Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ZELDAR

Empire State Building VS WTC

88 posts in this topic

Regarding the Empire State Building, it has been mentioned that the B-25 was rather much smaller than a 767. It would also be worth adding that the structure, unlike the WTC, was a steel frame reinforced with concrete. The significance of this was noted by the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department of New York: -

"The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre-WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the Empire State Building to the World Trade Center. The estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40."

The first variable that struck my mind here was the simple rule of thumb in high rise construction - The more hight the lighter the construction need to be otherwise the building would simply crubble under its own weight.

A simple fact. Do you agree ?.

Whilst we see that the Empire State Building and WTC crashes were not exactly the same thing, comparisons can still be made so long as we are aware of the differences. It would be incorrect to claim there is no precedent at all to the WTC event just because no identical building has suffered in identical circumstances.

For example, both buildings suffered impacts which would have been expected to dislodge material from around the steel frames. The Empire State Building fire burned for approximately 2 hours, a longer duration than either of the Twin Towers.

Could it not be expected, considering the above, that the Empire State Building would experience at least some form of partial collapse and/or structural weakening from the fire? But no, not even that - offices on the lower floors were open for business the next day.

Q24 the scope in your comparison study are to great to have a accurate result to work with.

Factors governing the result outcome are:

- Building design

- The difference in plane design

- Specific feul load

- Metal structure [grade] comparison between planes

- Speed at which impact initiated

- Impact footprint

- Level of penetration

- Effect of specific metal to metal contact study at tested specific speed

Now if you have 2 million plus dollars to spend on aciddent study to get difinetive variables that can tell us yes this condition will produce this specific result thus generate a accurate report about the WTC collapse... that would be supperb.

But then neither of us have + 2 million dollars to spend, Makes for the arguments that we are currently engaged in rather empty in weight of merit. We are thus looked in a continiuos loop of who's argument has the sharpest point.

You agree?.

Still there are other building fire comparisons. Here are some of the best: -

One Meridian Plaza fire - February 23rd, 1991

First Interstate Bank fire – May 4th, 1988

New York Plaza fire – August 5th, 1970

They are instantly nullefied due to the specific factors as given above faced by the WTC Towers thus can not be trusted for comparison.

However for my arguments deffence I would ask you to search for - Overpass collapse due to tankertruck fire - the mentioned accident happend in open air where many say that a fuel fire can not burn Hot enough to melt steel.

I'm unsure as to the extent of the claimed collapse initiations here – it is certainly known that the building survived and if the floor slabs did not give way then there was in fact no collapse. Again, contrast with the three WTC buildings which also had concrete flooring and yet all entered global collapse.

<Mentioned fire damaged buildings ruled out due to insufficient factors for case comparison>. Not one of these examples came close to the results of the three WTC buildings on 9/11. The only evident comparison for that…… is controlled demolition.

Q24 why are you souly using only one single factor to run your argument?. You and I both know that it is not only one part of what makes a engine function, what makes your computer work or what is the case for the destruction of a building.

[that…… is controlled demolition].... I would not jump so quickly on the CD bandwagon Q24.

In the words of one of the leading Controled Demolition companies head of operations Mark Loizeaux:

A controlled demolition is not a quiet event.

The telltale markings and sight of a demolition by means of explosives are extremely prominent. I take that as a engraved into the grain of stone fact that no explosives were used.

Apart from that, the impact damage is too often hyped without cause…

Using WTC1 as the example, in the worst case scenario that NIST could concoct, a maximum nine of the forty-seven core columns were severed or severely damaged. NIST confirmed that such an impact would result in the core structure carrying only an additional 1% load. Once it is known that the core columns had an average safety factor in excess of 2:1, it is understood that there was still huge redundant capacity in the structures immediately following impact.

I would not call it 'hyped' much rather the callcuclated damage that can occur. Why I am saying that is the simple fact of the difference or gap in theoretical results to that in practical outcomes.

In my eye it is all guess work to be clear as what they had to work with to compile the report was only the wreckage after the Towers fell.

These facts, and indeed the witnessed impact, are in perfect agreement with WTC construction manager Frank Demartini, who believed, “the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” In other words, the impacts did very little to the integrity of the structures.

Uhh huh.... And the illustrious architecht ot the Titanic sad that this ship is unsinkable and look at the end result. So the point of argument is?. Just to win over the board to construct the building.

In other words, the impacts did very little to the integrity of the structures.

Bahh what utter hogwash. Neither of us or where there walking through the burning rubble to survey the REAL damage to the building. Neither were anyone else.

You see, even NIST relied on additional manually input forces to initiate collapse in their models – their ramped up fire and impact damage together still were not enough.

You are runing with what you read in that news article that you provided a link of isnt it.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Wonder where they got the correct variables to simulate the plane components when impacting at speed from?.

WTC7 did not suffer an impact.

From which side of the building?.. Are you only looking at the east side - The pritty side that made the whole mennagery look like a CD stunt?...

May not be a plane impact but a impact of falling debri from the nearest Tower and the debries that fell were not mere office chiars.

Maybe John Skilling got it wrong… but I would have to take his word over yours. The interesting thing is, the base analysis that NIST carried out for the fire situation actually agreed with those earlier findings – the buildings should not have collapsed. Of course this was a politically unacceptable answer and so NIST increased the fire severity and input the further forces I mentioned above to give the desired result.

<Bolded mine>

Why....why do you cling so badly to that single shred of thought. Metal is not a kind materiall even when exposed to moderate tempratures omitted the senario when they might be load barring.

Just throwing forward the idea of CD initiated collapse is to easy, to typical.

The debris damage was superficial in this respect, i.e. had no bearing whatsoever to the onset of global collapse.

With this in mind, the building fires I gave examples of are more than comparable to the WTC7 situation.

It may be of benefit to read the NIST report on WTC7.

They would have us believe that the building imitated a controlled demolition due to the loss of only one column beginning a chain reaction of failures which completed in a matter of seconds. Further, that this would be the case irrespective of surrounding fire and/or damage. They admit there was no heat induced weakening of the columns or redistribution of the building loads worthy of note (prior to that one all important column being pushed off centre). It was this single column that the entire structure relied upon according to NIST, damage and fire or not.

Hmm. The construction outline for WTC 7 tell a story own there own and major factor that I would consider for the global collapse as indicated bellow:

The fastening requirements for the metal deck are not shown on the drawings, but standard

practice provides puddle welds 12 in. on-center at the beams and side lap welds, screws, or buttonpunching

at 36 in. on-center between adjacent panels of deck.

Now I have been working with welding for a good while now and I can honestly say that a puddle weld is last form of fastening that one would consider for floor decking.

depending on the span and load. (W16x31 describes a steel wide-flange

beam, sometimes referred to as ‘I’ beams; the nomenclature indicates the cross-section is nominally 16 in.

deep and weighs 31 lb per lineal foot.) Beams spanned directly between the core and the exterior of the

building, at approximately 9 ft on-center spacing. On the north and east sides, the typical beam was a

W24x55 with 28 shear studs, spanning 53 ft.

Wonder what a 10 meter 500 kilogram I-beam would make of those fastening points.....Just a thought as clear as it is obvious - It will tear that fastening stubs like a velcro zipper

I will provide the full pdf document for reading purpouses:

<Well seems that the file size is a bit way to large>

Here is the link to the pdf doc:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Sorry but they don’t design buildings that way.

I wouldn’t design a shed to be this vulnerable, much less a skyscraper.

Does it honestly appear realistic to you?

It is easy to argue over the construction methods used on the WTC site after the accident ocured Q24.

The 911 accident at best now can be used the same as NTSB uses in plane accidents that is to study the site as best as possible to produce a better design that ensures survivability.

It happened - We are best left to learn and continu from there.

Look at the One Meridian Plaza fire over the page again. Why is it that this building can sustain significant structural damage with large deformation of the steelwork and remain intact, whereas pushing a single column out of place in WTC7 or a sagging floor in WTC1 leads to global collapse?

The difference in behaviours is startling.

The official collapse theory is so outlandish next to all known precedent as to be unreal.

hmm. Some plans of building design might hold the answer to this question.

One possible result that I can think of is if the Meridian plaza elevator shafts were poured concreate box tower designs.Some significant load carrying capacity in those, the only limiting factor being height.

Well shoot it holds a much better record of explenation as that which will be given for a CD based event....

So If it was up to you Q24:

- How would you go to show that this was indeed a CD event based on footage alone

Remeber that I do not buy into the proggresive mushroom collapse of the Towers from the top down as seen in the video's. I have seen progressive Towerblock demo's before and the difference is profound.

- Where is that significant telltale puff from the charges going of at every collum to bring the house down

- Explosive used to knock down main collums knowing that shaped charges have a shelf live of only 3 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From earlyer posting.

The sentence was meant to say:

Remeber that I do not buy into what is said to be proggresive controlled demolition mushroom collapse of the Towers from the top down as seen in video's. I have seen progressive Towerblock demo's before and the difference is profound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first variable that struck my mind here was the simple rule of thumb in high rise construction - The more hight the lighter the construction need to be otherwise the building would simply crubble under its own weight.

A simple fact. Do you agree ?.

Yes – I was trying to bring a balance by arguing against the ESB/WTC comparison here.

Now if you have 2 million plus dollars to spend on aciddent study to get difinetive variables that can tell us yes this condition will produce this specific result thus generate a accurate report about the WTC collapse... that would be supperb.

But then neither of us have + 2 million dollars to spend, Makes for the arguments that we are currently engaged in rather empty in weight of merit. We are thus looked in a continiuos loop of who's argument has the sharpest point.

You agree?.

NIST already spent $24 million on their official WTC1&2 investigation.

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse. This is in absolute concurrence with earlier studies carried out by the very engineers who had led the WTC building project and who had found that the structures would withstand various airliner collision and fire scenarios.

Rather than looking for another method of collapse at this point, NIST instead chose to increase every single variable in their existing modelling to its maximum possible severity – they increased the aircraft speed, weight and strength whilst decreasing the building strength, they adjusted the impact angle to cause more damage, they made the fire situation even more severe. In making these adjustments simultaneously, NIST succeeded in making the buildings initiate collapse in their model. The only problem being in that doing so, they had not only moved far away from the best estimates but in fact had exceeded the reality of the situation on 9/11… the visual comparison of actual impact damage shows the initial base (non-collapse) case to be the best match.

I don’t think that spending a further $2 million would change any of the above.

Still, without a definitive conclusion provided by the NIST investigation (they needed to simulate more cases to achieve this), I would say you are correct that, “We are thus locked in a continuous loop of whose argument has the sharpest point”. It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position.

They are instantly nullefied due to the specific factors as given above faced by the WTC Towers thus can not be trusted for comparison.

However for my arguments deffence I would ask you to search for - Overpass collapse due to tankertruck fire - the mentioned accident happend in open air where many say that a fuel fire can not burn Hot enough to melt steel.

I provide numerous examples of severe and long-lasting high-rise building fires which in cases caused deformation of the steelwork with not one previous known case of sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapse and you would like to counter this with…… a bridge.

I can only refer back to your mention of “whose argument has the sharpest point”.

In the words of one of the leading Controled Demolition companies head of operations Mark Loizeaux:

A controlled demolition is not a quiet event.

The telltale markings and sight of a demolition by means of explosives are extremely prominent. I take that as a engraved into the grain of stone fact that no explosives were used.

Despite that Mark Loizeaux generally, in all of his comments, does not appear to grasp no one is talking about a conventional demolition on 9/11, he does state the obvious here that the event is not quiet. There does exist though a mass of evidence in witness statements and video footage of very loud explosions in the WTC buildings prior to their collapse. All that Loizeaux has proven is that he has either missed this evidence or is being wilfully ignorant of it.

The standard defence of the official conspiracy theorist to said evidence, is to claim that explosions described as “bombs” or even thought by the FBI on the day to be “secondary devices” were caused by the fires, squibs matching those seen in known demolitions are created by air pressure at the collapse fronts, a substance with no visible difference to thermite flowing from the building must be ah I don’t know… lead, aluminium, batteries… etc, etc etc. So we see there are individual disparate excuses provided for each piece of evidence. There is only one event that can explain the full body of evidence in one fell swoop, and that is controlled demolition.

Uhh huh.... And the illustrious architecht ot the Titanic sad that this ship is unsinkable and look at the end result. So the point of argument is?. Just to win over the board to construct the building.

I’m not at all sure that the architect of the Titanic actually said that the ship was unsinkable. At any rate, he certainly did not specify that, “the ship probably could sustain multiple impacts of icebergs”. If you can show that he did say this, then you might have a point. On the other hand we have the WTC construction manager who did unequivocally state that, “the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”. So I already have my point in place.

Bahh what utter hogwash. Neither of us or where there walking through the burning rubble to survey the REAL damage to the building. Neither were anyone else.

It was NIST who effectively confirmed through their computer simulations that the initial impacts did little to the integrity of the structures. Along with all of the photographic and video evidence that is available today, it would make no difference to our understanding of the damage situation if we had been present at the WTC on 9/11.

From which side of the building?.. Are you only looking at the east side - The pritty side that made the whole mennagery look like a CD stunt?...

May not be a plane impact but a impact of falling debri from the nearest Tower and the debries that fell were not mere office chiars.

As I explained in my post #34 (you quote it below so I don’t know why you are trying to make this particular point), NIST eventually confirmed that the debris impact damage was superficial to the WTC7 collapse initiation. Those who accept the controlled demolition had been arguing this point for years and amusingly it was official conspiracy theorists who were forced to back down when the final WTC7 report was released.

Noted you agree that the WTC7 collapse did look like a “CD stunt”.

Wonder what a 10 meter 500 kilogram I-beam would make of those fastening points.....Just a thought as clear as it is obvious - It will tear that fastening stubs like a velcro zipper

You are going to have to be more specific. As in, how does the failure of one single column lead to a complete chain reation of failures across the structure that within seconds results in the entirety of this huge building entering a symmetrical, freefall, complete collapse? It cannot be done - they are effectively claiming that this one all important column supported vital loads across the entire building - it is madness!

So If it was up to you Q24:

- How would you go to show that this was indeed a CD event based on footage alone

Remeber that I do not buy into the proggresive mushroom collapse of the Towers from the top down as seen in the video's. I have seen progressive Towerblock demo's before and the difference is profound.

- Where is that significant telltale puff from the charges going of at every collum to bring the house down

- Explosive used to knock down main collums knowing that shaped charges have a shelf live of only 3 years

I don’t have time to write an essay now and would like to go much further than the footage alone if I did – there is the witness testimony, the NIST investigation, precedent of building fires, etc, even the seismic data indicates that the WTC collapses were not natural failures. Remember that the controlled demolitions of tower blocks that we see use conventional methods, unlike the necessarily more covert nature of the WTC demolitions.

Why should there be a “telltale puff” at “every column” in the WTC demolition? As you appear to believe that no charges were necessary whatsoever, this would be a double-standard in evaluating the opposing theories. There are however a number of visible squibs during the collapses – charges which were used to ensure that the collapses were not arrested.

I’m unsure of the relevance of your third point. The charges required inside all three of the collapsed WTC buildings could reasonably have been placed within the month prior to 9/11. In the type of unconventional demolition used at the WTC there would be no preparation work, no large scale drilling of columns, no detcord involved and no safety requirement thus speeding up the setup process. Please see top of my post here for the estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse.

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong on this? I've explained it every way I can think of and you still don't get it. Those estimates are not exact, no measurement is ever exact. The estimates came with error bands, and a collapse was predicted within those error bands. Furthermore, the observed damage was intermediate between the "best estimate" values which didn't cause a collapse and the more severe values which did. In other words, the severe case which you characterise as "exceeding the reality" was no further away from reality than the best estimate was.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong on this? I've explained it every way I can think of and you still don't get it. Those estimates are not exact, no measurement is ever exact. The estimates came with error bands, and a collapse was predicted within those error bands.

In fact we are saying the same thing – you just choose to put a gloss on it whilst I say it how it is. By best estimates of actual impact, structure and fire severity, NIST found that the buildings should not have collapsed. By the most extreme estimates (plus an additional added force), NIST achieved collapse initiation in their model. The chance of a case being close to the best estimates are very high and the chance of a case being close to the extreme estimates are very low.

There is no case for being right or wrong in understanding of the above; this is simply how it is. I don’t care if you want to believe that the very low probability outcome happened two out of two times, I’m going with the best odds. Further than that, by not carrying out a simulation producing a case whereby collapse initiation occurred without exceeding the actual damage seen in photograpic evidence, it is not even proven that the low probability case for collapse actually exists!

You can explain it as many ways as you like but the fact is you accept that a case with a zero to low probabiliy outcome happened… twice. You are welcome to that but it’s not for me.

Furthermore, the observed damage was intermediate between the "best estimate" values which didn't cause a collapse and the more severe values which did. In other words, the severe case which you characterise as "exceeding the reality" was no further away from reality than the best estimate was.

Your second sentence is plain incorrect I’m afraid – the best estimate did show a better match to the actual damage as seen in photographic evidence in the case of both towers. NIST confirm this themselves for WTC1 and any close inspection of the simulated damage compared to actual damage shows the same for WTC2. Not only was the probability of a non-collapse case exceedingly higher than for collapse but it is supported by a better match to the actual evident damage.

I’d go try to pull the wool over someone else’s eyes because your inaccuracies and the low-standards of acceptance you grant the official collapse theory won’t wash with me or any neutral on the subject. Every time we talk all you do is show yourself to be completely biased toward your personal preferences; you are the personification of the Francis Bacon quote in your own signature and so there is little worth in discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a link to a book I just finished reading about the survivors from the WTC. It's called 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. It details the stories of the people who managed to get out of the towers, many in the impact zone of the south tower, and the phone calls made to families from people trapped in the floors above the impact zone. The title refers to the time that elapsed between the first plane striking the north tower until the collapse of the tower. It describes in detail the difference between the Empire State Bldg and the WTC. They were built under different building codes, the WTC's much more lax with wide open floor space instead of walls and less than half the stairways for evacuation than the ESB. The stairways were also all centered in the building's core instead scattered so when the planes hit, they cut off the escape routes from the upper floors. Also far inferior fireproofing that had been shown to have fallen off the steel beams after the 1993 bombing attempt in the basement of the north tower.

It features a story from one survivor named Stanley Praimnath who was an assistant vice-president of Fuji Bank. He watched United Airlines Flight 175 come over the East River from his office window on the 81st floor of the south tower and head directly towards him. One of the few to survive from that far up the building. A few managed to escape from the 78th floor where they were standing at one of the 3 main elevator banks in the south tower, also within the impact zone. There are also stories from survivors of the 89th floor of the north tower. Also phone calls to families from people trapped on the 104th floor and so on above the impact zone just a second or so before the tower collapsed. They all said the ceiling was beginning to cave in. Not one reported an explosion.

I would recommend that anyone who wants to know what the people at the WTC really experienced read this book. It made me cry but is very well written and it's what the people who were eyewitnesses to the tragedy want us to know. What it was really like in those buildings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/books/review/09STEWART.html

These conspiracy theories should be put to rest as they are demeaning to the people who gave their lives to rescue people who were trapped in the debris of the impact zones and to the people who were trapped too far above it to be reached. As much as I detest George W, he is not guilty of hatching some mass murder plot to make a terrorist cover story for the US government to go to war with Iraq.

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact we are saying the same thing – you just choose to put a gloss on it whilst I say it how it is.

So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?

Do you understand that the fact that the less severe case gave the worst match to actual damage for both towers automatically put the actual impact values between the "best estimate" and more severe? If the "best estimate" matched the actual values, then the less severe and more severe cases would be equally poor matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These conspiracy theories should be put to rest as they are demeaning to the people who gave their lives to rescue people who were trapped in the debris of the impact zones and to the people who were trapped too far above it to be reached.

Good post susieice, I think that we should always remember those who died on 9/11 and their families. It is upsetting to think about what those people went through; the final phone calls and people who jumped to escape the fires get to me especially.

I had to pause right there to put my mind back in logic mode.

Now, I can’t for the life of me understand why you think that discussing the method of the WTC collapses would be “demeaning” to those who lost everything on 9/11. Can you explain your words that I quoted above any further? It is disrespectful in my opinion not to question how those people died.

It is worth noting that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families with approximately 7,000 members, has stated that around half of the relatives he represented believe there was a cover-up and inside complicity in the event.

Further, it was due largely to the work of four women known as the Jersey Girls, who all lost their husbands in the event, that the 9/11 Commission was formed. This investigation was opposed by President Bush and even after the 9/11 report was released, the same women were left deeply unsatisfied in feeling that many of their questions had not been answered.

It is that your opinion is so at odds with all of the above that I question if emotions are clouding your judgement. Please don’t think that is meant as an attack by the way; understandably this can be an emotional subject. Just, maybe, something to think about in the links above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?

No because they are both factual statements.

It is “within the error margin”, so to speak, to suggest that a standard dice could roll a 6 ten times in a row but there is a very “low probability” of it happening. When we see in the real life case we are comparing that at least one other number was actually rolled in the series then we can say that ten straight rolls of 6 were “exceeding the reality”. This is the situation we have with the only simulated case where NIST predicted collapse would initiate.

So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?

Do you understand that the fact that the less severe case gave the worst match to actual damage for both towers automatically put the actual impact values between the "best estimate" and more severe? If the "best estimate" matched the actual values, then the less severe and more severe cases would be equally poor matches.

You ask if I understand the separate cases when it was me who had to explain them to you in the first place. There was a time when you swore blind that NIST used the best estimate case in their “probable collapse sequence”. I had to spell out the fundamental facts and quote from the study numerous times before you were forced to admit I “may well be right” that the extreme estimates were used. Now you forget all that and question my understanding – it’s laughable.

We have been over it all before and I’d prefer not to rehash the same old discussion with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is “within the error margin”, so to speak, to suggest that a standard dice could roll a 6 ten times in a row but there is a very “low probability” of it happening. When we see in the real life case we are comparing that at least one other number was actually rolled in the series then we can say that ten straight rolls of 6 were “exceeding the reality”. This is the situation we have with the only simulated case where NIST predicted collapse would initiate.

There you go again, putting a gloss on it by exaggerating the probabilities. You still seem to think that a quoted error margin is an absolute limit, never to be exceeded. These margins represent probabilities, and the probability that they can be exceeded is fairly high. In fact, I've already given you an example where two different measurements of the same parameter could be outside each others error margin. In case you've forgotten, the NIST impact speed estimate for WTC2 was 542 mph with +/- 24 mph error band, but the best estimate from one of the videos used to derive this speed was 573 mph. If this video had been the only one available NIST's best estimate speed would have been higher than their actual severe case speed of 566 mph.

We have been over it all before and I’d prefer not to rehash the same old discussion with you.

Ditto, I wont mention it again unless you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post susieice, I think that we should always remember those who died on 9/11 and their families. It is upsetting to think about what those people went through; the final phone calls and people who jumped to escape the fires get to me especially.

I had to pause right there to put my mind back in logic mode.

Now, I can’t for the life of me understand why you think that discussing the method of the WTC collapses would be “demeaning” to those who lost everything on 9/11. Can you explain your words that I quoted above any further? It is disrespectful in my opinion not to question how those people died.

It is worth noting that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families with approximately 7,000 members, has stated that around half of the relatives he represented believe there was a cover-up and inside complicity in the event.

Further, it was due largely to the work of four women known as the Jersey Girls, who all lost their husbands in the event, that the 9/11 Commission was formed. This investigation was opposed by President Bush and even after the 9/11 report was released, the same women were left deeply unsatisfied in feeling that many of their questions had not been answered.

It is that your opinion is so at odds with all of the above that I question if emotions are clouding your judgement. Please don’t think that is meant as an attack by the way; understandably this can be an emotional subject. Just, maybe, something to think about in the links above.

I don't doubt that the US Government may have known more about an impending attack somewhere than they ever admitted to and NYC building codes were far to lax to have provided those people with the proper means of escape. The WTC was built with the purpose of maximun floor space which left all the stairways and supports in the center of the building. The ESB has 8 less floors than the WTC did and almost 1/2 the office space but it has 9 stairwells at it's base while the WTC only had 3, none of which were fire towers which were no longer required. The impact of the planes successfully cut off these core staircases. It was known that much of the spray-on fireproofing was substandard and much had already been shaken off in the 1993 bombing attempt on the north tower. They also knew from that event that the radio communications between firemen and their command posts was virtually non-existant. Their radios did not work in the WTC and those firemen were completely unable to remain in contact with the people on the ground. They never heard the order to evacuate the building, even after the south tower had collapsed. Helicopter crews from the NYPD reported they could see the upper floors of the north tower deteriorating to use their words and predicted the fall of the north tower long before the actual collapse, which would have given a lot of people advanced warning to get out. Non-existent communication between NYPD and FDNY, added to bad radio communications stopped firemen from getting out in time. The book goes on to relate a lot more details of how poorly prepared the authorities really were to handle this disaster. But still no one reported explosions. The city of NY had plenty of things to not want to talk about but I do not believe anyone planted charges to purposefully bring those buildings down. They came down on their own. By denying what went wrong it can't be fixed, if in fact it ever is.

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of goverment ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.

And I just want to add, it definitely was airplanes that struck the towers.

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIST already spent $24 million on their official WTC1&2 investigation.

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse. This is in absolute concurrence with earlier studies carried out by the very engineers who had led the WTC building project and who had found that the structures would withstand various airliner collision and fire scenarios.

Rather than looking for another method of collapse at this point, NIST instead chose to increase every single variable in their existing modelling to its maximum possible severity – they increased the aircraft speed, weight and strength whilst decreasing the building strength, they adjusted the impact angle to cause more damage, they made the fire situation even more severe. In making these adjustments simultaneously, NIST succeeded in making the buildings initiate collapse in their model. The only problem being in that doing so, they had not only moved far away from the best estimates but in fact had exceeded the reality of the situation on 9/11… the visual comparison of actual impact damage shows the initial base (non-collapse) case to be the best match.

Despite that Mark Loizeaux generally, in all of his comments, does not appear to grasp no one is talking about a conventional demolition on 9/11, he does state the obvious here that the event is not quiet. There does exist though a mass of evidence in witness statements and video footage of very loud explosions in the WTC buildings prior to their collapse. All that Loizeaux has proven is that he has either missed this evidence or is being wilfully ignorant of it.

The standard defence of the official conspiracy theorist to said evidence, is to claim that explosions described as "bombs" or even thought by the FBI on the day to be "secondary devices" were caused by the fires, squibs matching those seen in known demolitions are created by air pressure at the collapse fronts, a substance with no visible difference to thermite flowing from the building must be ah I don't know… lead, aluminium, batteries… etc, etc etc. So we see there are individual disparate excuses provided for each piece of evidence. There is only one event that can explain the full body of evidence in one fell swoop, and that is controlled demolition.

Do you know what stands out to me here.

-Modelling

-Best estimates

3 Years of engineering study which it does not have to apply to Architectual engineering only for the rule of thumb is true for any other case in engineering has shown me the gap that exists between theory [numerical models] and practicall outcome studies.

Going to the eyewitness and photographed reports of the second tower impact. The outside frame work of the Towers [Vertical trus] was sliced by the plane like chop sticks that leaves the penetration into the building. The numerical model can only guess what attitude the plane will take from then on with a simulated scenario of the plane breaking up as it enters the building yet the model can not predict what the load barring beams [cross brassing of plane fusselage and the main back bone] of the plane will do to the structure of the building inside, that coupled with the engins main shaft one solid hunk of aircraft grade steel alloy and all the ad-ons, aircraft grade materialls should not be underestimated thus for that eyewitness, numericall impact simulation and vidoe accounts can not pear into the core of the building to see what it Really looks like in there. This was why I said in my earlyer post that numericall investigation coupled with video effidence can not say that the building would have survived that impact or even more impacts also for neither the two of us or NIST were there walking around the structure at the point blank impact of the buildings to asses the damage up close and personal while the towers were still standing.

For that finite reason accepting the numericall study as a argumentive deffencive barrier to say that the building withstood the impact [which it did but to which I would add that it was crippeld] thus the global collapse had to be initiated by "covertly used explosive charges" is a fallacy of the highest accord . The squibs that is such a loved argument of those who say that the towers were brought down using placed charges fail in one criticall category. They are only issolated random occurenceses for the pancake collapse debri can not be a near flat event from the top down going from one floor to another the puffs are the indications of debri that are moving down close to windows, the spread of debri inside that event can only be said to be caotic at best as looking at the WTC floor design you think that this will stop a 500 plus kilogram beam:

Basically the above is the same or might be a bit more that what the NIST conclueded.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Wat is evident of a secondary CD charge source that you provide Q24 is thermite. Note the specific cutting property of this element buy use of thermal melting. The amount that would be needed to cutt the Main supports for the towers would be so much that the funnel used to guide the molten metal flow would overflow [this is a fact for the initiation reaction for thermite is fast] thus negating the ideal cutting effect wanted. Another thing needed to take into account would be to placing of the thermite charge, placement of the first charge series at the point of impact would prematurely initiate the charge due to fire but that in my opinion would not be ideal due to the shotgun effect of the plane debri.

The above really is complete hogwash beyond compare be it "covert" or not.

In this I have a final bit to add:

Q24 the weakest link in any construction is where the construction pieces are connected together.You would know that Yes. Take that and the factor of radiant heat, thus will cause the naked steel beams to expand in essence a thermal-jack effect would be generated beween main support pillars and floor trusses ad in the factor of the main beams or floor beams beign bent by the impact. Take that link that would be a cross shaped conection that is the floor beams being bolted or the worst cases puddle weld joined at the main beam with every part bent. Can you see in which dirrection that force being applied to the structures thermal expansion is being forced - It is in every direction instead that which the building design plan calls for.

Right now that is the heated part taken care of, Now the burnable feul dries up and the expanded beams from the heat cools thus it starts to pull on the overstressed links that hold everything together.

Emagine to yourself what happens next.....

Still, without a definitive conclusion provided by the NIST investigation (they needed to simulate more cases to achieve this), I would say you are correct that, "We are thus locked in a continuous loop of whose argument has the sharpest point". It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position.

I don't think that spending a further $2 million would change any of the above.

Q24 do understand that the amount that I stated was for discussion purpouses only it does not have any link the the real sum that must be spend. Please do take that into account in future discussion.

<It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position> - Its not Q24. NIST only went as far as there numericall study took them in the search for a answer. Its is silly to hold them responsible for the actions took be other members of the public just because they do not agree.

Wat was the catalist here?.

The sounds in the Towers and WTC7 that sounded like explosions.... I would figure that you will find it hard to agree here for what I am going to tell you. It is a rather simple matter - The explosion sounds that were hear on various video tapes cought the snaping sounds of beams letting go at the joints due to the overstressed conditions they were subject to.

Hard to believe yes....Take a good look at this link of a famous heavy lift crane called Big Blue:

Pay particular attention to the 0:41 second marker. The sound relation are really prominent to that heard on the WTC tapes.

I provide numerous examples of severe and long-lasting high-rise building fires which in cases caused deformation of the steelwork with not one previous known case of sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapse and you would like to counter this with…… a bridge.

I can only refer back to your mention of "whose argument has the sharpest point".

Q24 focus your mind here a bit more and see what was the core argument to that what I said.

You use normal high rise fires that burn that which can be found in a building, but the structure still stands after the fire is put out with some large structure deformation witnessed

I use a feul based fire occuring on a structure in open air - the structure being concrete and steel construction fails and collapses

The core argument points to the difference between a normal object fire [paper, wood and fabrick] and a feul driven fire on a structure that has the same construction method - Steel in poured concrete.

As for the collapse sequence of the WTC towers: I have one tid bit to add that is that building construction being that in the WTC towers held there weight with a stationary movement excluding the swing that the building will have in the wind.

The tops of the WTC towers when the collapse was initiated droped two stories or more through the part structure that was damaged - I will sign to white paper here what I take that the structure was crippled -

thus the redundant load baring capasity was compromised - . The result of that drop imparted a extreme amount of pressure on the collums below that which you can imagine a 20 story intackt structure with x-weight being increased by y-factor [momentum] during the 2plus story drop due to the beams that had the plane impact and the heating and cooling during the ordeal with the feul driven fire giving way - The sounds heard in the tapes -. No base structure that I know can withstand that type of force.

Added to this. When viewing the start initiation of I think the south tower the Top of the building during the second phase of the collapse topells to one side but the collapse has begun as the rest on the top structure rips and shears its way down. What many say that a building will want to fall to the path of least resistance on its own are right in one respect and wrong in the next. The skeleton of the WTC towers did not house light beams to keep everything up. Those same beams if given a small distance to pick up speed the intermediate floors reinforced or not will have a hard time to slow them down. The above picture illustrates this rather well

It was NIST who effectively confirmed through their computer simulations that the initial impacts did little to the integrity of the structures. Along with all of the photographic and video evidence that is available today, it would make no difference to our understanding of the damage situation if we had been present at the WTC on 9/11.

hmm... Dont know where you read that document as the real NIST docet disagrees with you here

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Q24 you might have misunderstood me here thus I will phrase that line again and take it from there.

My earlyer post that numericall investigation coupled with video effidence can not say that the building would have survived that impact or even more impacts also for neither the two of us or NIST were there walking around the structure at the point blank impact of the buildings to asses the damage up close and personal while the towers were still standing.

Right. I have for all my life taken a practical based outcome more than any other. What was the reason for me saying the above is rather simple:

Real data of plane impact into a building, all the complicated bits frozen right there to be anylised and researched that makes a rock hard report possible- no numerical guess work.

But reality intervenes with fire, building collapse ens...

So what is evident here: A ideal situation to solve all the problems, troubles and rumours. But reality its not.

As I explained in my post #34 (you quote it below so I don't know why you are trying to make this particular point), NIST eventually confirmed that the debris impact damage was superficial to the WTC7 collapse initiation. Those who accept the controlled demolition had been arguing this point for years and amusingly it was official conspiracy theorists who were forced to back down when the final WTC7 report was released.

You are going to have to be more specific. As in, how does the failure of one single column lead to a complete chain reation of failures across the structure that within seconds results in the entirety of this huge building entering a symmetrical, freefall, complete collapse? It cannot be done - they are effectively claiming that this one all important column supported vital loads across the entire building - it is madness!

Well to be fair Q24 I am no structural engineer and now expert on the matter as I only have knowleage of this particular field studied through the years for my own interest. I can only work and give based on that which I read but due to the specific nature of this topic and the research made by beuros linke NIST from the only source to which information can be sourced for study purpouses the result of my observation can easly be made out as controversial to other parties. Thus I leave you with these two pictures only with the hope that you will use these as a foundation for understanding and the pdf docet provided in my earlier post as the field of research to help you understand

post-72521-086151900 1283719408_thumb.jp

post-72521-026433900 1283720801_thumb.jp

This one collum might not have supported the weight of the building persay but it was just one part of a larger network that had to work together to get the work done.

But for reasons unclear to me in the fisrt place why build a structure of a substation that by having to construct a special support frame over the station to hold the WTC7 structure.

Noted you agree that the WTC7 collapse did look like a "CD stunt".

At first when I saw the raw footage Yes but after some time No.

I don't have time to write an essay now and would like to go much further than the footage alone if I did – there is the witness testimony, the NIST investigation, precedent of building fires, etc, even the seismic data indicates that the WTC collapses were not natural failures. Remember that the controlled demolitions of tower blocks that we see use conventional methods, unlike the necessarily more covert nature of the WTC demolitions.

Why should there be a "telltale puff" at "every column" in the WTC demolition? As you appear to believe that no charges were necessary whatsoever, this would be a double-standard in evaluating the opposing theories. There are however a number of visible squibs during the collapses – charges which were used to ensure that the collapses were not arrested.

I'm unsure of the relevance of your third point. The charges required inside all three of the collapsed WTC buildings could reasonably have been placed within the month prior to 9/11. In the type of unconventional demolition used at the WTC there would be no preparation work, no large scale drilling of columns, no detcord involved and no safety requirement thus speeding up the setup process. Please see top of my post here for the estimate.

Interesting what you say here:

- no preparation work

- no large scale drilling

- no detcord involved and no safety requirement

Must be some explosive used. That and the fact that there are just before the collapse and during to keep things rolling, no blown out windows and a warehouse amount from the blast wave generated by these "special" explosives be it in even in the middle of the building.

With all due respect Q24 you are trundling over a lot of air here.

Edited by NeoGenesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of goverment ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.

I agree with practically everything you say above, susieice, even if you did not attempt to answer the one question I asked. The only area where you are not quite correct is in claiming that “no one reported explosions”. I accept they may not have done in the book which you read but then it obviously doesn’t include this selection of witness statements: -

  • Eyewitness, “When we got down to the 6th floor there was like another shake or another explosion and everyone started panicing…”
  • Eyewitness, “It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs…”
  • Eyewitness, “We were stuck on the stairs for a while and finally got down to the lobby then when we get to the lobby there was a big explosion.”
  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  • Firefighter on 24th floor of WTC1 after hearing an explosion “I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??”
  • Firefighter, “As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway there was a heavy duty explosion.”
  • Firefighter, “I got an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8.”
  • Firefighter, “Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.”
  • Firefighter, “… Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion. We’ve got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion.”
  • Firefighter, “We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13.”
  • Firefighter, “I was involved in the secondary explosion at tower one.”
  • Firefighter, “It was a secondary explosion probably a device either planted before or upon the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later.”
  • Firefighter, “So we’re standing there in the lobby getting all together, all of a sudden we hear [simulates explosive sound], I look down to my right and the elevator has exploded like something like out of a Bruce Willis Die Hard movie.”
  • Police officer, “There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions.”
  • Doctor comment on patient, “He was actually on the 78th floor of the second tower and was evacuating the tower and experienced all these explosions and made his way back down.”
  • News reporter, Rick Sanchez, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Centre may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”
  • News reporter, Jack Kelly, “Apparently what appears to have happened was that at the same time as the two planes hit the buildings that the FBI most likely thinks there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”
  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”
  • News reporter, “At 10:30 I tried to leave the building but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble, then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.”
  • News reporter, Steve Evans, “Then an hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much much lower. I don’t know what on earth caused that.”
  • News reporter, “We’ve heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted, whether in fact there wasn’t something else at the base of the building the coup de grâce to bring them down.”
  • News reporter, “We presume because of the initial explosion there may have been secondary explosions as well that were detonated in the building by these terrorists.”
  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?”

No links I’m afraid because these quotes are taken from all over the place though you will be able to confirm each of them with a quick search of Google and/or YouTube – I actually recommend this as there are plenty more reports than I have listed here (I thought those above were probably enough to make the point).

Anyhow, that dispels the idea that “no one reported explosions”.

Yeah I know… all of the explosions were caused by the fires… far below the impact/fire zones, which fooled trained firefighters into thinking they were bombs and led the FBI and media to believe they were caused by secondary devices on the day, before the official story kicked in.

On top of all this we have Israeli agents arrested on the scene on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks and whose van appeared to have contained explosives (if sniffer dogs are anything to go by). There is a very obvious connection to be made here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only area where you are not quite correct is in claiming that “no one reported explosions”. I accept they may not have done in the book which you read but then it obviously doesn’t include this selection of witness statements: -

.

.

.

The thing is, these reported explosions didn't cause the building to collapse, and when the buildings did collapse, there were no explosions immediately beforehand. Anyone who has been near a burning building knows that explosive sounds occur, any sealed container of liquid will explode when heated, and plenty of other things make loud noises when they break. However, a controlled demolition of a building involves a lot of very loud explosions in a carefully devised sequence, and there is no evidence of anything like that on 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, these reported explosions didn't cause the building to collapse, and when the buildings did collapse, there were no explosions immediately beforehand.

This is important because…

… a covert demolition would benefit from loud explosions immediately prior to collapse.*

… no one has ever mentioned that the collapses would be thermite initiated.*

Anyone who has been near a burning building knows that explosive sounds occur, any sealed container of liquid will explode when heated, and plenty of other things make loud noises when they break.

This is important because…

… if there is fire in a building there can never be dedicated explosives.*

… any fire in a building can cause explosions in an area where there is no fire.*

… firefighters always jump to the conclusion that explosions are caused by “bombs” and “secondary devices”.*

However, a controlled demolition of a building involves a lot of very loud explosions in a carefully devised sequence, and there is no evidence of anything like that on 9/11.

This is important because…

… it is so often claimed that the WTC demolitions were precisely like conventional demolitions.*

*In the deranged fantasies of flyingswan.

Why do I even bother responding to such illogic and irrelevance?

Tell you what flyingswan, if I don’t respond to your posts then you can assume it’s because you’re talking rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is important because…

… a covert demolition would benefit from loud explosions immediately prior to collapse.*

… no one has ever mentioned that the collapses would be thermite initiated.*

.

.

.

Ah yes, the theory that since the collapses didn't really look like controlled demolitions after all, if you look a bit harder at the evidence, they must therefore be covert controlled demolitions. This enables you to claim that any evidence that does look like a controlled demolition is evidence for a controlled demolition and any evidence that doesn't is evidence for a covert controlled demolition. You thus rule out anything ever being evidence against a controlled demolition and make your theory unfalsifyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that the US Government may have known more about an impending attack somewhere than they ever admitted to and NYC building codes were far to lax to have provided those people with the proper means of escape.

So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?

The WTC was built with the purpose of maximun floor space which left all the stairways and supports in the center of the building. The ESB has 8 less floors than the WTC did and almost 1/2 the office space but it has 9 stairwells at it's base while the WTC only had 3, none of which were fire towers which were no longer required. The impact of the planes successfully cut off these core staircases. It was known that much of the spray-on fireproofing was substandard and much had already been shaken off in the 1993 bombing attempt on the north tower. They also knew from that event that the radio communications between firemen and their command posts was virtually non-existant. Their radios did not work in the WTC and those firemen were completely unable to remain in contact with the people on the ground. They never heard the order to evacuate the building, even after the south tower had collapsed. Helicopter crews from the NYPD reported they could see the upper floors of the north tower deteriorating to use their words and predicted the fall of the north tower long before the actual collapse, which would have given a lot of people advanced warning to get out. Non-existent communication between NYPD and FDNY, added to bad radio communications stopped firemen from getting out in time. The book goes on to relate a lot more details of how poorly prepared the authorities really were to handle this disaster. But still no one reported explosions. The city of NY had plenty of things to not want to talk about but I do not believe anyone planted charges to purposefully bring those buildings down. They came down on their own. By denying what went wrong it can't be fixed, if in fact it ever is.

The fire proofing was "shaken" off in the 93 bomb? All the way up there at the impact site? The firemans radios did not work and they lost contact? All of them? I agree with you that we need to understand what went wrong so we can fix it, starting with the government.

These people told their stories as they experienced them and I for one would believe what they have to say over theories that show no evidence. There were many structural failures that day and lack of government ability to cope with the magnitude of what had happened, but I do not believe those buildings were the victims of demolition.

The book was biased as Q4 has already pointed out. That's not saying it's a lie, it just used half the truth to make a point.

And I just want to add, it definitely was airplanes that struck the towers.

Agreed. Now what made them fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?

The fire proofing was "shaken" off in the 93 bomb? All the way up there at the impact site? The firemans radios did not work and they lost contact? All of them? I agree with you that we need to understand what went wrong so we can fix it, starting with the government.

The book was biased as Q4 has already pointed out. That's not saying it's a lie, it just used half the truth to make a point.

Agreed. Now what made them fall?

I know how much you want to believe there was a government conspiracy that brought down the WTC on 9/11. Things like that can't happen here. There has to be an explanation and there is. Plain old government SNAFU and greed. I truly do believe that our government knew a lot more in advance of 9/11 than we will probably ever know, but I don't think GW (if anyone it would have been Cheney and his cronies) planted explosive devises in the WTC. And WTC7 wasn't the only building damaged so badly it collapsed. WTC3 started to collapse when the south tower went down. That would be the Marriott Hotel building.

Now to answer your questions as best I can. I'm not an expert on demolition or an engineer so please bear that in mind. As far as a cover-up is concerned there was plenty enough to hide. They don't need my help for reasons.

The spray-on fireproofing did indeed fall off much of the lower part of the north tower in 93. It was never fully replaced. That's just a fact and since it was the cheapest way to go, it was used throughout the buildings. It certainly came off when the planes hit those buildings. Now you have no fire protection and nothing but wide open spaces for that plane to go through. No friction, no concrete reinforced walls to slow that plane down or cause it's disintegration like there was at the Pentagon (or the Empire State Building to get back on topic). Those planes cut through there like a hot knife through butter.

Unfortunately, and this is one of the saddest stories of the day, the answer to your question about the firemen's radios is yes. They knew from the 93 bombing that their radios did not work in the WTC and they were the same radios that they carried that day. Read their story sometime. Over 95% of the firemen in those buildings could not contact their ground command or each other unless they physically came into contact. They couldn't even get a proper frequency. Nor was there communications between the FDNY and the NYPD who's radios did work. After the south tower collapsed, survivors coming out of the north tower reported that they saw a group of about 100 firefighters on the 19th floor. They were exhausted from carrying 100 pounds of equipment in full gear up all those flights of stairs and some where having breathing problems. They never heard the orders from their commanders to evacuate. A lot of them that did come out said they didn't even know the south tower had collapsed. As I said in an earlier post, the NYPD helicopter crews reported the deterioration of the north tower before the collapse and the police got their evacuation orders. They did warn all the firemen they passed. How's that for SNAFU? That's pathetic and unexcusable to me.

A lot should be done. And if so many people seriously believe someone in our government deliberately brought those buildings down then another investigation should be in order, but I've heard a lot of talk and seen no evidence or an indication that anyone in a position to call for that investigation has. Surely there are powers that be in NYC that could demand one if they felt this scenario is a possibility. They have enough of their own to worry about but surely if they think those buildings came down as a half-cooked excuse to go to war with Iraq they'd be livid.

I'll be thinking twice before I go way up in one of those modern high-rises. When you breed a bigger mouse as cheaply as you can, you better spend some bucks to build a better mousetrap. If one of them goes wild on ya, things can get real bad, quick.

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to some of the info given out about radio communications that day. Will post what I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_communications_during_the_September_11_attacks

Scroll down to the Fire Dept. It talks about the radios.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm

Again, keep scrolling.

http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_firedept.html

This link specifically mentions the police helicopters mentioned above and lack of communication between NYPD and FDNY. I had seen this stuff in books other than the one I linked to. Please also note that when the pilot makes his call he warns the ground that about 15 floors down (from the top) the building is "glowing red". He then says that the collapse is inevitable.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3073/is_3_59/ai_n29358404/

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you already belive in a government conspiracy and a subsequent cover up?

That's a very enormously different kettle of fish - that the govt. may have had some advance knowledge but didn't act on it, either through incompetence or maybe even deliberately - from saying that they actually did it themselves. This is what I mean when I say that these leaping to the most dramatic conclusion possible doesn't do the truth movement any favours at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Years of engineering study which it does not have to apply to Architectual engineering only for the rule of thumb is true for any other case in engineering has shown me the gap that exists between theory [numerical models] and practicall outcome studies.

Ok, so you do not trust the accuracy of NIST’s computer simulations and their underlying physics.

The squibs that is such a loved argument of those who say that the towers were brought down using placed charges fail in one criticall category. They are only issolated random occurenceses for the pancake collapse debri can not be a near flat event from the top down going from one floor to another the puffs are the indications of debri that are moving down close to windows, the spread of debri inside that event can only be said to be caotic at best as looking at the WTC floor design you think that this will stop a 500 plus kilogram beam:

You characterise the squibs as “isolated random occurrences”. If this were true then we would expect to see numerous ejections at random heights and various spacings across the building façade. As we know the office space was open plan, it would also make sense for pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor rather than on one of the flat faces. What we actually see are distinct squibs that appear at approximately equal intervals toward the centre face of the building. This is too consistent by far for what you claim is a “chaotic” event.

There are many videos but this one shows two sets of squibs at approximate 10 floor intervals below the impact zone before the collapse front overtakes where the charges are occurring: -

Just to clarify, these would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed.

Wat is evident of a secondary CD charge source that you provide Q24 is thermite. Note the specific cutting property of this element buy use of thermal melting. The amount that would be needed to cutt the Main supports for the towers would be so much that the funnel used to guide the molten metal flow would overflow [this is a fact for the initiation reaction for thermite is fast] thus negating the ideal cutting effect wanted. Another thing needed to take into account would be to placing of the thermite charge, placement of the first charge series at the point of impact would prematurely initiate the charge due to fire but that in my opinion would not be ideal due to the shotgun effect of the plane debri.

Separate to the above, thermite charges would be used to initiate the collapses.

If we were dealing with a commercial controlled demolition, using conventional shaped charges and blasting caps, then premature initiation could certainly be a problem in a fire. In this case we are dealing with thermite which has a high ignition temperature that cannot be achieved by conventional methods or diffuse flames as in the WTC. The ignition method could have been some form of electrical or chemical detonator that would be destroyed in any direct impact rather than ignited – still remember, there were limited columns which took the impact. There are further/alternative methods which could safeguard the demolition set-up such as constructing the units from a durable, fire resistant material, attaching them to the columns facing away from impact or even a level below where the known impact will occur. The impact and fire are really not a problem if you use your initiative and the masterminds of the operation would be infinitely more resourceful than any of us.

You mention that the amount of thermite needed would cause an overflow and indeed it may have done inside the elevator shafts where we could not see. There was however a charge displaced by the impact in WTC2 which came to rest in the North East corner of the building: -

This flow began only in the minutes prior to collapse.

Right now that is the heated part taken care of, Now the burnable feul dries up and the expanded beams from the heat cools thus it starts to pull on the overstressed links that hold everything together.

Emagine to yourself what happens next.....

…… the thermite charges are initiated? :mellow:

The sounds in the Towers and WTC7 that sounded like explosions.... I would figure that you will find it hard to agree here for what I am going to tell you. It is a rather simple matter - The explosion sounds that were hear on various video tapes cought the snaping sounds of beams letting go at the joints due to the overstressed conditions they were subject to.

Hard to believe yes....Take a good look at this link of a famous heavy lift crane called Big Blue:

That is actually not a bad sound comparison to some of the WTC explosions.

However, there is enough evidence from witnesses inside and outside of the buildings that explosions were occurring far below the fire zones and neither could all of the reported events have been caused by breaking connections. For instance one of the firefighters I listed above mentioned the elevator exploding and another said that the elevator doors were blown off – breaking connections cannot do that. Furthermore, I trust that the FDNY and FBI, aware of the fire situation, would not jump to the conclusion of “secondary devices” without good cause. There was even one interesting episode where a group of firemen discussed if a controlled demolition brought WTC2 down immediately after its collapse.

The result of that drop imparted a extreme amount of pressure on the collums below that which you can imagine a 20 story intackt structure with x-weight being increased by y-factor [momentum] during the 2plus story drop due to the beams that had the plane impact and the heating and cooling during the ordeal with the feul driven fire giving way - The sounds heard in the tapes -. No base structure that I know can withstand that type of force.

Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely. You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building. This idea of the building ‘crushing itself’ is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls (“every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and all that). After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum? No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely. You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building. This idea of the building ‘crushing itself’ is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls (“every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and all that). After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum? No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.

Are you claiming that the upper block somehow evaporates? Whatever happens to it structurally, the falling mass is still there and getting larger all the time as debris from the lower block is added to it. "Much is now falling outside the building footprint"? Whatever happened to the claim that the building falls through the path of greatest resistance? Have you actually read the paper of Bazant et al that models the way the crush fronts spread through the upper and lower blocks?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a 9/11 special the other night on Nat Geo...much clearer video of the collapses. The "squibs" appeared to be air being expulsed through windows and such, lasting a second or so...it was not like a sudden blast, much more like a "whoosh"...you could see the smoke/dust being blown out through the opening over a short period of time. Not just an instantaneous pop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

…… the thermite charges are initiated? :mellow:

You sir owe me a fresh cup of coffee :lol:.

You obviously know what I would have said, but some humour are appresciated

Ok, so you do not trust the accuracy of NIST's computer simulations and their underlying physics.

No I trust them to give a interviewed research document to aid in the explenation of the WTC inccident.

More can not be asked from numerical studies.

You characterise the squibs as "isolated random occurrences". If this were true then we would expect to see numerous ejections at random heights and various spacings across the building façade. As we know the office space was open plan, it would also make sense for pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor rather than on one of the flat faces. What we actually see are distinct squibs that appear at approximately equal intervals toward the centre face of the building. This is too consistent by far for what you claim is a "chaotic" event.

Q24 the point that I was trying to shed light on here is the difference between a random puff from any window to that of a planned detonation of a building in which a initiation pattern is clearly visible.

Watching the sourced videos and that on You-Tube I see no such pattern exist but at most 3 puffs eminating from some point on a facade of the building during the collapse phase.

For that I give a comparison video of a CD event:

< pressure from the collapse to build at the corners of each floor >

Pressure if a static condition does not know a corner from a flat surface nor a straight hallway from a bend at the end. Static pressure generates a force on every cubic milimeter of a structure. The only condition that can influence Static pressure is Area ratio. A increase in Area ratio will favour a static pressure with a blocked flow condition [closed windows] a decrease in Area ratio will favour a dynamic pressure [ moving air ] condition in a structure with venting to outside atmospheric. The Static condition will show dust puffs eminating from blown out windows as the dynamic condition will be more promenent in the elevator shafts.

The falling debri face in the WTC towers will not fall in a flat faced cylindrical manner down the square apperture of the building nor in a square attitude. Therefore I describe the entire event as a chaotic system.

There are many videos but this one shows two sets of squibs at approximate 10 floor intervals below the impact zone before the collapse front overtakes where the charges are occurring: -

Separate to the above, thermite charges would be used to initiate the collapses.

Just to clarify, these would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed.

< These would be the explosive charges used to ensure that the collapses completed > Q24 is this your opinion on the observed condition or that of the "Cell's" that supposedly planted the devices. Because I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if this was the work of the Cell that did it they are nothing but ameture, untrained thugs in CD thus comes the core object to light through the use of thermite to bring the towers down. Really is that the difficulty they went to using the most inefficiant, ineffective method known for cutting structure components.

If we were dealing with a commercial controlled demolition, using conventional shaped charges and blasting caps, then premature initiation could certainly be a problem in a fire. In this case we are dealing with thermite which has a high ignition temperature that cannot be achieved by conventional methods or diffuse flames as in the WTC. The ignition method could have been some form of electrical or chemical detonator that would be destroyed in any direct impact rather than ignited – still remember, there were limited columns which took the impact. There are further/alternative methods which could safeguard the demolition set-up such as constructing the units from a durable, fire resistant material, attaching them to the columns facing away from impact or even a level below where the known impact will occur. The impact and fire are really not a problem if you use your initiative and the masterminds of the operation would be infinitely more resourceful than any of us.

Do you know how ridiculous the above sounds.

Firstly the only locations where the hopelessly ridiculous thermite charges could be placed

- Floor beams

Why?..... The main beams are encased in concrete, Thermite can not burn through concrete. A fact. If the claim were to be true then steel smelters will ceas to function as the molten steel would burn through the kettle. Thermite is just that - molten metal - with no difference in temprature between the two.

If what you say is true that the charges were placed at the back side of the pillars to affoid being knocked down by the aircraft the crumbled concrete with the strapped on charge on in anyway be dissloged from the pillar.

The former is obvious the latter ridiculous.

These "Masterminds" look more like uneducated, untrained backally thugs

You mention that the amount of thermite needed would cause an overflow and indeed it may have done inside the elevator shafts where we could not see. There was however a charge displaced by the impact in WTC2 which came to rest in the North East corner of the building: -

This flow began only in the minutes prior to collapse.

Q24 that stream of molten metal evident in the video might just as well be aircraft aluminium.

Just because we can state the obvious that the dynamic load is more than the static load, this does not automatically mean that the upper block should overcome the lower intact structure indefinitely. You mention the 20-storey intact structure as though this was an indestructible hammer that smashed its way down through the building. This idea of the building 'crushing itself' is quite ridiculous because the upper block itself must be deteriorating as it falls ("every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and all that). After the upper block has fallen through its own height what remains is largely debris that is more fluid than the original intact block and much of which is now falling outside of the building footprint…. and at this point there is still a 70-storey fully intact section of the building to go…. yet the debris cloud continued to crush down through it all with no loss of momentum? No – the lower structure was clearly compromised by the explosives indicated by the squibs discussed above.

I disagree about the "squibs" in the lower structure.

The shockwave from the charge that went off in the deeper collumns will not shoot out one single window but multiple windows on the same floor. Simple logic are needed here.

The dust cloud seen in the videos are not the remnants of the tops when first it hit the lower sections of the towers but is only a piece of the total amount of material. The main beams, trusses, roof structure and various other bits that made out the the top parts that came down would still be moving down the towers interior. The path of least resistance there would be the horizontal floor trusses and the gaps between that even if it was made rienforced concrete would be off little barrier to the main beams coming down the tower.

post-72521-071930400 1283976394_thumb.jp

The result of this chaos would be unsupported main beams that would get batterd by the material moving down thus sway and buckle or break so contrebuting to the total mass moving down the tower.

The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.

Really Q24. I know that you posses a much more soffisticated mind to let something like this be a impassible mind barrier.

Edited by NeoGenesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24 the point that I was trying to shed light on here is the difference between a random puff from any window to that of a planned detonation of a building in which a initiation pattern is clearly visible.

Watching the sourced videos and that on You-Tube I see no such pattern exist but at most 3 puffs eminating from some point on a facade of the building during the collapse phase.

For that I give a comparison video of a CD event:

Yes of course there are differences between conventional demolitions and the non-conventional WTC demolitions. I’m not sure why so many people expect to see a carbon copy of conventional demolitions on 9/11 as this would completely defeat the object of the intended deception.

Specifically regarding the pattern of detonations that you mention, this was simply not required in the Twin Towers – being top down demolitions, only removal of columns at intervals were needed to ensure the upper block could continue the collapse with minimum resistance.

I disagree about the "squibs" in the lower structure.

The shockwave from the charge that went off in the deeper collumns will not shoot out one single window but multiple windows on the same floor. Simple logic are needed here.

I would actually expect the shockwave from a column cutting charge to be far more focussed than the air pressure of a chaotic collapse. You think that the first cannot be focussed but the second can… despite it being seen that squibs in demolitions are focussed ejections. :hmm:

Really is that the difficulty they went to using the most inefficiant, ineffective method known for cutting structure components.

I could think of much more inefficiant ways of causing the core columns to fail… office fire for instance. Whilst thermite would obviously not be the choice in commercial demolitions, it is ideal for the purpose on 9/11 – causing the structure to fail through heat weakening of the steel (mirroring the official story though more effectively). How would you initiate what is meant to be a covert controlled demolition?

Do you know how ridiculous the above sounds.

Firstly the only locations where the hopelessly ridiculous thermite charges could be placed

- Floor beams

Why?..... The main beams are encased in concrete, Thermite can not burn through concrete.

The WTC columns were not encased in concrete.

Q24 that stream of molten metal evident in the video might just as well be aircraft aluminium.

The WTC2 molten flow cannot be aluminium. With a relatively low melting temperature, molten aluminium (at the point it would begin to flow) appears a silver colour in daylight conditions. The actual colouration of the flow indicates temperatures in excess of 1,000oC. There is no way that the aluminium could have been contained whilst a near perfect heat transfer from the fire took place before it was released from the building.

WTC2 flow: -

wtc2thermite.jpg

Molten aluminium at melting point: -

a.JPG

Thermite reaction: -

thermite-6.jpg

The towers were not made of lightweight leggos that would break to bits almost instantly after the first moment of collapse.

I agree, which is why there should have been loss of momentum during a natural collapse. It is the official story which treats the towers like lego, matchsticks, cards, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.