, as opinions and theories only. The theory of demolition holds more common sense credibility, engineering acumen (verified by the builders themselves and others), and supportive eyewitness accounts, than Larson's mere opinion and parrotting of the government's (FEMA's) explanation.

A true patriot extends his/her mind beyond the given explanations and searches for the truth.

I hope Larson is being well-payed for his time, as parrotting can be quite stressful in psy-op work! Just repeat it enough and someone might believe you, heh? Even yourself! Only dense and thoughtless people might accept what the repeated message relays -- only a majority of the citizenry!

The the few who think, who strive for analytical excellence, these few will secure the truth for the rest of us!

See you next June or so when more truth comes to the surface and you, Larson, will not be able to deny it!

Let it die! Shoot it in the head! Put it out of its misery!--- For now.

BC

posted 10-14-2003 10:33 PM            

You did a wonderful job holding your own, and in fact bettering a Bush Apologist. I added my three cents to this very insightful thread, but you did a great job. Along with Mech, JerseyBlueyz, and Shatoga, we countered every ABCCNNBCBSFOX "fact" he threw.

However, Wolf, you did a magnificent job in your defense. You did fire the first salvo at Boomer, and she responded like a good 60's activist, myself included, should.....Mucho Gusto!!!!!!! So don't think that I think you're an idiot. You are not, in fact you did one of the best jobs of any debunker I've seen, and "Relitively" kept your civility.

posted 10-15-2003 02:17 AM            

My thanks to all for presenting the evidence they found credible.

I argued extensively with plagupuppy before he posted his web page.

There were people in that discussion who believed in the Bush Administration's (Arabs did it)conspiracy theory,
the observers' Bush Administration did it conspiracy theory and even some who believed in the coincidence theory.

Had the top floors falling sideways bahaved normally and taken the tower partially over with them;

Had not the communications tower of the other not fallen into a pre collapsed core;

Had the eye (and ear) witnesses not both seen and heard multiple explosions independent of the airplane impact;

Had there not been people still alive and talking on cellphones up until the collapse;

Perhaps I might buy that coincidence theory.

However the overwhelming evidence convinces me that (possibly anguished) civil defense personnel made the difficult decision to sacrifice all lives in the towers to prevent a much greater loss of life if they had fallen over as is normal.

No conspiracy needed to believe that scenario/ just the fact -proven in court-
that the 1993 terror bomb was designed and placed specifically to collapse the core supports in the basement and bring the WTC tower down.

The evidence arguements and links are here for all to read, watch the videos and decide for themselves.

posted 10-15-2003 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:

"Fully comprehend" and "obtuse" are name-calling devices that do not belong in an intellectual debate.

I will participate no further in this discussion. I have presented all information to refute Larson's claim to any one of the various illegitimate excuses given for the collapse of the WTC towers. The one question he never answered within his own delusional paradigm is this:

.
.
.
I hope Larson is being well-payed for his time, as parrotting can be quite stressful in psy-op work! Just repeat it enough and someone might believe you, heh? Even yourself! Only dense and thoughtless people might accept what the repeated message relays -- only a majority of the citizenry!

The the few who think, who strive for analytical excellence, these few will secure the truth for the rest of us!

See you next June or so when more truth comes to the surface and you, Larson, will not be able to deny it!

Let it die! Shoot it in the head! Put it out of its misery!--- For now.

BC

---

"Fully comprehend" and "obtuse" are name-calling devices? To quote you from a previous post: "PL - EEZE!!!"

"Delusional paradigm?" "psy-op work?" "Dense and thoughtless people?" Now who’s throwing around the weighted phrases.

"Let it die! Shoot it in the head! Put it out of its misery!--- For now." I’m assuming you are talking about this thread here.

Why? I rather enjoy this.

BTW for SwampGas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
. . .a Bush Apologist.

---

Where did I mention Bush in ANY of my posts?