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 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

I would have thought that very little about this was 'lucky'...

Depends on personal position doesn't it? If you happened to be one of the terrorists on the day, then a few things went their way, fairly luckily. The discovery of the identites through passports was INCREDIBLY lucky.

Anyway, I meant that collapsing straight down was lucky in comparison to falling over.

Let's concentrate on the two big issues..

1. Gravity is a downward force

2. The main structural strength of the WTC was near/at the outer walls.

Which of those do you dispute, and please give cites.

I don't. Though I'd describe gravity as an inward force myself... But for the purposes of a buillding, yeah down.

A plane hit one side of the building. meaning the structural strength in one side was compromised, then fire, continued to weaken the building. Shouldn't the top of the building toppled over, towards the damage?

I'll post some links for you next week. 'Real life' calls I'm afraid. I might get on over the weeked if work allows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that you have consistently ignored that Bazant's scenario is a worse case one for the upper block coming to a halt, not what he thinks actually happened. You blithely switch back and forth between the Bazant worst case and your picture of what actually happened, claiming that the differences invalidate Bazant. However, you are merely pointing out differences from the worst case that make it less likely for the upper block to halt.

What. On. Earth. Bazant’s scenario is intended to be a best case for arrest of the upper block fall. We’ve had how many discussions about it? Don’t tell me you haven’t understood that all these years? Look, read his paper (you have done that haven’t you?): -

“For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest.”

Always Bazant claims to make the optimistic (best) case for the tower survival: -

“This may be demonstrated by the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions most optimistic in regard to survival are made.”

“we are making the most optimistic assumption with regard to the survival capacity of the towers”

“in regard to survival, it represents the most optimistic hypothesis”

Why you now claim, “Bazant's scenario is a worse case one for the upper block coming to a halt”, Lord only knows. It is the opposite to what Bazant states and the way you have always posed it before. I’d put it down to a typo, except you wrote “worse”/”worst” three times. Are you feeling ok Swanny?

Or is it just that you’ve seen reason at last and finally accepted, because it is in fact correct, that Bazant’s scenario is a worst case for the tower survival, despite his claims otherwise. Of course where he makes assumptions that are worst for the tower survival, i.e. an initial freefall drop, one powerful jolt at every phase of collapse and a rigid, nigh indestructible ‘piledriver’ of an upper block, none of which is reflective of reality, then I’ll call it out, and am quite within reason to do so, as a fantasy theory that proves nothing.

It’s like if I claimed a sponge can be thrown straight through a wall. So someone threw a sponge at a wall, it obviously didn’t pass through, and they said, “See, it doesn’t”. So I grab my pen and paper – “Aha but what if I assume a worst case for the wall, that the sponge is indestructible and the brick wall is actually made from tissue paper, oh yes!” – so, I do a calculation on that assumption, and amazingly find that sponges can be thrown through walls, proved my case... didn’t I? Same with Bazant’s paper, supposed ‘proof’ of the official collapse theory, it means nothing whilst violating Newton’s third law and making unfavourable assumptions to the tower survival that did not exist in reality.

Yes, theory should be tested against reality. That you don't seem to like that speaks volumes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see ? A sponge through a wall ? If said sponge waswet,and traveling at close to the speed of light ,It indeed would travel right through the wall ! And take much of it with it ! Just a thought ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just viewed compliations of both collapses yet again, and I see nothing in them that would give you the data you need to assess the damage to the upper block.

You should concentrate on WTC1 where the upper block:lower block ratio is greater than WTC2 and the effects are more visible. There are indications in the video footage that tell what happens to the upper block. I mentioned these in my previous post. Here is what to look for: -

1. Visible deterioration of the upper block at collapse initiation

Please see this video at 49m12s, you only need watch 30 seconds: -

The same principle is also demonstrated perhaps more clearly in this physics model: -

I realise we have spoken about this before, the last time you said, “I do think I see what you are calling telescoping” and we came to an agreement, in your words, “it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent”. So that’s cool, we essentially agree on this first point.

2. The severe antenna displacement indicating progression of damage to the roofline

In video footage, a section of the WTC1 antenna tip can be seen falling outside the debris cloud in a position approximately 100 metres distant from the natural rotational arc of the antenna. This could reasonably be caused by two factors: 1) not only the antenna, but the entire upper block, rotated off and away from the lower block (the extra height of the upper block accounting for the antenna displacement) or 2) the antenna suffered a severe impact which ejected the tip outside its natural rotational arc (for this to occur, the impacting debris must have passed through the upper block to reach the hat-truss/antenna). The first point (my lead theory by the way) is fatal to the official story – the upper block has fallen off the tower and no crush down can occur. The second point again indicates severe deterioration of the upper block.

3. The WTC1 core column ‘spire’ still standing tall which must have penetrated the upper block

This one is self-explanatory. Obviously the spire did not phase/time/dimension-shift through the upper block, it must have physically passed through the upper block. The only way this can occur is if the upper block is deteriorated to such an extent that the debris can pass around the spire.

superimp.spire.wtc1.jpg

These are all indications that the upper block suffered heavy deterioration, i.e. did not remain a rigid/intact block throughout the collapse. And, you know, as I said above, we agree this anyway. We are in agreement enough to move onto this next point...

A non-demolition collapse does not require a 100% rigid/solid upper block, the block just needs to be solid enough, and the mass just doesn't evaporate upon being impaled.

Yes, I agree totally – doing well today aren’t we?

But what am I to think, when the official collapse theory (that is the paper written by Bazant, intended to prove a natural collapse continuation possible) does require a 100% rigid/solid ‘piledriver’ upper block? It is a fundamental condition that the calculations within are based upon. Not only is it a violation of reality but it favours collapse continuation hugely. It is what allows Bazant to claim, based upon the aforementioned calculation, that once the collapse initiates, continuation is inevitable. You see why I have a huge problem with that fundamental condition, without which, the calculations are no longer applicable?

We went into the above previously in my post #310 here, with the text that begins, “What you describe here...”. If you follow the discussion, the responses I received from you were, “I really haven't gotten too far into Bazant so I'll have to pause on him” and, “Sorry Q, I do not actually trust your interpretation of much right now” and, “I'm postponing it”. But we need to realise as a first point that the official collapse theory paper is not valid – that is the first major part of the argument.

What needed to be done, and still needs to be done, is a realistic calculation to test and answer questions of the theory you mention above. Indeed, was the deteriorated mass ‘enough’ to continue and complete the collapse? Of course this cannot be done with pen and paper; a computer simulation is necessary, though I see no reason it could not be achieved. The best we have available at the moment are the numerous Blender physics engine simulations online, which all, without exception, discover that the WTC1 collapse arrests with deterioration of the upper block.

Please see here for a good example: -

http://www.youtube.c...?v=De5AuqEo0YU.

These simulations tell me that your statement above, so far as it concerns the WTC towers, is incorrect. What do you want me to do, throw physics models out of the window and trust your personal opinion based on little more than a preference for what you want to happen? I’m sorry I can’t do that.

You are the one saying what cannot happen, I've never said it cannot be a demolition, so it is your case to demonstrate...

This needs some clarification – it is important to understand exactly what I say cannot happen. Hopefully you gathered this from all of the above but I will reiterate...

What I say cannot happen, and did not happen, is the upper block remaining as a solid/rigid block like Bazant’s paper, meant to prove the official theory, requires. I think the observations mentioned above prove this not to be the case to any reasonable person. It is this specific section of the argument, nowhere else, to which I invoke Newton’s third law. You have even said it yourself, ““it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent”.

However, if the deteriorated mass can still complete the collapse then so be it, I won’t say with absolute certainty that cannot happen, only that it is not proven, not tested in the official theory paper by Bazant, and doesn’t appear possible based on every single physics simulation I have seen.

Hopefully now you understand better the extent of my argument; what I say cannot happen, where I invoke Newton and the problems I have demonstrated in accepting the official theory, which by extension forces me to seriously consider evidence for alternative theories.

What it looks like to me from the videos in my admitted non-expert opinion, a status we both share, is that especially in the South Tower, this 'pile driver' looks more like a wedge because of tilting, which channels the weight and force of the upper block to a narrower head that would impact part of the lower floor which obviously cannot withstand it. Whole multifloor chunks of the outside perimeter appear to be peeled off in both collapses, which means those outer connections were lost which would seem to partly weaken the ability of the floors themselves to withstand the collapse. The lower block is being bombarded with enormous forces and mass and as the collapse continues, it is actually contributing to as parts of it are brought down by gravity. I know you don't agree. You seem to think the force front seems to hover roughly in the middle of the debris layer, even though the whole debris layer is being accelerated by gravity. If I'm understanding you right, it makes no sense to me.

Did you say something before about me, “winging it”? Ho-hum. Don’t read your own above argument back will you. Haha. Erm, what to say, do I need to say anything? A wedge is only going to make a difference if we are dealing with a truly solid object. Like, for example, your hand axes, where the blade will cause more damage than the flat side. When it comes to the upper and lower blocks of the towers which are not solid and of similar construction, the opposing structure will still break whether one is orientated as a wedge or not. And we could equally argue, that whilst the upper block external wall wedge penetrates the lower floor structure, this likewise must mean that the lower block core penetrates the upper floor structure. So it’s all swings and roundabouts where generally, across the whole collapse front, it is fair that the damage should be approximately equal between the upper and lower blocks. Though, given that the upper columns were tilted out of their load bearing design orientation, whilst the lower columns were not, and given that the upper columns were less in number and smaller in size/strength than the lower columns, I would actually favour the lower block to win in a straight fight, and that’s without considering the far greater mass of the lower block.

One other thing, though I can hardly be bothered, I’m sure we’ve been over it before, the debris layer is not accelerated by gravity. It is crushed between the upper and lower blocks. The debris layer is accelerated by existing momentum of the upper block, there is no time for gravity to bring it up to speed. It’s like a boulder dropped over you from a height – on impact, does your head accelerate downward due to gravity or momentum of the boulder? And that makes a big difference because it means the upper block, always as the driving force, must suffer an equal and opposite force throughout the crush down.

See swan's response concerning your definition of 'the official theory'.

See my response to Swan’s response – the guy’s arguments are laughable and confused, have been for years.

Hahaha, 'all that evidence for demolition', that's a good one. All that evidence that doesn't include 90% of the things you'd find at an actual demolition, oh yeah, it's covert in exactly the perfect way that matches to what we see. Again Q, aliens are a much better fit.

You aren’t making much sense still attempting to ideally match a conventional demolition to the 9/11 demolition, and then more nonsensically mocking when it doesn’t. It’s all a little strange, a logic failure on your part, and then you mention “aliens” to top it off... oh dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let's concentrate on the two big issues..

1. Gravity is a downward force

2. The main structural strength of the WTC was near/at the outer walls.

Which of those do you dispute, and please give cites.

If you accept 1 and 2, then the collapse as seen is absolutely consistent with not only science/architecture/engineering, it is basic common sense.

2. is false.

The core structure carried the vast majority of the building load.

This is common knowledge to most interested in the subject, please could you give cites if you doubt it.

A plane hit one side of the building. meaning the structural strength in one side was compromised, then fire, continued to weaken the building. Shouldn't the top of the building toppled over, towards the damage?

Yes it should.

But what we actually have is a tilt toward the plane impact damage in case of WTC2 and a tilt away from the plane impact damage in the case of WTC1. Interestingly, both tilts were consistent with layout of the main elevator banks, which is where many believe would be opportune location for placement of demolition charges.

Furthermore, the initial tilts, rather than continuing their motion, both ceased, indicating the structure/fulcrum below remained for a while and then gave way, another possible indicator of demolition charges destroying the structure below allowing a drop through apparently the path of most resistance.

And here is what should happen, given that a ‘global collapse’ could initiate in the first place (I'm still waiting for NIST to prove the case). I posted this as a link in my last post but here is the video embedded. The really interesting part begins at 3m36s: -

Very interesting I think, because it shows what should happen – incomplete collapses - according to a physics model.

Edit: -

And a bonus extra physics simulation which shows the sequence of demolition charges necessary to complete a collapse: -

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what we actually have is a tilt toward the plane impact damage in case of WTC2 and a tilt away from the plane impact damage in the case of WTC1. Interestingly, both tilts were consistent with layout of the main elevator banks, which is where many believe would be opportune location for placement of demolition charges.

False! Firstly, It takes many months to prepare a building for demolition. No such preparation was evident. Secondly, there is no evidence of explosives; none seen on video, nor on audio nor even detected on seismic monitors. Thirdly, demolition experts in the area did not see explosives, and lastly, no evidence of explosives was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. To sum that up, your claim regarding explosives is baseless and unfounded without evidence, especially since no evidence of explosives of any kind was ever recovered.

Simply saying someone had the opportunity to plant explosives without evidence does not fly because I could just as well say that the collapse of the WTC buildings was caused by groundhogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should concentrate on WTC1 where the upper block:lower block ratio is greater than WTC2 and the effects are more visible. There are indications in the video footage that tell what happens to the upper block. I mentioned these in my previous post. Here is what to look for: -

1. Visible deterioration of the upper block at collapse initiation

Please see this video at 49m12s, you only need watch 30 seconds: -

[media=]

[/media]

I guess you were unaware that Richard Gage has already been discredited by the American Institute of Architects, (AIA).

The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him

Not that is until now. Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told veteran journalist Jeremy Stahl writing for Architect, the group's magazine, “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever”, “It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not” and “there is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”

Gage recently wrapped up his 'WORLD PREMIERE TOUR “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” Final Edition', which included an event at the AIA's national HQ in Washington D.C. and tried to make it seem as if this indicated some sort of endorsement of his views but “acknowledged that this was not an official AIA event but a rented space open to all members of the public, adding that he feels he hasn’t been given his proper due by the organization in the past.”

Though this seems to have been the first time the national organization specifically rejected Gage's snake oil. Rick Bell head of the group's NY chapter who witnessed 9/11 said of Gage, “the professional community discredits this guy. We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.” Gary Kohn chairman of KPF, NY's largest architectural firm and 'the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”'. In response to a controversy over renting one its room for one of Gage's presentation's the Royal Institute of British Architects stated “any perception that this event was associated with the RIBA is regrettable. We will be reviewing our policy on private hire of our building in the light of this event.” The RIBA's former president also criticized the event [11]. While AFAIK they have not specifically said anything specifically about Gage and his gaggle but the chairman Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) said:

I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19339

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see ? A sponge through a wall ? If said sponge waswet,and traveling at close to the speed of light ,It indeed would travel right through the wall ! And take much of it with it ! Just a thought ! :tu:

It seems that some conspiracist side with the wrong of people, such as Richard Gage and Steven Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A plane hit one side of the building. meaning the structural strength in one side was compromised, then fire, continued to weaken the building. Shouldn't the top of the building toppled over, towards the damage?

No, because structural loads are redistributed to compensate for the damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope because the rantings of a deluded man who clearly cannot think for himself and can't explain himself doesn't make much sense.

On the contrary, I have provided credible evidence to backup what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What. On. Earth. Bazant's scenario is intended to be a best case for arrest of the upper block fall.

Don't be silly. I could have worded that better, but you know perfectly well what I meant. It's a worse case for your claim that the collapse should stop.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same principle is also demonstrated perhaps more clearly in this physics model: -

Really! You still wave this link about as if it means something, when it's originator himself says that it doesn't: "It is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories." You have this complete double standard when it comes to evidence favourable to you beliefs, allowing in things you would mock as ridiculous if it conflicted with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go then....lol

I'm sorry you have this problem with understanding simple physics. I don't know how to make things clearer for you.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I say cannot happen, and did not happen, is the upper block remaining as a solid/rigid block like Bazant’s paper, meant to prove the official theory, requires. I think the observations mentioned above prove this not to be the case to any reasonable person. It is this specific section of the argument, nowhere else, to which I invoke Newton’s third law. You have even said it yourself, ““it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent”.

However, if the deteriorated mass can still complete the collapse then so be it, I won’t say with absolute certainty that cannot happen, only that it is not proven, not tested in the official theory paper by Bazant, and doesn’t appear possible based on every single physics simulation I have seen.

Hopefully now you understand better the extent of my argument; what I say cannot happen, where I invoke Newton and the problems I have demonstrated in accepting the official theory, which by extension forces me to seriously consider evidence for alternative theories.

During the Verinage demolition process, what does the upper block do to the lower block?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm sorry you have this problem with understanding simple physics.

Its nothing to do with my lack of understanding of physics...:rolleyes:...It is to with your explanation which doesn't make any sense. You said..."The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

So if the forces are different? What is this force that makes this difference? We know that debris has mass which gravity is going to act down on it, as it does most things. Debris hits the floor below but there is still 92 floors to penetration and if the upper block is crushing down on top of that debris and lower block, the lower part of that upper block will soon become debris too. Therefore the mass of the 17 floors of upper block will be reduced before 93 floors of the lower block which uses progressively thicker steel and therefore stronger.

I don't know how to make things clearer for you.

You could tell us about these forces?? lol Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that some conspiracist side with the wrong of people, such as Richard Gage and Steven Jones

[media=]

[/media]

Mark Robert MEGA LIE No 233.
No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3125436&postcount=13

Except....

EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman: "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, DC that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/ground-zero-air-pollution.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated.

The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.

http://www.dailymail...sumed-fire.html

The Collapse of the South Tower

As the fires continued to burn, occupants trapped in the upper floors of the South Tower provided information about conditions to 9-1-1 dispatchers. At 9:37 am, an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed. The New York City Police Department aviation unit also relayed information about the deteriorating condition of the buildings to police commanders.

Only 14 people escaped from the impact zone of the South Tower after it was hit (including Fuji Bank Executive Stanley Praimnath, who saw the plane coming at him), and only four from the floors above it. They escaped via Stairwell A, the only stairwell which had been left intact after the impact. Numerous police hotline operators who received calls from individuals inside the South Tower were not well informed of the situation as it rapidly unfolded in the South Tower.

Many operators told callers not to descend the tower on their own, even though it is now believed that Stairwell A was most likely passable at and above the point of impact. At 9:52 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there".With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its officers to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

The Collapse of the North Tower

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 am, the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.

After the South Tower collapsed, FDNY commanders issued orders for firefighters in the North Tower to evacuate. Due to radio communications problems, firefighters inside the towers did not hear the evacuation order from their supervisors on the scene, and most were unaware that the other tower had collapsed. 343 firefighters died in the Twin Towers, as a result of the collapse of the buildings. No one was able to escape from above the impact zone in the North Tower after it was hit, as all stairwells and elevator shafts on those floors were destroyed or blocked.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2TakQpR7J

http://www.nyc.gov/h...report/toc.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, fire, not explosives nor thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Robert MEGA LIE No 233.

Except....

EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman: "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, DC that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink.

http://www.ucsusa.or...-pollution.html

To sum it up, Richard Gage has been discredited and found to have lied about thermite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mark Robert MEGA LIE No 233.

On the contrary, even the Association of Architects discredited Richard Gage.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Now, let's take a look at Steven Jones because Steven Jones has been found guilty of lying about molten steel and thermite and he has been discredited by Brigham Young University.

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buildings were designed to withstand plane impacts.

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.“I designed it for a 707 to hit it,” Lee Robertson, the project’s structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767′s 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: “It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack,” he said.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center’s construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” he said.

Eyewitness accounts of people at GZ who reported explosions before the tower collapses

"Shortly after 9 o'clock [...] [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building."

----------------------------------------------

We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact

------------------------------------------

One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html

------------------------------------------

When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. [...] The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street.

------------------------------------------

•Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

•Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

•Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.

•[...]

•Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.

911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11

------------------------------------------

The following is taken from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center.

"As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion."

"I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first."

To sum it up, Richard Gage has been discredited and found to have lied about thermite.

So has your tour guide...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Buildings were designed to withstand plane impacts.

Which they did, but they did not account for aircraft knocking off the fire protection of the buildings. Prior inspections found that fire protection was failing and falling off the steel structure. In other words, the steel was exposed to raging fires

Eyewitness accounts of people at GZ who reported explosions before the tower collapses

Not from explosives. No evidence of explosives were found. Let's hear from some of those people.

The Elevator Man's Tale

The Elevator Man's Tale

Featuring the unabridged transcript and audio.

Robert Jones

Age: 52

Hometown: Montgomery

Family: Two children

Occupation: Elevator mechanic for Ace Elevator in the World Trade Center

Was in the south tower when the first plane hit.

As I turned around to go back toward the core of the building in the lobby, the second plane hit, and that shook the building.

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

I’m looking from the lobby up to a mezzanine area or the second floor where they lined up all the people to go up to the rooftop, and I’m looking up expecting something, building parts to be coming down, because I wasn’t quite sure what that noise was.

But I found out later, when the plane came through the building, it cut the hoist ropes, the governor ropes, of (the) 6 and 7 cars, which was the observation cars.

Every night they would park those two cars up on the 107th floor. At the time the plane impacted B Tower, the observation deck wasn’t open yet, which was another life-saving factor. At the time it impacted the building, they hadn’t opened the observation deck.

Had they, there would’ve been many, maybe another 1,000, 2,000 people on the rooftop, because it was a clear day. It was a beautiful day.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level.And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

http://www.thrnewmed...ember/jones.htm

Many things can sound like explosions, but not be produced by explosions, in an elevator shaft during an event like 9/11. One example from 2000, when an elevator missed its stop and hit the shaft ceiling:

Others [present] described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom."

People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building. There's never a dull moment at the World Trade Center."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck

Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

“I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,” Kravette said. “People were engulfed in flames.”

http://www.engr.psu....Fitzgerald.html

Nothing there that suggest bomb explosions.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum it up, Richard Gage has been discredited and found to have lied about thermite.

And so has Mark Roberts who never had much credit in the first place...lol

Which they did, but they did not account for aircraft knocking off the fire protection of the buildings. Prior inspections found that fire protection was failing and falling off the steel structure. In other words, the steel was exposed to raging fires

Not from explosives. No evidence of explosives were found. Let's hear from some of those people.

[/size]

Nothing there that suggest bomb explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZFZpbJN3A

Multiple explosions here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so has Mark Roberts who never had much credit in the first place.

But, the experts have also discredited Richard Gage, which is exactly what he has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres some facts and evidence....

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

See also witness statements at the beginning of

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, the experts have also discredited Richard Gage, which is exactly what he has done.

I must be watching the wrong video, because in the video I've seen, Mark comes across as idiotic and out of his place, he soon gave up his debunking after that video. lol

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.