  We need to raise $5000 to continue operating. All donations go directly to operating costs.  |
 |
|
We need to raise $5000 to continue operating. All donations go directly to operating costs. |
|
| About | Contact | Subscribe | Calendar | Publish | Donate |
|---|
|
More
 $1657.00 donated in
past month
africa canada east asia europe latin america oceania south asia united states west asia process projects regions topics |
U.S.The Fall of the World Trade Center
A documentary that looks at the why the World Trade Center towers collapsed. Anyone who says there must have been explosives in the buildings either has no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement. The Fall of the World Trade Center
BBC Two 9.00pm Thursday 7 March 2002 The World Trade Center was built on revolutionary design principles. It turned conventional architectural and structural techniques on their head. Built from a thin web of steel, its design was efficient, cost-effective and would inspire a new wave in modern building techniques. The result was two towers that were both lightweight and strong. When they were completed they were the tallest in the world. They were also milestones of architecture for another reason. The two towers were the first skyscrapers explicitly designed to withstand being hit by a jet plane. 'The impact' Although they had considered an aircraft impact, the designers of the World Trade towers had not anticipated the effect of an aeroplane's fuel load. British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center." Survivor, Bill Forney, recalls the instant that the 767 aircraft hit the North Tower one floor above where he was sitting. "The building started shaking. It lurched back and forth. It was the first time that I had truly thought that I might die. After a terrifying six to ten movements back and forth it was over and it was done." 'Problems with drywall' The World Trade Center had ultra-lightweight floors, and used the latest fireproof 'drywall' to protect the stairwells and lift shafts. Much of this internal structure seems to have been vaporized when the planes crashed, exposing the underlying steel to the intense heat of multiple fires. Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in. 'The South Tower' The two towers responded differently to the initial impacts, because there were crucial differences between the collisions. The South Tower, struck second, was hit lower, and the damaged zone of the tower then had to support a much greater weight of building above it . Rather than being hit head-on, the South Tower was hit at an angle. The plane wreckage scraped along the inside of the east wall and piled up in the northeast corner. Here, the fire burned intensely. At the South Tower's inner core, one escape stair was left intact - the one furthest from the plane's path. Even then, only four people, one of them Brian Clark, managed to get down it. At the northeast corner and along the east wall, the connections between the floors and the outer wall began to break as the floors sagged in the heat. The floors were an essential part of the structure, bracing both the outer walls and the inner core. Already weakened by the impact and now unbraced, the outer wall columns of the South Tower could not support the weight above them. At 9.59am Eastern Time, they snapped. The entire top third of the tower then lurched to the north and east; the floors inside the rest of the tower piled down onto those below. The downward wave of destruction - a progressive collapse - was then unstoppable. 'The North Tower' Meanwhile, the North Tower, which had been hit first, was still standing. The core of the Tower had been hit head-on, and the core had been left mostly undamaged by the impact. However, the direct hit cut off all the escape routes without exception. Meanwhile, the fire inside the North Tower was spread around the core. Again, connections between floors and columns started to fail in the heat, but here in the North Tower, it was the connections at the core that gave way first. Without the floors to brace it, the core could not stand alone. 29 minutes after the first collapse, the core in the North Tower collapsed vertically, pulling the rest of the tower down with it. The implications of the Twin Towers collapse are disturbing. Whether anything can be done to make modern lightweight skyscrapers more robust in the aftermath of 11 September is a vital question that must now be answered. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml |
<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc7_pile2.jpg">
This other program(TLC) is very similar. It also neglects to mention Seven.
http://movies01.archive.org/opensource_movies/newsreal/indybay/uploads/twintowers_collapse.rm
Too much butter and syrup on those pancakes!
transfertrusses5-7.jpgl4v...
This illustration of the truss transfer and girder system for wtc 7 is incomplete! It is missing structural components.
coll_truss.gif
truss-assembly.jpg
22 In-situ concrete
23 Trough decking
24 Bar joist
25 Electrical services duct
26 Air-conditioning duct
assembly.jpg
The same goes for the trusses - the conrete slabs have been omitted for clarity, so the casual viewer can easily understand what they're looking at.
The trusses running perpendicular to the main floor trusses are probably there to brace the floor - similar to struts or noggins they prevent lateral movement.
The time of the collapse of the south tower was MAX. 10 SECONDS - nearly the speed of a free fall - NOT 30 [THIRTY] as it is stated in the video !!!. This can only mean that the lower floors where destroyed regarding their ability to absorb the energy from the falling upper parts, as this would have slowed the speed of every section falling - and how should this have been done other than by massive amounts of eksplosives ?. That there were a number of large eksplosions is fully documented by hundreds of wittnesses ( se f.eks. "Loose change. 2nd.edition". [ Who is running UKTheDossier now ??]
I have watched Loose Change - most of it is sound. I only have problems with the theory that explosives were used. Somebody somewhere has inserted this propaganda along the way to distract people away from the real questions surrounding 9/11, as shown here:
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm
I completely agree with your view about the real agenda of the US in the middleeast, but I do not think that the focus on who attacked the US on 9/11 and how this was done divert attention from the former topic. On the contrary. If the many fact about 9/11 that do not add up to the official explanation are widely known, the real intentions of the government in the US will also come into focus. And now I would like to point out some more questions concerning the video from BBC Horizon ( apart from the former point concerning the time of collapse, which still holds. IT TAKES NOWHERE NEAR 30 SECONDS FOR THE WHOLE TOWER TO COLLAPSE, NOT EVEN "ENTIRELY" - as far I can see at all)
1) Approximately 29-31 minutes into the video, Gene Corley [ spelling ?], engineer ( allegedly ), sees the core of the south tower standing after the collapse of the entire topsection of the tower. There are several problems here: a) It is VERY difficult to see anything - for us who watch this video - that might be a core in the center when the tower falls, and if Gene Corley allegedly has "some pictures", taken by an architectfirm nearby, that shows this column of the entire inner core, why not show theese instead of a quick glimpse of a video [if this video is not the pictures they talk about, that is] ?. ( Besides, the short glimpse we get of the outline of the core seems a little "fishy"). But these objections are of course not deadly ( unless the outline of the core in Corleys video is manipulated of course - but that is pure conjection), so lets assume that the inner core of the tower REALLY STANDS after the collapse of the upper part of the tower. The problem, then, is b) how the whole uppper part of the tower is able to progressively tilt approximately 10-20 (?) degrees, when the solid, massiv core is supposed to stand straight up without being broken and tiltet !!!. I find it very hard to understand how these completely interconnected parts ( floors and core) is suppused to suddenly point in differnt directions, that is: how the falling part of the tower can tilt when the core supposedly does not !.
Another strange thing is the story the two firemen from "ladder 6 team" tells, about how they ( and apparently all members of "ladder 6") survives being in the building when the northtower collapses. HOW THE DEVIL does one survive a building of that size collapsing stright down upon itself. The explanation in the "documentary" is that the columns of the inner core starts to buckle and collapse as they can no longer support the upper part of the tower. The firemen where apparently in the core, and survived because this did not collapse. I have to date not seen any videos showing the center core standing long enough to protect people from being squashed like flies under a hammer.
Regards
Thomas
wtc_core.mpg (6.9 MB)
[ I have tried to search the net, but have found nothing substantial on the remaining core of the south tower - but perhaps I have not searched (well) enough ?. But regarding explosions in the towers, there is ample evidence. Many videos of the collapse shows cloud of dust shooting out severeal places during the collapse and many people neard them ]
The clouds of dust shooting out side ways seen on many clips would be the air pressure bursting out through weak points in the wall caused by the floors crashing down on each other. As the floors drop down progressively, the air inside the building would be compressed immensely, like a syringe full of air being squeezed. I would imagine the building to be sealed for the air-conditioning to work and to limit heat loss.
As for the explosion sounds documented by many witnesses, I would imagine you'd hear a lot of loud bangs as hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel was crashing down. Lifts crashing down to the floor, gas canisters or whatever exploding, etc.
First of all, you said much of ´Loose change 2nd edition´ "..is sound". What exactly DO you think is sound ?.
Second, I simply don´t buy the explanation that the collapse pulled down the ( apparently ? ) still standing MASSIVE core. This core is composed of 47 massive columns, interconnected by thick, solid steelplates, which would have made it a very strong gridstructure - it after all carried the weight of the entire tower. Furthermore, the inner core was, of course, connected heavily and massively to the ground. WHY should it fall just by itself, with no weight upon it ?. The floors were supposed to have "pancaked" down around it, and the upper, heavy part - the solid inner core and the floors - where out of the way, having fallen to the sides, when it ( allegedly ? ) suddenly collapsed. If it collapsed, it must have been because the very FOUNDATION were heavily damaged - and how did this happen ?.
Third, how do you know that it came down "...seconds" later. What source do you have ?. ( It does not come down in the video, which runs some time after the collapse of the rest of the tower. )
Fourth, are there any other videos, pictures, articles, or other which documents that there where a core standing after the collapse of the south tower ?.
Fifth, some of the cloud of dust that shoot out of the building are way below the place where the "pancaking" is taking place.
Addition to the former comments.
I forgot the most important, regarding explosions. On videos, taken from the new jersey-side (?) one sees clouds of dust pouring up from the base of the northtower, and it is CERTAIN that the lobby had been exposed to a large explosion - and this was certainly BEFORE the tower had begun to collapse. People heard explosions BEFORE the towers collapsed. This is not conjection, it is a FACT. ( And to forego one skeptical objection, one can point out that there is NO WAY a fireball, smoke or anything else would have hurled 100 stories down to the lobby. A tower with an open end on top, like any very high pipe, will create a vacuum - even if not very
great - pulling air up. )
The "...dust pouring" I mentioned before is not the dust that appears to rise like fume in a video which is most likely a hoax - it is the thin, white "fog" rising slowly from the base, apparently after a series of explosions. This kind of smoke is fully consistent with highspeed explosives.
It must have been seconds after (core) because not many shots show it still standing. The clip above is also in slow-motion, so it seems longer. I haven't looked for other pictures showing the core standing, maybe there are more.
Remember, the air pressure is increasing as the floors come down, so the "squibs" as others have said are exit points - could even be ventilation ducts expelling the air as it gets compressed from above.
There could still be explosions/sounds before the collapse. There was major damage above from the planes, there was fire, people jumping from high up, all sorts of things would have been happening that sounded like explosions.
All this sounds more like explaning away !.
Again, what DO you think is sound in "Loose Change" ?
What about the lobby ?
What about the fine, thin dust rising after explosions are heard and registered on seismografs ?.
Here's what I think is sound in the film Loose Change SE:
- operation northwoods
- Norad drills/exercises
- PNAC
- bin laden in Dubai hospital
- put options
- cancelled flights of officials
- bin laden pakistan hospital
- NRO drill
- pentagon missing surveillance tapes
- cellphone operation at high altitude and velocity
- some hijackers still alive
note: the buildings mentioned that burned for hours/days without collapse were reinforced concrete structures - concrete is superior when it comes to fire resistance. Also, none of them were hit by anything.
They mention in the film that the lift shafts are sealed - ideal for pressure to build up and travel down from above.
With all due respect, fire-fighters and janitors are not qualified structural engineers.
Well, at least we are on the same side generally. But I still find it more than difficult to understand what are the grounds for the, well, "explosionlike" phenomena reported, videotaped, recorded on seismographs, a.o., if they´re not exactly what they appear to be, namely heavy explosions ! - intended to weaken the foundation and the structure. And I still am not convinced that the planecrashes and fire alone brought down the towers. But perhaps we should call off this discussion - and appeal to people who read this to go investigate the topic themselves.
With kind regards and thanks for many good documentarys, etc. on your site
Thomas
As you say, people should always check things for themselves and where they do not have the knowledge to find an answer, should look to 'qualified' others for help.
Apparantly, only those with an understanding of the basic principles of construction can understand a complex struture. Don't treat us like idiots. Underlying all basic priciples of construction is physics. There are some good documenteries out there that show how the structural failure theory cannot explain the collapse of the towers. Try this on for size.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
A little long, but this one also explains the physics of the collapses. It has about 15 minutes of a raw footage with live news coverage in the background. It shows many things the BBC documentary leaves out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&pl=true
I think it is good to add documentaries that support the official story, if for anything to show that the official story is bogus on almost every count. I also think it is too easy to state that you only need to counter statements of people who believe explosives were used, there is so much visible and audible evidence of explosions that you cannot make such a simple claim and expect me or anybody having put some serious research into this to accept such a way of countering credible evidence.
And you don't need to be an expert of any kind to see:
- Explosion puffs, several similar way below the demolition wave.
- That the towers were not burning severely at all and therefore further weakening the pancake theory.
- Towers falling at freefall speed.
- All center column pieces severed into small and similar movable pieces, explain to me how fire did that.
The thing is that you can see the explosions going off and it doesn't even matter anymore wether you believe firemen, janitors or George Bush.
What i do see often is so called or self proclaimed experts going to enormous lenghts to ignore and explain away visible evidence.
So at your discretion explain to me the 4 points listed.
Thanks
Jeff King
People should ask themselves "who is this Jeff King?" He says he "studied" physics at MIT. What exactly did he study and for how long? I presume he isn't employed by MIT. He also states that he did "electrical" engineering for eight years - NOT structural engineering.
King's Presentation
He mentions the squibs - see above for my view on them.
TWA 800 was reconstructed to establish why it crashed/exploded. With 9/11 we know why the planes crashed - they were flown into the towers deliberately. Maybe he's suggesting the towers should have been reconstructed - since when have collapsed buildings been reconstructed to establish failure? Considering the sheer size of them, it would be an immense task to do so.
Modern office contents contain 'hydrocarbon' materials.
The core was an integral part of the 'whole' structure. Every part is reliant on adjacent members to transfer the loads. If some parts are damaged by the collision and/or fire then failure becomes a reality.
There were service lift shafts that rose through the entire height of the buildings.
A FEMA diagram illustrating the pancake theory DOES show the core columns. If you read the notes on the diagram they clearly identify the exterior column and the core column.
He suggests that the floor coverings (carpets) would stop the concrete floor slabs from crushing under the massive load (100.000 tonnes) of the above collapsing part of the building, and hence there should be no dust clouds - is he serious? The top part of the buildings were crashing down onto the lower sections. What does he think is going to happen? Virtually everything is going to be crushed under these loads except the steel.
He claims that steel retains its strength until the melting point is reached. This is wrong. The critical failure temperature of steel is 550°C - way lower than the melting point of 1400°C.
I think Mr King should elaborate a little more on who he is.
- explosion puffs are probably air being expelled under pressure as the building above compresses down, forcing out through weak points or ducts/intakes
- how do you know the fires weren't burning severely? Office fires have been studied extensively to establish the temperatures involved. This is why fire proofing is used:
"In steel-framed buildings, it is important to prevent the metal structure from weakening under intense heat. The standard for fire protection (under BS476 part 20 & 21) is to protect the structure—for a specified amount of time—from reaching the ‘critical failure temperature’ of 550°C. This is the temperature at which general construction steel will start to lose its structural strength possibly causing the building to collapse. In some cases, such as suspension hangers, the metal used is not structurally sound at lower temperatures. Tests have therefore been carried out using the same parameters but with a failure lower than 550°C."
- Again as mentioned above, what you see free-falling is the loose debris. Behind the dust/smoke the cores are collapsing slower.
- Fire and the damage caused by the planes initiated the collapse. Then as the collapse progressed down, the steel structure was broken by the enormous loads from above.
One other thing. Where do you get off making such an ascinine comment as, "no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement. "
Give that crap a break. Thanks. There is disinfo alright and those docs on the towers are part of it.
Anyway, this is a 1983 doc about building the World Trade Towers
http://www.physics911.ca/gallery2/v/videos/building_wtc.png.html
http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_1.mov
http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_2.mov
http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_3.mov
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Your initial "explanation" as to why "it's IMPOSSIBLE" for the floor trusses to have failed in the manner shown in that animated gif completely failed as such. Please explain again in something resembling actual detail. Lots of arcane techno-noise and gee-wow pitchurs won't throw me, so be careful. Thanks in advance.
Hey Anne "its about the physics" Keye:
Yeah that's right, and "physics" in this case does not mean the same thing as "common sense based on mundane experience with tinker toys and shopping carts." Physics and engineering are very demanding subjects.
You controlled demolition fanatics need to cram a sock in it. You're not really helping matters. You're either bullshitters yourselves or mindless pawns of people who are. I've actually completed structural engineering coursework in a prestigious engineering school. I'm no expert, and I'm not even adament that the towers weren't blown up, but I know enough to acknowledge what I DON'T know, which is more than you do. Your fanatical OPINION that the towers were definitely blown up only appeals within your own choir. Meanwhile the public you're supposedly trying to convince just rolls its eyes and walks away chuckling when it hears this garbage. Well, except for the UFO/chemtrails types. Yeah, they're a big help.
This soap box of yours is an idiotic PR move, and you're being encouraged to make it by actual PR operatives, whether you realize it or not.
http://indybay.org/news/2006/03/1812492_comment.php#1815650
Why do think the media quite happily gives Charlie Sheen a platform when he starts talking about controlled demolition? It's because the argument is flawed right from the start. It's not based on any kind of structural engineering knowledge at all.
If a property developer wants to construct a new office block would he employ an architect and engineer, or a physics and astronomy professor? I want someone to name one 'professionally' qualified structural engineer who believes explosives were used.
I suggest everyone involved, drop this ridiculous notion of explosives or, at the very least, put it way down the bottom of the list of 9/11 anomalies. There are so many rock solid points that can be used instead:
- PNAC (pearl harbor event)
- oil decline
- Afghan pipelines, UNOCAL, ENRON, Karzai, Taliban, opium
- John O'Neill resignation
- terror drills on the same morning, Vigilant Guardian/Warrior, NRO
- scrambled jets confusion
- al-Qaida connections to intelligence services, bin laden CIA, MI6, pakistan ISI
- bin laden kidney treatment at hospitals
- $100,000 to Atta from ISI, Ahmad meetings
- hijackers' identities in question, their training
- closure of FBI investigations into terror networks
- Able Danger, foreknowledge
- cancelled flights of officials
- put options, trading
- Northwoods, Gladio, P2, IRA, Mossadeq, Lockerbie, USS Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Bali, Contras, Suez, Panama
- anthrax attacks
- OPEC, euros
- the lies put out by bush admin, blair
Why on earth would they take risks blowing the towers with the world watching live, when just getting planes to crash into them would cause enough uproar to go to war? As TW says, the collapse was a bonus to them. They quite possibly may have known the towers would collapse anyway, as long as the planes hit low enough.
Anyone who continues to push the demolition theory should seriously be regarded as 'cointelpro' or completely misguided.
http://cryptome.org/wtc-collapse.htm
"Hey Anne "its about the physics" Keye". That's Ann R. Keye. Say it three times fast.
"Yeah that's right, and "physics" in this case does not mean the same thing as "common sense based on mundane experience with tinker toys and shopping carts."" From where did that come? Did I say anything about common sense, tinker toys or shopping carts?
"Physics and engineering are very demanding subjects." Are they really? Thanks for the tip.
"You controlled demolition fanatics need to cram a sock in it. You're not really helping matters. You're either bullshitters yourselves or mindless pawns of people who are. I've actually completed structural engineering coursework in a prestigious engineering school."
Well, you have succeded in convincing me with your strong argument of the need for me to cram a sock in it. I am obviously a bullshitter or a mindless pawn who has completed electrical engineering coursework at a not so prestigious engineering school, therefore, I don't know jack.
I never understood the progressive collapse explanation before. Now it makes perfect sense.
Many thanks.
p.s. I believe that progressive collapse is possible, its just not what happened. See the difference?
or that the beams "in New Jersey" were shipped off to Asia.
Or explain why the buildings came down faster than possible during a pancaking--
or that the fuel would have burned out--
too many questions.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1814156.php
magic.jpg
Thus leaving the truss spans to fall as single timbres. Magic.
So come on all you know-it-all "structual engineer professionals" Explain the magical disapearance of these key structual components. How did they just vanish into thin air?
hotslag.jpg
Um yeah, like that was caused bu jet feul. Now that is a half baked farce.
Anyone here a fire engineer?
A point that has not been sufficiently adressed ( as the former guest point out) is the time of collapse. How could the towers collapse that fast if they where "pancaking". NOTHING slowed down the collapse substantially !!.
And again: That a fireball travelled down 100 stories and caused a MASSIVE explosion in the lobby is simply unbelieveable. If anyone hold this view, please explain the pyrophysics behind this phenomeneon !!.
Comment to a former question by TheDossier [ Why the perpetraitors would risk a demolition ]: First a general comment: The (inside) perpetraitors probably did not want to kill more people than necessary and perhaps thought that most, if not all, humans could get out of the towers in an our. In the light of this , here are some suggestions to why a complete demolition would be risked: 1) It would have been revealed that there were no dead passengers in the plane [ the plane could have been remotecontrolled - see fx "Loose change 2E" ( operation Northwoods ) - and there is the advantage of no risk of passengers revealing anything about the hijacking per mobilphone if there ARE no passengers in the plane ] and the cockpitrecorders would have been found - and it would be suspicious if they were not - if this was not diguised in a collapse of the towers. 2) The attack needed to be big enough to justify a largescale attack on other countries and to make people forget, and be afraid of, critique of Bush and co. . ( after all, even pentagon was
attacked and an entire plane - flight 93 - ( with passengers ?) was crashed - and this, by the way, leaving absolutely no remains of an aeroplane, of passengers, or of anything else for that matters, just a hole in the ground )
Thomas
"its just not what happened"
And how EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE, Anne. Cuz it doesn't follow Ohm's Law? This is the only pertinent thing you said in your entire post, so I challenge you to develop it.
And now for this fucking punk 'IC':
Hey stupid asshole, this is what I asked you:
"Your initial "explanation" as to why "it's IMPOSSIBLE" for the floor trusses to have failed in the manner shown in that animated gif completely failed as such. Please explain again in something resembling actual detail."
You didn't address this. Are you too much of a verbal idiot, or are you a darting squirming ratlike Burson-Marsteller employee who's trying to avoid getting pinned down? I told you throwing pitchurs around wouldn't work, and yet you did it anyway. This supports the 'verbal idiot' theory. The trusses are the primary supportive element of the floor. The concrete is not self-supporting, it rests on the trusses to create a flat stable sound- and fire-isolating platform. You take those trusses away and that concrete membrane would collapse onto the next floor from its own weight. The trusses are the key element in discussion of progressive collapse, so ***EXPLAIN*** (fathom this word dumb-fuck http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain ) to me how they COULD NOT POSSIBLY have failed in the manner depicted. If the floor pan, the concrete, etc. had not been omitted from the animated gif, how would its essential meaning have changed?
south_tower.gif
Apparently you wanted me to do the same. You brought up credentials first.
, but you know what Anne? I've known lotsa professionals during my life, including high-rolling PhDs, and by and large the best use of their brains would have been to fertilize a nice flowerbed. That pretty well sums up my opinion of the average careerist's integrity, which is WAY more important than how clever they are. You could have a BS (pun intended) for all I care.
Is that an argument. I could say similar things.
As for my pertinent statement. I will give it a go. But first, just to make sure I have it correct, what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?
I have another question. What is common to all engineering disciplines?
Oh really? That's an unfortunate gaffe, Anne, or Leslie Gaines-Ross, or whoever. All you had to do was scroll back. Here you are bringing up creds right before me.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813619_comment.php#1815672
"what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?"
I answered this in advance in the other thread: "The collapses clearly initiated at the level of impact..."
here's a motion pic of same courtesy of your favorite authority.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
BTW, this BYU Physicist Steven E. Jones is a serious fraud when it comes to this subject. He's banking on worship of credentials almost as much as you are. I had a hunch, judging from his sophomoric presentation, that his specialty had nothing to do with dynamic behavior of structures on this scale, so I went and checked him out and sho nuff
http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=36
Research Group: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Specialty: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy
This guy is a MOLECULAR-scale physicist. I appreciate his effort to rattle people's cages, I really do, but he's totally outside his expertise -- as far outside it as yourself -- and it shows in his commentary. "Angular momentum," my hairy asshole.
"What is common to all engineering disciplines?"
Offhand, I'd say basic principles and math
What's the punchline of your trick-question game, anyway?
Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?
""You brought up credentials first."
Oh really? That's an unfortunate gaffe, Anne, or Leslie Gaines-Ross, or whoever. All you had to do was scroll back. Here you are bringing up creds right before me." "
My bad. I meant personal credentials.
""what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?"
I answered this in advance in the other thread: "The collapses clearly initiated at the level of impact..." "
The photo is after initiation, no?
"This guy is a MOLECULAR-scale physicist. I appreciate his effort to rattle people's cages, I really do, but he's totally outside his expertise -- as far outside it as yourself -- and it shows in his commentary. "Angular momentum," my hairy asshole."
Obviously Jones doesn't know his ass from a warm rock. Humble apologies. Is "my hairy asshole" another astute argument?
"Offhand, I'd say basic principles and math"
I assume you mean physics when you say basic principles and I agree.
"What's the punchline of your trick-question game, anyway?"
No tricks. Just trying to understand.
"Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?"
I will get to that. I need to know exactly what you are saying is happening at the moment the photo above was taken. The photo is after initiation, yes? Progressive collapse is occurring, yes? The clouds of dust are concrete dust, yes? Just a little detail please. I am willing to listen. But, I am not going to be convinced just because no structural engineer is buying the controlled demolition theory, ostensibly. I think the pancake theory is falsifiable. In fact, the so called pancake theory is a misnomer. There is no pancaking occurring. There is complete destruction occurring. But, I am getting ahead of myself.
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
http://www.asce.org/forum/categories.cfm?catid=31
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
Unless of course, you believe they're all part of the cover-up. That's right, all 125,000 of them sitting in a UFO plotting world domination. Come on people, get a grip!
It is quite bizzare to read theese spats of insults, allegations, etc. Those trying to defend the "nothing suspicious of the collapse of wtc 1, 2 and - notably - 7" -theori are in serious trouble. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF SERIOUS, STRAIGHTFORWARD PEOPLE AND SCHOLARS - LIKE STEVEN E. JONES - AND PARTICULARLY OF THE IN-YOUR-FACE-ODDITIES ABOUT THE COLLAPSES, INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING HOW SMALL, INSIGNIFICANT FIRE CAN POSSIBLY BRING DOWN VERY STRONG, GRIDSTRUCTURED BUILDINGS IN ALMOST FREE-FALL SPEED AND HOW FIREBALLS - FROM THESE SMALL FIRES - CAN TRAVEL DOWN 100 STORIES AND CAUSE MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS IN THE LOBBY AND UNDERGROUND GARAGELEVELS AND EVEN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT SEISMIC-REGISTRABLE WAWES.
SEARCH STEVEN E. JONES ON GOOGLE VIDEO SEARCH !!!
It is apparent that you are getting a bit desperate when you apparently need to denigrate and ridicule instead of explaining.
It should not be necessary to point to the fact that all members of an organisation need not be involved if a small group in that organisation is engaged in something corrupt or is making a flawed investigation. If fx. the board in my university is engaged in something like this, does this mean that I and all the other 10-20.000 students, who the university represents, are complicit ????. COME ON !!!. It was offcourse only a little group of people who where involved in the "documentation" of the collapses; and the report just barely touches on WTC 7 !!!. Besides, the page of ASCE is from may 2002. Don´t you have something a litte bit more updated ?.
Appeal to the respectability and old age af an organisation proves absolutely zip. In my country the biggest fraud was committed by one of the oldest and most respected companies for the last 150 years.
Again, try to watch the video of Steven E. Jones lecturing in UVSC. ( "9/11 - 2/1/2006 BYU professor Steven E. Jones WTC lecture UVSC" - google video )
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
After having a quick browse through its different sections, it appears to confirm a lot of what I've been saying all along in this thread. Please take the time to read through it. I think it answers most of your questions/doubts about the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7.
It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
What it shows clearly is the top of the building breaking off AT THE LEVEL OF IMPACT, i.e. the lowest region at which smoke is issuing from the building. This is clearly where the impact occurred since the fires cannot reasonably be expected to have propagated downward through intact concrete floors (convection makes fires propagate up, not down). For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it. This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures, and DAMMIT I'M A 9-11 SKEPTIC TOO!!
But I also know what I'm up against with the master bullshitters who run this country. You have to be just as strategic as them and know how they think or they'll defeat you. They're really good at it.
Once the top broke off that way, the building was DOOMED. Anybody who can't understand this doesn't know Newtonian mechanics to save their souls -- I don't care what the parchment on their wall says.
I'm sorry I've been rude, but I'm so sick of watching people who clearly don't know what they're talking about insisting on controlled demolition as if they have Master's degrees in civil engineering, when all they've really done is read the equivalent of a couple magazine articles. They're just dupes -- or worse
I agree BTW that pancaking is a crock. What's obviously happening from the video is the entire top of the building is free-falling into the rest of it. People who want the top of the building to behave like a discrete block falling OVER off the top of a stack of blocks (as Jones seems to expect) again just don't understand buildings. Or they're consciously lying. Buildings aren't strong enough to behave that way, they're only as strong as they need to be to withstand foreseeable stresses ASSUMING THEY STAY IN ONE PIECE. If they don't, all bets are off. Short of wild massive overengineering, there is no designing for such a scenario. All this is Structural Design 101, and you can take my word for that.
The laymen's "common sense" expectation for how the collapse should have looked really comes from watching movies, i.e. five foot tall models, cheesy computer simulations, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/war/wartime9_11.xml
"In many engines combustible metal is used in their construction. Where such material is present there is the possibility of a violent reaction resulting in spitting molten metal where water and certain other fire fighting agents come into contact with the burning metal. In order to ensure the safety of personnel it is essential that full protective clothing, including gloves and helmet with the visor down, are worn throughout the incident."
http://www.iftc.co.uk/training%20material/Training%20Notes/lcsi/Undercarriages,%20engines%20etc.doc
"Bright orange and red flames devoured the building, initially ravaging the upper floors before spreading downward, stripping away its metal and glass shell in twisted pieces to expose the smoldering concrete skeleton. Giant fireballs were seen rising into the night sky as parts of its sides collapsed, raining fire and molten metal onto the streets below."
http://www.iht.com/getina/files/225478.html
"Molten material pours from the upper region of window 80-255 starting at 9:51:52 am"
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Visual_Data_Collection_and_Analysis.pdf
Thanks for the backing IC, and the same to you !.
You are welcome to email me if you find something interesting.
I think, perhaps we should look into what TheDossier has just presented, since this appears to be quite serious and thoroughgoing. I am, as I think we all are - and ought to be -, solely interested in the truth, and from the first cursoric view of what TheDossier has just found it looks as if there is some work to do here. I think that we all, in the spirit of science and justice, should admit when something seems to go against the case we are defending, but I do certainly NOT think, after a cursoric look at what TheDossier presented, that the case is settled now. Before looking at this in detail, I would just point to the fact that this site looks very professional ( perhaps a little too "professional" ! - who have made this ??? - ) and one must highlight the possibility - but also just the possibility !!! - that there are powerfull and "professional" people out there that will do anything - including faking sources, threaten, mock and intimidate professional scholars, etc - to cover a (possible) cover up of 9/11. It is clear enough that if one event on 9/11 is revealed as unexplainable, all the rest are also immediately suspicious, and it is therefore necessary to make EVERYTHING look non-suspicious if the whole complex of events is to be defended. ( Besides, the site presented says nothing of flight 93 and the Pentagin ). But again, we must look into it as objectively and serious as possible.
Thomas
Just an additional link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
south_tower_debris_2a.jpg
"It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK"
Actually it is a still from the video. But, what is a video but a series of photos. The .gif is a capture from the video.
"Once the top broke off that way, the building was DOOMED. Anybody who can't understand this doesn't know Newtonian mechanics to save their souls. . ."
This is not a very scientific argument. In fact, this is why I do not buy the progressive collapse.
"I'm sorry I've been rude"
I apologize as well. For the sarcasm.
"I agree BTW that pancaking is a crock. What's obviously happening from the video is the entire top of the building is free-falling into the rest of it."
This is not accurate. Refer to the attached stills (I an fairly sure these are the South Tower, it doesn't really matter, my argument will still apply). They cleary show large amounts of debris going over the side. In one, you can see the core going over the side. From one of the links TheDossier provided we read "Large quantities of energy were stored in the buildings during their construction. For example, the construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 3 x 1012 J of potential energy over the 1,360 ft height of the structure. Of this, approximately 7 x 1010 J of potential energy was stored in the upper part of the structure—above the impact floors—relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse was initiated, this energy was rapidly released and converted into kinetic energy—in the form of the rapidly accelerating mass of the top part of the structure. The impact of this rapidly moving mass onto the lower structure caused a wide range of structural failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone, in turn causing failure of these floors. As additional floor plates failed, the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area, unleashing further destructive energy on the floors immediately below. This initiated a chain of progressive failure until total collapse of the building ensued."
Notice the deceptive use of potential energy. Gravitational Potential Energy as any engineer should know is dependent on mass and height. Therefore, for a given mass the PE will be greater as the height increases. Stating that the greater amount of PE is above the impact zone would lead one to believe that the mass above the impact zone will just plow through the building below. However, the building below the impact zone has inertia and it is applying force upwards. The falling mass must overcome these.
An inaccurate statement is made as well. to wit, "the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area,". As the stills show, much of the mass is going over the side. The kinetic energy required to plow through the building below has been lost. As well as the fact that the floors are being reduced to dust. Dust is not going to join the tower above, especially a tower that is now going over the side and everywhere.
This is just one of the reasons why I am sure this was controlled demolition. I do not need Structural Design 101 to understand the physics. And I will not accept anything just on one's word.
Now I put it to you. What makes you so sure that is was not controlled demolition?
Over, not out.
south_tower_debris1.jpg
Yes you're right. We should all be objective, regardless of our individual standpoints.
Regarding the 'debunking' site. Notice how it mainly discredits the demolition theory and nothing else about 9/11. It doesn't dispute the points raised on the front page of 'thedossier'. These points can't be disputed.
One final comment. The demolition 'crowd' would have us believe that a normal office fire could not weaken steel enough to cause a collapse. If this is true, why then do building regulations/codes require that fire protection be applied to structural steel? Think about it. Structural steel becomes lethal in a fire if not properly protected. That protection only buys time for safe evacuation and firefighting. The protection itself will eventually fail. Fire protection is specified in hours. The fire protection manufacturers have to test their products to gain certification for the specified hours.
Concrete on the other hand is superior.
This comment/critique focuses on the section "Free fall" on the "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories"-site [D911].
In this section the time of fall is accepted to be about 13-14 s for the collapse ( of the "pancaking" floors at least - and thats enough for my following critique).The point is to show that the building could have fallen more than twice its height (?) in the remaining 4 s, from the
9.23 s it would have taken in complete free fall speed:
" t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice it's height in that additional four seconds "
But D911 then states that
"The time for it to fall from start to finish [ 13.23 s ?] was three and a half times its own height".
This is an enlargement in distance from the previous calculation !!. Why this number in the conclusion ? - people who only read the conclusion gets a wrong picture. Besides, why does D911 relegate it to "a physics blogger..." [ who strangely enough consults/refers to wikipedia for the size of the acceleration of objects near the surface - a law of nature that must be very very basic to anyone with just the most basic knowledge of ordinary physics ] ?.
But my real critique (and others´ of course) to this is, that if we assume just a fraction of a second, fx. 0.075 s, as an average delaytime of the falling part of the tower [ the falling part offcourse grows in weight as it falls ] for each - heavy steel and concrete - floor, we get a delaytime for the south tower that is 0.075 s/floor x 78 floors = 5.85 s. This means that the collapse should have taken approximately (9.23 +5.85 s =)15.1 s. This is even more than the time D911 itself agrees to (!!) - and isn´t it even a VERY small delaytime we are operating with here ??!!. For the northtower the delaytime would be 92 floors x 0.075 s/floor = 6.9 s, total time of collapse being approximately 16.1 s ( which is also more than the commonly estimated 15 s ). And if we operate with an average delaytime of 0.1 s/floor ( which is really not much !!! - think about the concrete and steelstructures the tower falls through ), well, one sees where we are heading !!!.
Hey, I'm not insisting I'm Joe Genius who absolutely knows what happened. That would be YOU. I have already stated very clearly in this thread what my objection is
"I'm not even adament that the towers weren't blown up, but I know enough to acknowledge what I DON'T know, which is more than you do. Your fanatical OPINION that the towers were definitely blown up only appeals within your own choir. Meanwhile the public you're supposedly trying to convince just rolls its eyes and walks away chuckling when it hears this garbage. Well, except for the UFO/chemtrails types. Yeah, they're a big help.
This soap box of yours is an idiotic PR move, and you're being encouraged to make it by actual PR operatives, whether you realize it or not."
So you see, I answered your question in advance. Again.
What you're doing here is playing an 'argue in circles' game. I've seen it before -- alot. If you'd like to establish that you're not actually a disinformation operative, this is precisely the wrong way to go about it.
What ON EARTH are you talking about??? You are referring to the link I provided, are you not? That is to an .mpeg file, i.e. a motion picture about 12 seconds in duration. If you're seeing nothing but a still when you follow that link, you need to find a different computer to use
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
Next you're completely sidestepping the key point I make about this video:
"What it shows clearly is the top of the building breaking off AT THE LEVEL OF IMPACT, i.e. the lowest region at which smoke is issuing from the building. This is clearly where the impact occurred since the fires cannot reasonably be expected to have propagated downward through intact concrete floors (convection makes fires propagate up, not down). For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it. This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures"
You're sidestepping all this and darting straight for a diversionary argument.
Uh, not so fast
Back up
ADDRESS WHAT I SAID
Twice you challenged me.
""its just not what happened." And how EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE, Anne.
Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?"
I answered your challenge and you respond with allegations.
There may be a PR campaign to inform citizens of the many questions that remain unanswered. I picked up on it. Hell Bells, the broad definition of PR nowawadays turns everything into PR. PR used to be labeled Propaganda. The individuals that knew how propaganda works knew that propaganda has a negative conotation assosiated with it, so they changed it to PR. What's his name, Freud's nephew. Anyway, truth be told, I looked at the evidence myself and came to a falsifiable conclusion about the collapse of the twin towers.
In all honesty, I how no idea you were unsure of the progressive collapse conclusion. Fact is, you challenged me as to why I was sure that progressive collapse "just didn't happen". I showed you why I was sure with a falsifiable conclusion. I am not arguing in circles. My argument is falsifiable just like progressive collapse is falsifiable. Is there a structural engineer out there that can falsify my argument?
As for the video confusion. This is the timeline. . .I posted a .gif of the South Tower. It was/is a photo, for the lack of a better term, that I captured from the video. I asked you what was occurring in the photo. You said "It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK". I said "Actually it is a still from the video." I have seen the video many times. I wanted to know what you thought was occuring at that moment in time. It may have been a bad choice. There are so many different angles I could have chose, I just happened to choose that one since it shows kinetic energy being released without the aid of the falling mass above.
You state "For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advanc