SOURCE - Infowars

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.



The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.

Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.

Most of the drawings can be viewed here.

The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.

The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:



FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:



The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.



The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:



Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail.


The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7

The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building".

And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:



FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:



A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.

NIST's Investigation

It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million.

Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:



The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence:



So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.



NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".

The excellent research website www.911review.com, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:



Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.

In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:



NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.

If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!

And does this new evidence show that the structure at any level was designed to stop a block of a dozen or more floors dropping on it?

Face it, once one floor gives way you have a situation which is well beyond the design loads of the structure, and it all falls straight down because that is the direction that gravity acts. I have yet to see anyone who claims it fell too fast come up with a detailed analysis of how fast it should have fallen. This is an essential task before any claims of unnatual behaviour can be considered.

You are correct. Even NASA got in on this, solicted to perform modeling on failure to see if was all valid as claimed by NIST. It was. Since nothing else has ever been experienced by anyone before, it was and is still new data-event.

After tests and modeling, it was confirmed that failure was much down the lines of your rebuttal here. Once one 3000 ton floor dropped 8 feet to the next, it was assured the failure would not only do as it did due to gravity, but it actually speeded up with the excess weight on the way down as resistance was less and less with more weight on top of each floor as it collapsed.

Too, if it was some sort of 'inside' job, why use explosives at all. Let the planes bring it down and let the things topple over, as would be expected, at least by the conspiracy claims, and do even more devastation.

Gravity did what gravity does; it carries unleashed mass down, straight down. I took Jones to task on this in an email exchange, then he dropped the discussion when shown that wiring the place for demo was impossible. Same 'ol same 'ol--conspiracy always is based on feelings over facts, allegory over substance.

RAMS

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhah


YOU TOOK Jones to \"Task\" Via e-mail?

thats rich...... a good one ill certainly say!!! have any proof of this?

and even better yet proof

Wiring the place for demo would have been impossible?

hmmmmmm no such thing as Rf detonators?hmmmm

conventional explosives in the cieling spaces couldnt hide the wires?

interesting indeed thermite Linear cutter charges couldnt have been used?

or a plane packed to basically be a \"thermite grenade\" a very large one at that




hahahahahah gravity did what it did.............. it pancaked? really? thats so interesting also considering

the engineering and dynamics that the buildings were constructed in........and what of that center structre shown

in the photo and in the drawings? why wasnt it left satnding tall in the middle of the rubble pile?

that stuff all in the middle there see it? it all pancaked on itself too?


Sorry Bub no way and the other guy it took less that a quarter second per floor to collapse to the ground

even with minimal resistance the 110 story structure would have taken at least a minute to pancake to the ground

not the less than a quarter second it did

Your juvenile, illiterate response to my post nulled the discussion for me.

I stated fact what occured, you may write Jones and confirm. Same for Dylan Avery at Loose Change, where I was banned for challenging their claims after being there for 3 days, countering their unprofessional hysterical claims about 911 day, as I will do here as well.

Do you have defined creditbility for knowledge of mass failure, to share here for adding some sort of credibility of your claims.



RAMS

Don't worry about Jimmy. He doesn't let little things like 'facts' or 'evidence' or 'being civil' get in they way of his heart-felt beliefs.
I, for one, am thrilled to have someone associated with NASA around here with evident skills and training, commenting on things.

--Jaylemurph

Thank you for the invite and encouraging words. I ran into this same insanity with Art Bell and the anti NASA bunch and tangled with them over their delusions. It seems to go from debate in reason, to a frothing-at-the-mouth religious jihad........... same as this 911 conspiracy bunch too.

http://www.behold-the-rage.com/dismiss_page_1.html


RAMS

Matter of fact Perhaps I shall contact The good Dr. But i suspect that he wont answer me
and why he would you i am unsure But alas the e-mail has been sent asking for confirmation
If i recieve it i will post such here and acknowledge it otherwise ill just wait and see

associated with nasa

well hell i can spout that

i am associated with NASA too big deal

the resident freemaso experts has spoken

elvis has left the building

Anybody realize these are Architectural Drawings and not Structural or Erection Drawings? I know this wouldn't make much of a difference to most people but these Arch are not the plans that would necessarily tell you how large the columns were and how it was all connected together. Arch drawings are for interior wall locations, room finishes and basic stuff like that. Its the Structural Drawings that will tell you all about the beams, columns, girders, concrete floor construction, steel connections etc. You also have Erection Drawings that are just the steel frame layout and nothing else really.

I scanned through some of the drawings posted there and I don't see anything structurally related other than a generic size of the columns blocked in. Those are visual representations and don't necessarily mean they are they large in reality. Perhaps I missed something on the few plans I saw. I will look at them better when I'm at work monday. I have a larger monitor and it should make it easier to pick out details.(Also have a few people that would like to see these plans) I still don't think there is much here though. Find the Structurals and they will tell you the size of the columns and how they are all connected to each other. Without those and these are just "pretty pictures"

The central core probably collapsed much like described. They are a bunch of vertical columns connected end to end. Take away the lateral support provided by the rest of the building and all the connections act like joints. Perfectly plumb and it will stand for a while but any sideways force at all and its over. You get a bunch of buckling. Is this is what is being refuted here? Maybe I'm wrong and a little off base. This might be a good time to mention the idea the steel columns needed melted in order to do what happened. Not melted but look up just how much strength steel loses when heated. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't take much heat to get a lot of lost strength.

Also the mention of the floor below it overloading once the one above collapsed. You would be surprised just how close to max load the floor construction runs sometimes. Often there is just a little room for error put in once all the loads have been calculated. Sometimes there is alot of wiggle room. Other projects there is not. Regardless I can not see a floor supporting the weight of its own loads and then the rubble from the next floor up. There is just no way I can see that floor holding. I think one idea I was told is that this is where the idea of explosions came from. One floor crashing into the next, into the next, into the next. Mind you its probably speeding up but I have a feeling the sound of that impact is going to sound rather explosion like. Just an idea.

Oh and one last mention here. If its not obvious I am in the structural steel and high rise tower industry. I'm just one of the many people involved in making projects like this work. I play my part I guess you'd say. Any ways I have spoken with several engineers about this and the answer is always the same. "Isn't it obvious? One floor collapses, onto the other, onto the other and on and on. Its all comes down on itself. Straight down where gravity pulls it. Go take a look at such and such project. Look at what the floor can hold. Now double the actual loading and see if it holds." Basically what I'm saying is not one engineer I've talked to thinks it did anything but collapse on itself and straight down. No one I know of in my field has ever questioned it. Its obvious to these guys.

Kevin

Oh really? Im glad you brought something up about NIST test because you just brought something back to mind.

"There were metallurgy test done by NIST's own Frank Gayle, the project leader of WTC Investigation;NIST Metallurgist. He was the leader of project 4 out of 8 projects. He done the analysis of the steel directly from the impact zone and ground zero.
NIST "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180. (smoking gun)

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboritories to conduct test to obtain information on the fire endurance of the trusses like those in the WTC towers. NIST P. 142" "All four test speciments sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing."NIST p.143 Big Red Flag.

NIST P.143 " The results establish that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,without collapsing, for substantial periods of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on Sept 11th. " LET THIS SINK IN!

Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel.
NIST page 181" Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking."

So from NIST's test and information, there were no raging infernos and the buildings shouldnt have collapse or at least should have stood longer than they did reguardless of the fires in any given location. I just cant believe your going to sit up here and give us a discourse to support this pancake collapse all of you believe in. This explantion you guys are putting forth doesnt hold water. How do you get 47 interconnected core columns to fail simulaniously? You sure dont do it with with fire! None of the samples recovered showed the the steel may have reached temperatures that may cause it to lose even half of its strength! There is all of this about "steel buckling and softening"and it all contradicts NIST's Frank Gayle's results!! The temperatures reached by the recovered steel were not hot enough to melt or weakend any kind of steel, even unfireproof steel. The pancake theory which is the official version requires "intact" concrete (lots of mass) hitting the floor, and those under then hitting the next floor all the way down, and you would expect in the end to see a whole stack of floors piled up on top of each other after the collapse is completed.

Instead of stack of floors with "at least" the spindals standing, what we see is DUST thats being produced. But if there is dust being produced, where is the mass that caused the collapse? And if there is a mass in the collapse everytime one floor hits a stationary floor, that will slow the collapse down, so that mass has to be moved out of the way to get the collpase to be rapid, like we seen with the towers. You claim the weight hitting each floor should speed up the collapse when actually, your wrong, its should slow it down, each floor hitting another floor is added resistance; weight cannot speed up gravity.You cant deny that the Wtc(1,2,and 7) collapses were rapid, thats wasnt just gravity at work alone buddy. And what you fail to realize is, you have to have about half the columns fail at about the same time, ......there are 47 steel columns going up the core interconnected, how do you get all of those to fail simultaniously so the core disappears? Fire alone, WILL NOT produce this. The planes didnt cut the core columns, the core columns were pulled or cut afterwards, to allow for the collpase to ensue. Once the both twin towers collapsed you can see see some of the core standing, but instead of toppling over, it collapses down upon itself as if the entire structure from top to bottom, had been cut. We even see white/gray smoke rising from the end of the steel.

And about that point you brought up about why not let the planes hit the buildings then topple them over, well there is only one problem with that, 1 plane alone isnt enought to cause a building to collapse; burn for hours and hours maybe but not collapse! A plane could hit the Wtcs but that wouldnt be sufficient to cause the towers to topple over. And speaking of toppling over, the 2nd tower, at least the top half, was about to topple over, it practically was tipped 30 stories above the impact zone and instead of toppling into the street, it did what demolition experts call "walk" and disintegrated as it only begun to collapse. How could the steel frame many stories above the impact zone have broken up even before it began to fall? The proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.So no, toppling the building by plane is OUT.

*Controlled Demolition = Inside Job*
The towers had physical features of a controlled demolition.

As all conspirators on this subject neglect, yourself included, is the impact translation of some 94,564 tons of mass along with the combustion of some 89 tons of fuel, all in 1/10th of a second upon impact.

164+ tons of aircraft x 562mph, coming to a complete stop within 100 feet, and unleashing 89 tons of fuel into the impact zone = 94,000+ of shock energy.

That, and what happened to both towers and debris caused fires in WTC7 have never before been witnessed in such circumstances. Ever.

Why isn't that included in your rebuttal?

RAMS

What most people without engineering experience fail to comprehend is the compressive strength of materials. If you could only envision how much force it actually takes to compress just one huge massive steel column! Heres a simple example for all the believers that the buildings fell on themselves, take a small nail or brad and put it in a vice and position it across the vice and attempt to squash it. You might get lucky, but now try it with a bolt, just a small one like a #6 or #8 and you'll see you cant do it. If you want to go high tech, go to a machine shop or gain access to a hydraulic press.

After all your testing, multiply your results by upteen gazillion thousand pounds (LOL) and you might begin to get a clue! Keep in mind these columns are spaced and connected to form a structure that was designed to withstand the impact of a large aircraft, and able to sustain hurricane force winds.

If the pancake theory was just slightly possible, the cascading floors would begin to fall away from the core and after all was said and done, there would still be an exposed core colum of steel framework, many stories tall.

As for WTC7, if you really look at the demolition, you'll notice all columns, even those at the farthest corners of the building, fell at the same time as the rest of the building, even though no fire or damage was anywhere near them. If the building fell due to structural failure, the corner columns would have fell outward, or off to a given side, but instead they crumbled straight down.

It doesnt take a genius to see this was all planned, but it does take alot of convincing to get unintelligent people to realise it!

If a piece of foam can take down a space shuttle..than an airplane could take down that building...it's all in the official story...

What some people with a claim to engineering experience fail to comprehend is that end-loaded columns when compressed actually fail in bending. Ever heard of an Euler load?

Do you seriously think people believe you work with NASA?
Even if RAMS were a fake (and I have no reason to think he is), at least he can successfully pull off an imitation of someone who does work for NASA.

--Jaylemurph

Though it is nice of you to concede an expertise in free masonry. I'm told when the NWO takes over, I get Georgia.

Its apparently a reading Comprehension thing? As I clearly Never stated
anywhere in this post or any other posts that i worked for nasa.
Apparently you Mis-Read what i was writing? if you were to read it again you
might immediatly Notice that what i said was that i was [i]ASSOCIATED[/]



And truth is I am and have Been for quite some time actually I have Family members who
Actually worked for NASA, some of them on the Appollo Missions...I also worked for years for
a company based in houston texas, that did Blueprint Reproduction work... They made all the blueprints
for the shuttles, and associated systems....I worked with nasa the whole time i was employed there
form 1980 -1985.............

so you see I am truly ASSOCIATED with NASA


never said I worked FOR nasa?

quote name='jimmyphelps' date='Mar 29 2007, 10:16 PM' post='1605599'

"associated with nasa

well hell i can spout that

i am associated with NASA too big deal

the resident freemaso experts has spoken

elvis has left the building"

...are you another screen name for Jimmy or do you just have a guilty conscience about something?

--Jaylemurph

Well isn't THAT interesting....

I'll close this thread while this case of 'multiple identities' is investigated.