The following link is to another forum where the initial post contains many photographs & URL links to reference articles.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread8820.html The page takes a while to load (with all the photographs) but it serves as a good starting point for anyone on this Physics board who wishes to explore the subject of the 9-11 events further.
<br>Thanks Sinclair. I had a brief look at the site you mentioned. Stallion4's essay was a well done summation of facts that we know, although there were a couple of minor points I dismissed.
I didn't look further into the site.
Although independent investigations into the events of 9/11 are usually dismissed under the heading of conspiracy theories, and there are many wackos and disinformationists out there promoting all sorts of insane theories related to 9/11; giving excuse to many intelligent people to just dismiss any one who does not believe the official story ... I personally do not believe that the independant investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings has anything intrinsic to do with 'conspiracy theories'.
Rather it is a scientific investigation seeking answers to explain the actual mechanism through which these buildings suffered an historically unprecedented and unexpected global collapse in the manner which they did.
That does not in-and-of itself indicate that there must necessarily have been a group of conspirators involved with the explosive events of the twin towers (although the further 'sympathic'  collapse of WTC 7 seems certainly to indicate a high probability of such).
Looking at the collapse of the twin towers from a physics and scientific perspective, there are certain signatures of those collapses which even the Explosives theory is hard pressed to answer.
The true answer to the question may lie in some form of exotic physics (the workings of which are not understood yet), or could even lie in the paranormal for all I know.
What I do know, is that the disproportionate progressive collapse theory based upon the slight structural and fire damage as promoted by the official story certainly does not and can never fully explain such phenomena from a basic physics and structural engineering standpoint.
Cheers
adoucette
21st October 2005 - 09:47 PM
Whats absolutely hilarious about these conspiracy theories is (besides the contortionist physics employed): Assume they are correct and the towers are rigged with explosives. And then: One of the terrorists cells gets stopped while boarding the plane, or misses the 2nd tower, or both hit the same tower. In which case, its going to be awful hard to explain what all that C4 is doing lodged up among the building supports of the still standing tower.  Arthur
adoucette
21st October 2005 - 10:00 PM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 20 2005, 08:22 PM)
The loading capacity of the office space in the WTC towers was 100 pounds per square foot. Actual loading was limited by the fire inspectors to 50 pounds per square foot; and in fact, average office space is loaded at just about that rate, according to insurance company statistics.
The towers are 207 feet square, for a total square footage of 42,849 square feet; but about 1/3 of that space is taken up by the core, leaving about 28,566 square feet. The weight of the material on 28,566 square feet at 50 pounds per square foot is 1,428,300 pounds- that's per floor. Of that, I've taken a very conservative 1/3 as burnable material- so 476,100 pounds.
the energy content of garbage is about 1/4 the energy content of coal.
So if we've got 476,100 pounds of stuff, and that stuff is about 1/4 the energy content of coal, then we must have the equivalent of about 119,025 pounds of coal.
you can figure the energy content of that 119,025 pounds of coal, but first ... you have to divide by 2000 to get tons of coal. That gives 59.5125 tons of coal, ... that comes out to 1,303,123.19 megajoules of energy.
So that means that the energy of all that burning paper, wood, plastic, cloth, and human body parts is about 1.303TJ
that's enough energy to melt an entire floor's worth of steel twice over.
I'll point out yet again that at no time have I mentioned any jet fuel, nor any kinetic energy, nor anything but the office contents.
I think that Schneibster did over-estimate the amount of office material that would be available, however his calculations are still dead on, they just need to be tweaked to account for less burnable material, and indeed, there would have been plenty. As his calculations show if you cut the amount of material in half from his estimates there is still more than enough energy to cause failure. But if you cut the amount of material to even 1/4 of his estimates, then add in the hundreds of thousands of pounds of burnable material from the aircraft itself, plus add in the energy from the lower estimate of fuel (3,000 gallons) then add in the structural damage caused by the impact itself, there is more than enough energy available to cause the failure of a single floor, and after that the rest, as they say, is history. Arthur
Foxx
22nd October 2005 - 03:01 AM
| QUOTE | I think that Schneibster did over-estimate the amount of office material that would be available, however his calculations are still dead on, they just need to be tweaked to account for less burnable material, and indeed, there would have been plenty.
As his calculations show if you cut the amount of material in half from his estimates there is still more than enough energy to cause failure.
But if you cut the amount of material to even 1/4 of his estimates, then add in the hundreds of thousands of pounds of burnable material from the aircraft itself, plus add in the energy from the lower estimate of fuel (3,000 gallons) then add in the structural damage caused by the impact itself, there is more than enough energy available to cause the failure of a single floor, and after that the rest, as they say, is history.
<br>
Adoucette, Thanks for your input. I would agree that the original numbers put forth need to be tweaked downwards, realistically and based upon the known facts.
Would you agree that the office burnables are an unknown quantity? Any number we come up with there must be considered a speculative guess, because we don't know the exact contents of any floor nor a number of other relevant factors.
Contrary to what someone said earlier that , "all floors were identical", they weren't in any way. The architectural lay-out was dependant upon many factors :
-who was occupying which floor (or floors) and what type of business they were in...?
-their own individual arrangements of work stations, reception & office areas, as well as lounge and recreation areas...?
-the exact type of burnables potentially available in each area (i.e. - whether there might be a high level of plastics in one area as opposed to a high level of cellulose products in another), and how much space each area covered...?
There are many variables in just the above that could seriously alter the actual potential energy contained in these fuel sources, and this is why I am not quick to accept numbers drawn from thin air (as it were).
Nevertheless, as we don't know for a fact all of the above variables, it would be appropriate to find some way to get a theoretical 'average' of potential burnables.
In order to do that, I believe we need to take into account the typical engineering design factor for 'loads', which as I have suggested before is normally considered to be 5X the actual expected loads.
The 'expected loads' would be those under typical daily live-loads...(a normal office day).
The engineered design loads are (as has been pointed out) under extreme conditions such as experiencing an earthquake or hurricane while the floor is loaded with standing room only occupants, and so (IMHO) are not a realistic figure.
A more realistic figure is ~ 20psf (100psf divided by 5)
[If you find errors in my math below, please point them out so that I can correct them, I'm rushing through this ]
If we use the previous figure offered as 28,566 square feet in one floor...at 20psf we get 571,320 lbs
Under terms of live-loads, occupants are considered part of this 20psf load, so we must calculate an average days loading of occupants to separate that weight from other office contents.
The estimate I've heard about the number of occupants usually in the towers was 50,000 (divided by 2 towers)... [25,000 divide by 110 floors gives an average of 2272 persons per floor].
If we take an average of say 150 lbs / person that gives us 2272 x 150 = 340,800lbs. Subtract this from the expected floor loading total which gives us...
571,320 - 340,800 = 231,520lbs / floor / average day.
However we know there were (for round figures sake) 'only' 3000 occupants killed in both towers, and divide them by say 30 floors, that gives us an average of 100 occupants per floor, (or 15,000lbs). Forensically, we need to add that figure back in to our above total which gives us...
231,520 + 15,000 = 246,520
If we accept the previous offered formula that "we consider a very conservative 1/3 as burnable material"...
we get ( 246,520 x 1/3 ) = 82,306 lbs of 'office burnables'
Now we need to add the plane burnables. I believe your estimate of "hundreds of thousands of lbs of burnables" there is highly exaggerated.
The operating empty weight is ~90,540 kg (199,198lbs)... Maximum Payload ~43,270 kg (95,194lbs.) We can not consider the plane body metals as burnables, and the extra burnables to be found in wiring, plastics, cellulose, etc; I consider to be negligable (for our purposes), so I think we only need concern ourselves with the burnable payload. The planes that day were only loaded to a maximum of 1/2 capacity, so if we divide the total by half we get 47597lbs. (we should probably divide that again for percentage of non-burnables, but I'm OK with just leaving it at the half way mark).
So according to my calculations I come up with a hypothetical total of...
office burnables - 82,106 lbs
plane burnables - 47,597 lbs
Total = 129,703 lbs
so now we are down to approximately 1/4 of the originally proposed estimate of burnables (plane included).
Of course to that you need to add back in the jet fuel 3500 gal. to come up with a theoretical total combustibles.
This is a long ways away from the original figures based upon 17000 gal of fuel and 476,100 lbs of office combustibles.
Feel free to do the rest of the math yourself, but regardless of what that figure you come up with there is still other aspects must be taken into consideration and deducted from the potential total energy stored in the said burnables...
-the actual quantities of unburned fuel which exited the building as soot or smoke...?
-the actual quantities of 'office contents' left unburned i.e. - those 'piles' of smoldering rubbish which never got a chance to burn either due to collapse first or lack of a sufficient air supply for full combustion.
I say "piles", because if you compare the Edifico Windsor in Spain was a similar 'office' building... and the fact that it burned for over 24 hours, then That fire must have been burning just office contents.
If it could feed on just office contents for over 24 hrs, then I doubt that in the twin towers every scrap of office burnables was consumed in a little over an hour, especially given the fact that huge plumes of partially burned materials were exiting the building as soot basically right from the start, and those plumes of soot were definate proof that the fires burning within the towers were fuel rich and oxygen starved. Personally I believe that probably less than half of the potential 129,703 lbs of office fuel was consumed prior to collapse
adoucette
22nd October 2005 - 05:59 AM
767-200 operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb) operating empty with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb) Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb). That's a 200,000 lb difference. That's twice as much as your estimate. http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103Taking 1/2 the weight off because the plane wasn't fully loaded is an overstatement as most US airliners also carry cargo besides passenger baggage. I'm sure it wasn't at max takeoff weight, but it probably had much more than your estimate of 47,000 lbs. I think a reasonable estimate is closer to 100,000 lbs. But the operating empty weight of the aircraft includes A LOT of burnable material. (notice the last 757 crash besides the road in Canada, quite a fire and it wasn't from the fuel) Also notice the last 'front wheel locked' landing of an AirBus in LA. The Wheels are Magnesium. They burn as well. In fact a lot of magnesium is used in aircraft construction, so the 100,000 lbs is probably a conservative estimate of the material from the plane that burned. I don't want to be morbid, but you can't take the people out of the equation, or have you never barbecued? We tend to be a tad overweight as a nation and yes, we do burn. Quite hot actually. I'd bet we are near 1/2 the caloric energy of coal, though I can't find an actual figure. Still I'll leave them out of the equation to be conservative. | QUOTE | If we take an average of say 150 lbs / person that gives us 2272 x 150 = 340,800lbs. Subtract this from the expected floor loading total which gives us...
571,320 - 340,800 = 231,520lbs / floor / average day.
However we know there were (for round figures sake) 'only' 3000 occupants killed in both towers, and divide them by say 30 floors, that gives us an average of 100 occupants per floor, (or 15,000lbs). Forensically, we need to add that figure back in to our above total which gives us...
231,520 + 15,000 = 246,520
If we accept the previous offered formula that "we consider a very conservative 1/3 as burnable material"...
we get ( 246,520 x 1/3 ) = 82,306 lbs of 'office burnables'
<br>This number of people is abnormally high. The sq ft was ~28,000, which at typical office density is somewhat less than 300 people. Allow for enough visitors to make it up to 500 people and, though I think you are still high, this would seem a more realistic estimate.
This leaves 426,000 lbs, if 1/3 is burnable than this equals 142,000 lbs.
Add in the 100,000 lbs from the plane and that comes to 242,000 lbs.
Or the equiv of ~ 30 tons of coal which translates to ~630,000 megajoules.
The impact of the plane resulted in most of the energy being absorbed by the immediate structure. This would have resulted in most of the energy being transformed into heat. Given the speed of the aircraft were ~200 m/s and they each weighed approx 110,000 kg then the kinetic energy would be ~ 2,200 megajoules.
As to the megajoules from the burning fuel, lets say it equals the office furn that doesn't burn before the collapse, so we discount it completely.
Still we have easily over 600,000 megajoules of energy being dissipated in one small area that even without the structural damage caused by the collision is more than enough energy to cause the collapse of the floor.
Arthur
Foxx
22nd October 2005 - 07:41 AM
QUOTE Originally posted by adoucette767-200 operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb) operating empty with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb) Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb). That's a 200,000 lb difference. That's twice as much as your estimate. http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103 <br>Thanks adoucette. Where are your calculations for the fuel weight in the above calculations? I have nothing against airliners.net, but for specifics on aircraft, military, and intelligence matters I generally use Janes.com. Janes is one of the most respected intelligence services in the world used by most governments as a knowledgeable reference source... http://www.janes.com/QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
767-200
operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb)
operating empty with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb)
Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb).
That's a 200,000 lb difference.
That's twice as much as your estimate.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
<br>Thanks adoucette. Where are your calculations for the fuel weight in the above calculations?
I have nothing against airliners.net, but for specifics on aircraft, military, and intelligence matters I generally use Janes.com. Janes is one of the most respected intelligence services in the world used by most governments as a knowledgeable reference source...
http://www.janes.com/
Welcome to Jane's catalogue where you will find details of all Jane's reference, news and analysis information, covering the areas of security, defence, aerospace, transport, public safety and law enforcement. Jane's catalogue is also available in Russian, Japanese and Chinese, simply click on your preferred option to view or download the file.
Jane's information is available in a variety of electronic and print formats as well as more tailored solutions via Jane's consultancy. Simply select the options on the left hand navigation bar to find out more. http://www.janes.com/
There is much more detailed information on the following page regarding empty weights and maximum weights. I have just taken the following quote regarding engines and fuel capacity maximums...
| QUOTE | Power Plant
Two high-bypass turbofans in pods, pylon-mounted on the wing leading-edges.
General Electric options: 225 kN (50,600 lb st) CF6-80C2B2F, 251 kN (56,500 lb st) CF6-80C2B4F, 268 kN (60,200 lb st) CF6-80C2B6F and 276 kN (62,100 lb st) CF6-80C2B7F.
Pratt & Whitney options: 233 kN (52,300 lb st) PW4052, 254 kN (57,100 lb st) PW4056, 268 kN (60,200 lb st) PW4060 and 282 kN (63,300 lb st) PW4062. P&W JT9D-7R4D of 213.5 kN (48,000 lb st) no longer offered.
Rolls-Royce options: 251 kN (56,400 lb st) RB211-524G4-T and 265 kN (59,500 lb st) RB211-524H2-T.
Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons). Refuelling point in port outer wing.
<a href='http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/...oeing_767.shtml
We know the weight of aviation jet fuel varies between 6.36 - 6.76 lbs/US gal so...(let's take an average of 6.5 lbs/US gal)
Source: http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/f..._fuel_perf.shtm
6.5 lbs/US gal x 16,700 US gallons = 108,550 lbs
6.5 lbs/US gal x 24,140 US gallons = 156,910 lbs
take average of these to get = 132,730lbs
operating empty 186,000lb
max take-off with fuel & passengers - 387,000
difference - 200,000 lb
allow for maximum fuel...132,730 lb
200,000 - 132,730 ... leaves us with...
a difference of - 67,630 lbs (payload - pass/cargo)
If the plane is half loaded this works out to - 33,815 lbs (payload - pass/cargo).
That is a little lower than my previous estimate for plane burnables (passengers/cargo) @ 47,597 lbs. Given all the variable parameters (just as in the office contents calcs) it is difficult to estimate exact figures, but if you want to go with an average of the high and low estimates as above this would work out to 40,706lbs for the estimate of passenger/cargo 'burnables' weights.?
As can be seen your above difference of 200,000 lbs is made up for by adding the maximum fuel & pass/cargo weights.
I hope that clears up the discrepancy of the missing 200,000.
It's late... I'll look at the rest tomorrow.
Cheers
Andrew Johnson
22nd October 2005 - 10:38 AM
Hi I think that it is good that people here are discussing the energy calculations, but as has been mentioned, it is difficult to quantify them as easily as the collapse times, because with the energy calculations, there are so many variables and so little documentation of evidence. Granted, it is worth pursuing up to a point, because it is necessary to find out where the energy which caused the near-freefall collapse came from. However, I think the video evideence answers this question too - you can see the squibs from explosions and we also have the surviving firemen's testimony, and the original news broadcasts from people like Dan Rather. On Oct 15th 2005, Professor David Ray Griffin (who ISN'T a Physicist) but is a respected academic Theologian also based his presentation around these facts: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...article&sid=698I think it would be quite dangerous for people here to say something along the lines of "well, he isn't a scientist, so what does he know?". Perhaps he is able to read Scientific Papers and books - and understand them too. That's what some academics are like, apparently.
Foxx
22nd October 2005 - 04:32 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Andrew Johnson
I think that it is good that people here are discussing the energy calculations, but as has been mentioned, it is difficult to quantify them as easily as the collapse times, because with the energy calculations, there are so many variables and so little documentation of evidence.
<br>Hi Andrew. I believe you are quite correct that discussions of minutae regarding the energy calculations as being currently discussed regarding plane weights, fuel weights, etc, etc... are not really relevant to the broader questions. But let me explain a few things (from my perspective).
When you started this thread, your observations were spot on and a relevant question to be broached to the broader physics community regarding the phenomena of near free-fall of the World Trade Center buildings. Given this near free-fall rate it is physically impossible for those buildings to have collapsed as they did allegedly due to 'progressive collapse'.
Pause now, and look back at what has happened since your first post. I suspect you voiced what the majority of people already know someplace in the back of their minds. This causes some concern to many in different ways, depending upon their beliefs.
When a certain poster, who tried to refute your basic common sense, blurted out that his opposition to your statements were partly due to his being employed in a government department related to investigating the collapses, did you think that would go unnoticed on the web. This reverberated across the web almost instantaneously to the 9/11 truth community, under headings such as...
"shill outs himself on mainstream physics forum".
As you were speaking the truth, in a calm and intelligent manner you were refuting essentially everything he could come up with in response.
But just as the 9/11 Truth movement became aware of this ripple, so also did those who are actively trying to stop the dissemination of truth.
You were doing well until (coincidentally out of nowhere), came a poster frothing at the mouth with insults and derogatary remarks interspersed with pseudo-science and flagrantly erroneous mathematical wizardry. I have run into many of these characters in my travels on the net.
As I saw it his bullish 'charms' and nonsensical mathematics threw you off-guard. This is standard operating procedure for this type of operator. It's another form of psyopts they use. Surely you must have noticed all the psychological tactics he used. These psychological tricks come from a playbook which they use. They always seem to have instantaneous access to knowledge that the ordinary person wouldn't, and often portray themselves as being extremely highly educated and able to speak eloquently, while at the same time being crass and demeaning. The basic message they try to get across is that...
"You are a peon, beneath my dignity. I, on the other hand, am a highly advanced and educated individual. You are wrong, you are a liar, shut-up, and go away".
Have you noticed his unregistered alter-ego "Mr. Chuckles" who seems to have arrived as mysteriously as the great professor? This is another common tactic they use to bolster their assault on the truth. They use these alter-ego characters to appeal to the lower emotional and ignorant side of the majority, attempting to incite rebellion against listening to the truth which they derogatize as pure 'horsepucky' or 'balderash', etc... yet you will notice these alter-ego characters never, never, never address any issues. They just spit insults while endorsing the view of their 'siamese-twin'.
I am no great Einstein, but I saw through his nonsense right away.
Anyway, adoucette, is not (in my opinion) one of these shady characters, but has been swayed by the false mathematics and drawn away from the real issue, by the tactics used by these detractors of the truth. I don't mind going through all these technicalities of erroneous weights which the professor of quantum physics has injected to the discussion.
Watch out for the professor, he will lead you away from the truth faster than you can say conspiracy. You really should have clued in when he said that he has been involved in (what did he say...) six of these so-called 'conspiracy threads' before. It's pretty obvious he gets sent around to prop up the official story wherever it gets into trouble.
adoucette, is it not obvious to you that I have already refuted the professors figures on two occasions already? (the jet fuel & the office contents 'burnables').
When we finish these plane-figure errors, I will point out his flagrant errors in other areas.
Always seek the truth, and do not get led astray by the obfuscations of these phony professors.
Here's more evidence of his deliberate obfuscations...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Andrew Johnson
I think that it is good that people here are discussing the energy calculations, but as has been mentioned, it is difficult to quantify them as easily as the collapse times, because with the energy calculations, there are so many variables and so little documentation of evidence.
<br>Hi Andrew. I believe you are quite correct that discussions of minutae regarding the energy calculations as being currently discussed regarding plane weights, fuel weights, etc, etc... are not really relevant to the broader questions. But let me explain a few things (from my perspective).
When you started this thread, your observations were spot on and a relevant question to be broached to the broader physics community regarding the phenomena of near free-fall of the World Trade Center buildings. Given this near free-fall rate it is physically impossible for those buildings to have collapsed as they did allegedly due to 'progressive collapse'.
Pause now, and look back at what has happened since your first post. I suspect you voiced what the majority of people already know someplace in the back of their minds. This causes some concern to many in different ways, depending upon their beliefs.
When a certain poster, who tried to refute your basic common sense, blurted out that his opposition to your statements were partly due to his being employed in a government department related to investigating the collapses, did you think that would go unnoticed on the web. This reverberated across the web almost instantaneously to the 9/11 truth community, under headings such as...
"shill outs himself on mainstream physics forum".
As you were speaking the truth, in a calm and intelligent manner you were refuting essentially everything he could come up with in response.
But just as the 9/11 Truth movement became aware of this ripple, so also did those who are actively trying to stop the dissemination of truth.
You were doing well until (coincidentally out of nowhere), came a poster frothing at the mouth with insults and derogatary remarks interspersed with pseudo-science and flagrantly erroneous mathematical wizardry. I have run into many of these characters in my travels on the net.
As I saw it his bullish 'charms' and nonsensical mathematics threw you off-guard. This is standard operating procedure for this type of operator. It's another form of psyopts they use. Surely you must have noticed all the psychological tactics he used. These psychological tricks come from a playbook which they use. They always seem to have instantaneous access to knowledge that the ordinary person wouldn't, and often portray themselves as being extremely highly educated and able to speak eloquently, while at the same time being crass and demeaning. The basic message they try to get across is that...
"You are a peon, beneath my dignity. I, on the other hand, am a highly advanced and educated individual. You are wrong, you are a liar, shut-up, and go away".
Have you noticed his unregistered alter-ego "Mr. Chuckles" who seems to have arrived as mysteriously as the great professor? This is another common tactic they use to bolster their assault on the truth. They use these alter-ego characters to appeal to the lower emotional and ignorant side of the majority, attempting to incite rebellion against listening to the truth which they derogatize as pure 'horsepucky' or 'balderash', etc... yet you will notice these alter-ego characters never, never, never address any issues. They just spit insults while endorsing the view of their 'siamese-twin'.
I am no great Einstein, but I saw through his nonsense right away.
Anyway, adoucette, is not (in my opinion) one of these shady characters, but has been swayed by the false mathematics and drawn away from the real issue, by the tactics used by these detractors of the truth. I don't mind going through all these technicalities of erroneous weights which the professor of quantum physics has injected to the discussion.
Watch out for the professor, he will lead you away from the truth faster than you can say conspiracy. You really should have clued in when he said that he has been involved in (what did he say...) six of these so-called 'conspiracy threads' before. It's pretty obvious he gets sent around to prop up the official story wherever it gets into trouble.
adoucette, is it not obvious to you that I have already refuted the professors figures on two occasions already? (the jet fuel & the office contents 'burnables').
When we finish these plane-figure errors, I will point out his flagrant errors in other areas.
Always seek the truth, and do not get led astray by the obfuscations of these phony professors.
Here's more evidence of his deliberate obfuscations...
Power Plant
Two high-bypass turbofans in pods, pylon-mounted on the wing leading-edges.
General Electric options: 225 kN (50,600 lb st) CF6-80C2B2F, 251 kN (56,500 lb st) CF6-80C2B4F, 268 kN (60,200 lb st) CF6-80C2B6F and 276 kN (62,100 lb st) CF6-80C2B7F.
Pratt & Whitney options: 233 kN (52,300 lb st) PW4052, 254 kN (57,100 lb st) PW4056, 268 kN (60,200 lb st) PW4060 and 282 kN (63,300 lb st) PW4062. P&W JT9D-7R4D of 213.5 kN (48,000 lb st) no longer offered.
Rolls-Royce options: 251 kN (56,400 lb st) RB211-524G4-T and 265 kN (59,500 lb st) RB211-524H2-T.
Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons). Refuelling point in port outer wing.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/...oeing_767.shtml
<br>The figures the professor first proposed for fuel load in the airliners which impacted the World Trade Center was 75,000 L. As I previously pointed out this works out roughly to 16,000 - 17,000 gallons. Look above at the total capacity of the fuel one of these airliners has... 16,700 (unless you include the fuel in the extra tanks that some model have). Once again, the professors figures are total bunk.
Welcome to InfoWars people. There are some who will spread false information deliberately, others who have not done enough research to counter the false info, and those of us who seek to spread the real truth about 9/11 events. Your choice which category you wish to be in.
Andrew Johnson
22nd October 2005 - 05:24 PM
Foxx, Thanks for your valuable contributions to this discussion. I am fairly well aware of the tactics you mentioned in your post - and I think these tactics operate on a number of levels (which have nothing to do with Physics, so maybe I shouldn't be posting these thoughts here...!!) I think these tactics can operate at an "ego level" where people feel bad because they have missed something so obvious (I missed the obvious truth for about 3 years), so they feel they have to character assasinate the proponent ("if you can't attack the data, attack the messenger"). Obviously, there are organised groups patrolling our remarks on boards such as this. To them I say "we are not your enemy" and ask them to consider, inside themselves, if they are truly doing the correct thing in trying to muddy and derail an honest debate and presentation of evidence. I had been alerted by others to a number of other references to this thread in other blogs/message boards etc and am somewhat surprised the thread was not closed, as this one was: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...=Andrew+Johnson (spot the irony here in the ethos expressed in the guy's signature compared to the action on the thread) Wilbert Smith (NOT the author), a man I greatly admire - himself a highly competent scientist who held 37 patents when he died - once said "truth needs no justification - it stands alone". When you were referring to the Professor in your post above, did you mean David Ray Griffin? I have heard some things about him, but have not gone into depth and researched them, partly due to lack of time and partly due to feeling he has done a lot to expose the truth about 9-11.
Foxx
22nd October 2005 - 05:58 PM
| QUOTE | When you were referring to the Professor in your post above, did you mean David Ray Griffin? I have heard some things about him, but have not gone into depth and researched them, partly due to lack of time and partly due to feeling he has done a lot to expose the truth about 9-11.
<br>Uhhhh, no Andrew. Griffin is doing great work, although (like always) I don't agree with 100% everything he says. No, no, no ... I was referring to the 'professor of quantum physics' who can't add on this board.
Great irony in the signature of the other fellow you pointed out. Hehehe !!!
bangskij
22nd October 2005 - 07:43 PM
| QUOTE | If we completely ignore the jet fuel, there is still more than enough burnable material to completely melt every scrap of steel on one of those floors twice over
<br>Now, first, hello everyone, I'm new at the forums but have been reading physorg for years. I'm an artist and not a scientist but use alot of technology and have a general interest.
It may seem terribly naive, but does not the quote above(from Schneibster) imply that the building would collapse if there was *any* kind of fire?
Does not building codes take this into account?
How could such a construction be legally built?
And would it not be insane to do so?
I realize the discussion is heated and I'm not try provoke anyone, but one would assume that a huge skyscraper would be built to withstand intense fire on several floors simultanously, given the difficulty in putting it out and all...
my two cents
adoucette
22nd October 2005 - 08:26 PM
QUOTE (bangskij+Oct 22 2005, 07:43 PM) | QUOTE | If we completely ignore the jet fuel, there is still more than enough burnable material to completely melt every scrap of steel on one of those floors twice over
<br>Now, first, hello everyone, I'm new at the forums but have been reading physorg for years. I'm an artist and not a scientist but use alot of technology and have a general interest.
It may seem terribly naive, but does not the quote above(from Schneibster) imply that the building would collapse if there was *any* kind of fire?
Does not building codes take this into account?
How could such a construction be legally built?
And would it not be insane to do so?
I realize the discussion is heated and I'm not try provoke anyone, but one would assume that a huge skyscraper would be built to withstand intense fire on several floors simultanously, given the difficulty in putting it out and all...
my two cents No, because a fire is normally expected to have a point source of ignition. So the fire starts in one area consuming the fuel in that area and then spreading to the rest of the floor, consuming material as it goes. Thus the contents aren't presumed to be ignited essentially simultaneously across the entire floor. Other aspects, such as fire suppression systems and insulation on trusses are also factored in.
Arthur
Andrew Johnson
22nd October 2005 - 08:26 PM
Hi bangskij, These are obvious questions and, as I proposed with the Free-fall physics, to me the answers are fairly obvious when you consider all factors (i.e. fire alone could not have caused the WTC destruction and demolition). Briefly as mentioned in other posts, your brief analsyis is backed up by events of 1) Plane crashing into Empire State Building (no collapse!!) 2) Meridian Plaza burned on several floors for 18 hours 3) The First Interstate Bank Fire in LA NONE of these buildings came close to collapsing. Details here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
adoucette
22nd October 2005 - 09:48 PM
My bad,
It was late and I missed a part when I was editing it.
I meant to say that we didn't know the amount of fuel consumed prior to the crash or how much was burnt inside the building, so I was going to use the assumption that the burnable weight of the plane WOULD INCLUDE THE FUEL, but we would treat it like all the other material, i.e. 1/4 caloric value of coal. In any case I edited one part but not the other.
But in the light of day, lets take a different tack.
First, lets correct the assumption of the plane's burnable material.
The method you used to calculate this is inconsistant with Aviation practices.
| QUOTE | operating empty 186,000lb
max take-off with fuel & passengers - 387,000
difference - 200,000 lb
allow for maximum fuel...132,730 lb
200,000 - 132,730 ... leaves us with...
a difference of - 67,630 lbs (payload - pass/cargo)
If the plane is half loaded this works out to - 33,815 lbs (payload - pass/cargo).
<br>Airlines don't load their planes based upon the theoretical maximum fuel.
Fuel is first computed based on trip length and reserve.
In this case we know this was ~65,000 lbs
Passengers X 200 lbs is then subtracted giving available CARGO.
In this case the passenger weight would have been ~20,000 lbs
Airlines don't fly with their holds empty. How do you think most mail gets where its going? Fedex might have their own planes but the USPS uses normal commercial carriers. Airlines also run their own cargo operation and X-Country flights are usually fairly full.
So max Cargo weight is Max take off weight - Empty Op Weight - Fuel - Passengers
Or in this case 387,000 - 186,000 - 65,000 - 20,000 or = ~ 116,000 lbs
So, the estimate of 100,000 lbs of burnable material is still reasonable since we know the difference between the empty weight and the empty operating weight is ~15,000 and that is almost all burnable material (paint, carpet, seats, luggage racks etc)
I think the estimate of 15 lbs per sq ft with 1/3 burnable is reasonable.
So add these together and you are still around 630,000 megajoules.
What about the fuel, let's not discount it shall we?
If the plane has 7,000 gallons on board when it impacts and 1/2 of it burns inside the building, and 1/2 of that is on one floor, this adds in another ~25,000 megajoules,
So all told we are in the neigborhood of 650,000 megajoules.
Even if all figures are off by 10% IN THE WRONG WAY, there is still more than enough energy to cause the floor to collapse, if it hadn't been damaged.
How much less would have been necessary for a damaged floor to collapse?
Arthur
Foxx
23rd October 2005 - 06:16 AM
bangskij
23rd October 2005 - 11:21 AM
Fascinating,
it occurs to me; I seem to remember that there were people alive above the fires. For a sustained time. Now, if the fire was really that hot, and hot air rises, wouldn't these people quickly find themselves in an untenable position.
Like, can you see from the video evidence if any of them seems to be suffering from extreme heat. I'd think a 800C fire just below you would melt your shoes at the minimum, burn your lungs...
any comments?
Guest
23rd October 2005 - 03:53 PM
QUOTE (bangskij+Oct 23 2005, 11:21 AM) Fascinating,
it occurs to me; I seem to remember that there were people alive above the fires. For a sustained time. Now, if the fire was really that hot, and hot air rises, wouldn't these people quickly find themselves in an untenable position.
Like, can you see from the video evidence if any of them seems to be suffering from extreme heat. I'd think a 800C fire just below you would melt your shoes at the minimum, burn your lungs...
any comments? Many jumped from the North Tower; this provides evidence that there was fire there. However, I don't believe that there is evidence of people jumping from the South Tower.
adoucette
23rd October 2005 - 05:24 PM
| QUOTE | We can't just ignore the fact that much of the heat produced by the rest of the combustion was in fact venting out of the building to carry away the sooty unburned fuel...and still try to maintain that ALL of the heat contained in those potential fuels went into the steel of one lone floor.
I don't see any calculations of how much of that smoldering fuel was left unburnt at the time of the 'collapse'... nor do I see anyway to accurately even guesstimate what those losses to potential megajoules may have been.
How can we even begin to quantify the losses of potential heat and fuel from these above means?
Nevertheless, although we may not be able to quantify them, we certainly can't just ignore them and come up with equations which disregard such losses.
We can add up all the numbers, and lay them out in a nice looking equations, but the actual facts do not support the theoretical conclusion that there was sufficient heat to render the majority of columns on one floor sufficiently weakened to initiate collapse.
<br>The point is you can't say how much heat WAS generated either, nor do "the actual facts" NOT support the conclusion that there WAS sufficient heat. There are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS to make the conclusion that there was not sufficient heat. Most significantly we don't really know the damage that was caused by the impact.
Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
It also fails the "reasonableness" test, because you are saying the US would not be pissed off "enough" if just two jet planes had been flown into the WTC towers, that they actually had to fall down to get us upset. Hardly likely.
Arthur
chaumatrix
23rd October 2005 - 05:42 PM
thanks all!
metamars
23rd October 2005 - 11:04 PM
| QUOTE | Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
<br>And how many people is that?
Also, one hopes for more quantitative arguments on a physics oriented board....
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
<br>And how many people is that?
Also, one hopes for more quantitative arguments on a physics oriented board....
It also fails the "reasonableness" test, because you are saying the US would not be pissed off "enough" if just two jet planes had been flown into the WTC towers, that they actually had to fall down to get us upset. Hardly likely.
<br>Your definition of "reasonableness" seems uniformed, and certainly subjective. President Roosevelt repeatedly provoked the Germans, presumably to get the US into WW2. Even after the Germans took the bait, and did attack us at sea, it was insufficient to rouse a pacifistic and isolationist American public to outrage sufficient to take the country to war.
From
America Prepares For War
| QUOTE | October 31, 1941: The US destroyer Reuben James was sunk by a U-Boat with the loss of 100 of its crew.
<br>
stallion4
23rd October 2005 - 11:51 PM
| QUOTE | Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
I'd also like to add that with the discovery of the Northwoods documents, we know for a fact that the US government has in the past planned to terrorize its own citizens to use as a pretext for war. This plan would have involved "a huge number of people" as well. What that number is/was can only be guesstimated for those of us not in the know. But if Operation Northwoods would have been carried out, there would have been a massive cover-up, much like the one we're seeing with the ongoing 9-11 cover-up.
The National Security Archive:
Operation Northwoods
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Read the documents here (PDF version):
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Carry on...
Foxx
24th October 2005 - 12:29 AM
| QUOTE | The point is you can't say how much heat WAS generated either, nor do "the actual facts" NOT support the conclusion that there WAS sufficient heat. There are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS to make the conclusion that there was not sufficient heat. Most significantly we don't really know the damage that was caused by the impact.
<br>So, we agree that we can not accurately quantify the precise amount of megajoules ?
Do you mean by "the damage that was caused by the impact"...to the central core column structural damage and that we can't estimate it?
I would agree that we don't really have factual proof of what damages were done to the those 47 massive interior columns... apart from
*eyewitness testimony from survivors who were able to evacuate the upper floors...
*numerous photo and video evidence of the exterior column damages...
*and studies done which attempt to model plausible damage to the central core columns.
As we don't know ourselves the exact interior damage we would need to estimate that somehow.
In order to do that we need to know the actual structure of the central core area. Between the FEMA and NIST reports we are now familiar with the general lay-out of the central core area. This is what NIST says on page lxxx of the NIST NCSTAR 1-2B (Draft)..speaking about the estimated damage to the south tower (WTC 2).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/pg_...russ_damage.jpg
and here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/pg_..._trajectory.jpg
According to the NIST documents this means that approximately 9 columns were severed or heavily damaged (out of 47) in the south tower. That is less than 20%.
Bhazant-Zhou have already told us, (or at least hypotheticized), that it would require the majority of the columns all to fail at once in order for the upper section of building to collapse one whole floor at the same instant and drop that 12' through thin air in order to theoretically commence Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse of the floors... (otherwise known as the Pancaking theory).
NIST also provides us with some details on the core columns regarding the dimensions and lay-out of these. I have transferred this page from pdf to html for ease of downloading... (saves downloading the whole document just to find this one page)...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2BChap1-8Draft.pdf
Getting back to Andrews original presentation of near-free fall 'collapse'...
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf
P.S.(Andrew, I think you need to address the "quicker than free-fall time" in your otherwise excellent slide show ?)
Consider the words of Dr. Griffin...
“If each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took a half second, the collapse of all those floors [in the south tower] would have taken 40 to 47 seconds.”
http://www.vermontguardian.com/national/102005/911.shtml
There's always that darn problem with 'resistance' in basic physics. 
metamars
24th October 2005 - 12:40 AM
| QUOTE | The point is you can't say how much heat WAS generated either, nor do "the actual facts" NOT support the conclusion that there WAS sufficient heat. There are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS to make the conclusion that there was not sufficient heat. Most significantly we don't really know the damage that was caused by the impact.
<br>The often unspoken assumption on the part of FEMA Fairy Tale believers is that if you can initiate collapse, then global collapse is inevitable.
I personally don't believe even a single floor could collapse due to jet impact, plus fire. However, even if you do get a collapse of a floor or two or 10, that in no way means the entire building will collapse.
Local Collapse <> Global Collapse
Has anybody tried to quantify what the implications of a local collapse are (other than myself? and Schneibster?) Of course, I reject the Zhou Bazant overloading figure, since you can derive contradictions from it, as shown in my post.
Elaborating on that calculation, I now attempt to find out (approximately) how many sound unheated floors would collapse given that floor 73 was sound, and 73 and below were not weakened due to fire. That calculation, and this one, grant the FEMA believers with 5 floors worth of free fall, wherein the mass of floors 74 - 111 are considered a solid mass. (so, conceptually, "grab hold of the top of the WTC building, cut out floors 74 - 78, solder it to the top, then let the whole thing go.)
Using the "Schneibster-approved" weight of 450,000 kg per tower, I showed in the previous post that if you accept the Zhou and Bazant's .12 figure for #KE, you have a "force deficit" of easily 60%.
To allow the collpse of a sound floor 73 in my scenario, you need to expend about 2.5 times this, so your #KE needs to be at least .30. Take it to be exactly .30
( I am taking #PE = #KE throughout, though obviously #PE > #KE. )
After crashing through floor 73, you now have m(39) = m(38) + m(floor 73) to act on floor 72. m(39) = (39/111) 450 x 10^6 = 1.58 x 10^8 kg
The addition PE that this mass, falling through 1 floor height, represents is:
#PE = m(39)gh = (1.58 x 10^8)(9.8)(3.79) = 5.87 x 10^9
Note that this is only 29.4% of .7 PE (38)
So, the total energy available to collapse the next floor, floor 72, is
.7 #KE(38) + 5.87 x 10^9
= 2.59 x 10 ^ 10 J
This represents
2.59 10 10 / 2.86 10 10 = 90.6% of the energy available for collapse on the floor above.
I don't have the patience to repeat calculations explicitly, or even to find mathematical shortcuts, other than the following, to get an approximation of how many floors you can collapse before the collapse must cease. Nevertheless, we can approximate the number of floors which will collapse before there is insufficient energy to allow the collapse to proceed is given by n where
(.906)^^n = .3
n = ln(.906) / ln(.3)
= (.0987) / (1.204)
= 12.2
So, even allowing a free fall of 5 floors, by the top 1/3 of the building, we still only have the energy to collapse 12% of the floors.
The main potential flaw of this approach is certainly not ignoring the "inferno" that is claimed to have occurred, but rather that I don't know enough about solid state physics/engineering to know what is the effect of fracturing.
Of course, a rigorous application of solid state phyics might well show that collapse of even 1 sound, unheated floor is impossible merely by droppng 1/3 of a tower through 5 floors....
There's no way at all that you can heat the metal sufficiently to allow a GLOBAL collapse, even if you do have enough energy to allow a local collapse. However, this picture would change if the metal "broke" instead of "bent".
Does anybody have solid facts and/or calculations regarding "bending vs. breaking" of steel? In a real world scenario, the goal would be to figure out how much the vertical beams of each floor would bend before breaking. After breaking, the dissipation of KE would cease until the next floor was impacted.
Foxx
24th October 2005 - 10:19 AM
metamars
I for one, really appreciate your quantifying some of these forces for us. The mathematics you are talking is quite beyond me, but it seems that your numbers absolutely confirm what I and many others 'know', without being able to quantify it - that even IF a normal progressive collapse had begun... the idea that NIST and others promote that this pancaking er... sorry - "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" is like some kind of runaway nuclear reaction flies in the face of basic physics. The idea being promoted, that once started this anomalous process is impossible to stop astounds me. I find this to be one of the most groundbreaking physics developements in history. It is on par with the likes of parting the Red Sea it is so miraculous. Like inventing some kind of perpetual motion machine. It should be studied with great intensity.
What I find even more amazing than the discovery that on 9/11 the laws of physics had been suspended for a number of hours; is how this fable can be so easily quantified to refutation by people like Hoffman, the anonymous Guardian, Jerry Russell, yourself, and others and yet the mainstream engineering community (although they must know for a fact that these basic physics laws have been violated), remain silent. I have visited many forums and the detractors always present the question...
"Where are all the 'academics' who believe this 'nonsense' ? IF there were 'something wrong' don't you think the academics would be standing up to point out the obvious flaws in a quantitative way? All the academics seem to be happy with the Official Story"
I myself am not an academic. Just an average joe. But even I could see just by the cartoon diagrams that Bhazant-Zhou attached to their simple analysis that this progessive collapse (pancaking) was just not possible, and as clearly shown by your posts.
My question is: if the energy budget can so easily be shown to mathematically refute this pancaking theory, then surely the vast majority of academia must recognize this. Why ARE they being so silent on this historic hoax?
I look forward to your response.
| QUOTE | Does anybody have solid facts and/or calculations regarding "bending vs. breaking" of steel? In a real world scenario, the goal would be to figure out how much the vertical beams of each floor would bend before breaking.
<br>I can't give you any quantitative calculations myself , but the bending/breaking of steel (or any other material) has to do with the mechanical properties of the material. Tensile and flexural strengths are the most important to determine these actual numbers. When speaking of structural members the lateral or horizontal members are referred to as 'beams', and the vertical members are referred to as 'columns'. I don't see myself, the relevance to figure out how much the columns would bend before breaking. The forces required to actually break steel columns are astronomically higher than just bending or buckling the steel. Columns are under compressive load, and can buckle under extreme fire conditions but to actually 'bend' them to the breaking point would require enormous sudden impact forces, like maybe a meteorite falling from heaven, or a 150 ton object ( plane) travelling 400 - 500 mph, or some other sudden impacting forces. Otherwise they are more likely to just bend over as happened with most of the columns and beams in the partial collapse of the Edifico Windsor in Spain... Sure, some of the columns 'broke' during this collapse, but in the case of those 'breakages' it was not a case of impact shattering / fracturing but more to the point of almost melting apart when they exceeded their tensile strengths. Excellent photos of this fire...
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
see videos here...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...dsor.fire.1.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
As can be seen by the above videos the collapsing portions obeyed the laws of physics and gravity pulled the works down, it didn't fly apart !!!
The 'problem' (as I see it) with the pancaking theory is, it's not just one or even 75% of the buckled columns you'd have to break. You'd have to 'break' all the columns in that one floor area virtually instantaneously in order to even commence this fairy tale of Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse, and allow for it to begin in a symmetrical fashion. Then instantly compromise ALL columns on the floor below that, etc, etc. (exactly like it is done in controlled demolitions). If all the columns do not break at the same time you would get an asymmetric sloughing-off the above collapsing structure, and at some point it would slide off the sound resisting structure below.
Cheers.
BTW...Here is the way Jerry Russell (Ph.d) explains it (without going into all the attendant numbers)...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Does anybody have solid facts and/or calculations regarding "bending vs. breaking" of steel? In a real world scenario, the goal would be to figure out how much the vertical beams of each floor would bend before breaking.
<br>I can't give you any quantitative calculations myself , but the bending/breaking of steel (or any other material) has to do with the mechanical properties of the material. Tensile and flexural strengths are the most important to determine these actual numbers. When speaking of structural members the lateral or horizontal members are referred to as 'beams', and the vertical members are referred to as 'columns'. I don't see myself, the relevance to figure out how much the columns would bend before breaking. The forces required to actually break steel columns are astronomically higher than just bending or buckling the steel. Columns are under compressive load, and can buckle under extreme fire conditions but to actually 'bend' them to the breaking point would require enormous sudden impact forces, like maybe a meteorite falling from heaven, or a 150 ton object ( plane) travelling 400 - 500 mph, or some other sudden impacting forces. Otherwise they are more likely to just bend over as happened with most of the columns and beams in the partial collapse of the Edifico Windsor in Spain... Sure, some of the columns 'broke' during this collapse, but in the case of those 'breakages' it was not a case of impact shattering / fracturing but more to the point of almost melting apart when they exceeded their tensile strengths. Excellent photos of this fire...
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
see videos here...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...dsor.fire.1.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
As can be seen by the above videos the collapsing portions obeyed the laws of physics and gravity pulled the works down, it didn't fly apart !!!
The 'problem' (as I see it) with the pancaking theory is, it's not just one or even 75% of the buckled columns you'd have to break. You'd have to 'break' all the columns in that one floor area virtually instantaneously in order to even commence this fairy tale of Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse, and allow for it to begin in a symmetrical fashion. Then instantly compromise ALL columns on the floor below that, etc, etc. (exactly like it is done in controlled demolitions). If all the columns do not break at the same time you would get an asymmetric sloughing-off the above collapsing structure, and at some point it would slide off the sound resisting structure below.
Cheers.
BTW...Here is the way Jerry Russell (Ph.d) explains it (without going into all the attendant numbers)...
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it.
The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
<br>http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcont...litionatwtc.htm
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 02:49 PM
QUOTE (stallion4+Oct 23 2005, 11:51 PM) | QUOTE | Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
I'd also like to add that with the discovery of the Northwoods documents, we know for a fact that the US government has in the past planned to terrorize its own citizens to use as a pretext for war. This plan would have involved "a huge number of people" as well. What that number is/was can only be guesstimated for those of us not in the know. But if Operation Northwoods would have been carried out, there would have been a massive cover-up, much like the one we're seeing with the ongoing 9-11 cover-up.
The National Security Archive:
Operation Northwoods
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Read the documents here (PDF version):
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Carry on... 1.) If you read the documents it talks about shooting down drones and mock funerals. NOWHERE does it talk about actually HARMING ANYONE.
2) Even though it was bloodless, it was not approved.
Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 03:34 PM
While doing a little searching, I found this on the WTC construction:
The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
Note the amount of office space is significantly higher than the estimates that were being used, primarily due to the efficient use of the elevator system.
Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 03:40 PM
As far as the "one floor" on fire, this shows that is not true and it also shows that the fire is extremely widespread and pretty much an inferno. What is more, is these fires are on the opposite side of the impact, so we know the plane destroyed much of the support on the side of impact and the fire is obviously working mainly on the other side.  Arthur
metamars
24th October 2005 - 04:15 PM
Foxx wrote:
| QUOTE | The forces required to actually break steel columns are astronomically higher than just bending or buckling the steel. Columns are under compressive load, and can buckle under extreme fire conditions but to actually 'bend' them to the breaking point would require enormous sudden impact forces, like maybe a meteorite falling from heaven, or a 150 ton object ( plane) travelling 400 - 500 mph, or some other sudden impacting forces.
<br>I have assumed this to be the case, but I don't actually know. However, my guess is that every civil engineer in the world knows, or can find out very quickly, and actually present this information in a way understandable to most of us.
I thank you for your kind words, but I don't consider my calculation definitive. It doesn't take into account many factors, though I'm very confident they won't change the overall result.
However, confidence and knowledge are two different things. At the very least, I'd like to see a more thorough model, which may well require a numerical solution. For starters, a modeler could just consider the tower one big column, which is wider at the bottom than the top (I believe by a factor of 2), has such and such a mass distribution, etc.
Ultimately, I'd like to see a computer simulation, which models fires, multiple columns, broken beams and columns due to impact, etc.
As to scientists ignorant of the issues: That is a complex issue, having more to do with human psychology, the culture of science, and government propaganda than any issues purely scientific. I can share this vignette, though:
We have a friend of the family who is a brilliant electrical engineer. He was elected as one of the top 10 EE's in the country back in the 70's, has his own companies, with offices all over the world, etc.
We discussed 911 briefly about a year ago, and I expressed my skepticism of the official story. Unfortunately, I didn't know all that I know now about the collapse. Anyway, he basically thought I was silly, since "the government has looked into this and you can buy a big book on it".
It's not helpful, or even true, to assume that somebody who believes in the FEMA Faity Tale is dumb. The opposite is also true, of course.
My hope is that since science is self-correcting, and since, even though we can't be extremely precise, it appears that the energy needed to drive collapse is at least an order of magnitude greater than the known energy sources (in other words, we can be precise enough to draw firm conclusions), the truth will prevail , at least in the scientific community.
Actually, I hope for more than that, because the utlimate perpetrators seem to have an agenda of perpetual war. I am hoping the Muslim world essentially does one better than Jimmy Walters, and offers a billion dollars to anybody who can prove collapse is possible without an additional source of energy. If the lie is put to the myth, and Americans become aware of who the biggest terrorists are, we may manage to transition to a more peaceful world....
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 04:22 PM
This photo was taken shortly after the second plane struck.  Note the fires appear to be pretty much floor wide. It also appears that ~ 1/3 of the critical exterior columns have been damaged on the impact side. This next photo, take a while later shows the fire spreading:  The next photo, taken a while later shows how immense the fire has become, a red line takes up almost one whole floor, above the impact point, and worse, the fire is on the same side as the damaged columns and it appears to be the most intense by the columns not damaged by the impact. Since the wind is coming in this side of the tower, these flames would not be oxygen starved. This image shows more clearly the damage on the North Tower, the spread of fire on the North tower and the raging fire on the South tower. This is nearing the point of collapse of the South Tower.  This photo is AFTER the South tower had collapsed, so these fires had been burning for some time, One floor appears to be completely consumed with fire and the upper fire (104th floor) appears to be massive.  These pictures clearly show that at no time were the fires "almost out", what they show instead is a steadily INCREASING inferno in both towers. Arthur
Foxx
24th October 2005 - 06:43 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Metamars
Actually, I hope for more than that, because the utlimate perpetrators seem to have an agenda of perpetual war. I am hoping the Muslim world essentially does one better than Jimmy Walters, and offers a billion dollars to anybody who can prove collapse is possible without an additional source of energy. If the lie is put to the myth, and Americans become aware of who the biggest terrorists are, we may manage to transition to a more peaceful world.... [/b]
<br>As I suggested on the million-dollar thread, this would be almost dishonest and actually illogical when you think about it.
NIST has spent over 3 years and 20,000,000 trying to prove this very thing backed with an army of compartmentalized 'researchers'. They could not do it, this is quite clear through their own admissions (even though these admissions are buried amidst volumes of irrelevant details). They set out to 'prove' HOW the towers 'collapsed' and ended up truncating their investigation to the 'initiation' of collapse. Why did they end it there? Because they know (at least the top level gov't appointees) that such a 'disproportionate progressive' collapse can NOT be proven with engineering mathematics. While I basically agree with NIST that all of the factors, computer models, postulated suppositions might very well lead to a partial 'collapse' ... this initiation-of-collapse has widely been propagandized to lull intelligent people to sleep with the mantra that once the collapse is initiated it is inevitable that it will feed itself like some kind of nuclear chain reaction. This is utter nonsense. There are no known physics which can accomplish this in a building collapse. Resistance to the compromised (collapsing) forces just will not allow such a scenario in a building constructed as was the WTC towers (or any other physical structure). This is like promoting de-materialization (in the Star-Trek sense). Resistance, at some point would slough-off the 'broken' falling mass just as in the Madrid partial collapse...
As can be seen in the above picture the building was absolutely burned out. Everything (office contents), which could possibly burn WAS completely incinerated. It took over 24 hours to accomplish this task, and Still only part of the steel framework collapsed. You can see a massive mound of twisted metal debris resting on top of the more sound columns below. Why didn't it collapse those more sound portions progressively to the ground? Because, it is physically impossible. As the weakened upper section began to buckle to the point of failure and give way, even the weight of that falling mass was insufficient to 'pile-drive' its way through the less affected (and therefore stronger) framework below. So what did this falling mass do? Once it reached a certain point, these stonger resisting forces of less compromised columns below the collapse caused the collapse to grind to a halt, (with some portions of the 'broken' collapsing structure asymmetrically sloughing-off over the side which can be seen in the videos). Watch them again...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...dsor.fire.1.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
This concept seems so blatantly simple to me (even though I can't quantify it in numbers), that I am amazed that so many just cannot understand.
No one has to be a structural engineer or a physicist to understand that the collapse of the WTC just absolutely could NOT have happened in the amazing near free-fall time that it did.
Think about what Griffin pointed out. Say such a thing (Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse) were possible. Given the height of the towers even IF every floor could collapse upon the next lower (even stronger) floor and allowing 1/2 second for every column on that floor to 'give-up-the-ghost' instantaneously, it would have taken over 40 seconds for the top to reach the ground. Think of how utterly amazing that is. Think of what it would take even in a wood framed structure to instantly (within 1/2 second) lose ALL support of every, (or at least the vast majority of) 2x4 column in every wall to allow the ceiling to reach the floor level in that time frame !
Bhazant & Zhou are definately wrong in their 'simple analysis'... except for their 'disclaimer' that their whole hypothesis rests on the majority of columns on one floor failing catastrophically at the same instant. Even should we consider that such a catastrophic failure could occur repeatedly at 1/2 second per floor it would still take 40 seconds for the top to reach ground level. This is ~ 4 times times faster than the collapse happened in real life. I don't care what numbers someone comes up with to try to prove that this is theoretically possible. They would have to prove to me through reproducability in the real world that such a theory is even plausible.
Walters (or the muslims) should not be offering money to prove that it can happen. I feel they have it backwards. As Schneibster rightly pointed out - that is an absolutely safe bet. It is like offering a million dollars to the next person who can part the Red Sea! The real 'offer' he should be making is a million dollars to the first person who can show mathematically that such a phenomena is NOT possible. This really should be quite a simple task for those who have civil engineering skills, and the reward would free american engineers from fear of losing their careers..."who cares about that old mundane gov't job anymore... I quit... seeya later", while at the same time... how many muslim civil engineers (working for peanuts a day) do you think would jump at such an opportunity? Under those terms, I think Walters would be a million dollars poorer in no time flat. And once someone proves mathematically what we all know can not happen, the apologists and hiders of the truth would have no way to hide the issue any longer.
Bearing in mind, of course, that all of the above is just my humble opinion.
stallion4
24th October 2005 - 07:50 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 02:49 PM) QUOTE (stallion4+Oct 23 2005, 11:51 PM) | QUOTE | Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
I'd also like to add that with the discovery of the Northwoods documents, we know for a fact that the US government has in the past planned to terrorize its own citizens to use as a pretext for war. This plan would have involved "a huge number of people" as well. What that number is/was can only be guesstimated for those of us not in the know. But if Operation Northwoods would have been carried out, there would have been a massive cover-up, much like the one we're seeing with the ongoing 9-11 cover-up.
The National Security Archive:
Operation Northwoods
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Read the documents here (PDF version):
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Carry on...
1.) If you read the documents it talks about shooting down drones and mock funerals. NOWHERE does it talk about actually HARMING ANYONE.
2) Even though it was bloodless, it was not approved.
Arthur
You're hilarious
Here are a few of the actual excerpts from the Northwoods Document:- Pg 6: 4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
- Pg 8: 3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
- Pg 10: 8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner...
- Pg 10: 8a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
- Pg 10: 8b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled,to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to " sell" the incident.
- Excerpts from the Official Northwoods Documents, 1962
Arthur, are you honestly suggesting that Americans would not have been harmed emotionally and/or physically during this operation??? Are you suggesting that a plan like this is acceptable??? To lie to the citizens of the United States of America by telling them that another country has attacked them, when in truth it was a highly sophisticated lie designed to gain support from them to invade a country that had not attacked the United States???
Sound familiar?
The original reason I posted this document was to demonstrate that plans like this do exist and are very real and that there are people that are hired by governments to carry out nefarious operations such as Northwoods.
So excuses like "Wild conspiracy theories fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off" doesn't wash. Understand? Or would you like to debate this issue further?
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 08:40 PM
QUOTE (stallion4+Oct 24 2005, 07:50 PM) Arthur, are you honestly suggesting that Americans would not have been harmed emotionally and/or physically during this operation??? Are you suggesting that a plan like this is acceptable??? To lie to the citizens of the United States of America by telling them that another country has attacked them, when in truth it was a highly sophisticated lie designed to gain support from them to invade a country that had not attacked the United States???
Sound familiar?
The original reason I posted this document was to demonstrate that plans like this do exist and are very real and that there are people that are hired by governments to carry out nefarious operations such as Northwoods.
So excuses like "Wild conspiracy theories fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off" doesn't wash. Understand? Or would you like to debate this issue further? If you read the document it seems pretty clear they were going to SIMULATE these activities, as in the drone, simulated passenger plane. Now one was going to be hurt and none of the people actually exist, so no mental anquish either. The point is it was suggested and NOT APPROVED. What you are claiming is FAR FAR worse, as innocent people would actually be killed, not to mention several hundred billion dollars worth of economic losses. So, do I think the govt is capable of coming up with disinformation campaigns. Yes. Do I think the govt is capable of executing a plan that calls for killing potentially tens of thousands of US citizens? NO The fact that Northwood, even in its bloodless form, was not approved should give you a better idea of what is "acceptable". It was not, orchestrating 9/11 would be a zillion times LESS acceptable. Arthur
metamars
24th October 2005 - 08:57 PM
| QUOTE | The point is it was suggested and NOT APPROVED.
<br>My understanding is that every last member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed on, but it was rejected by Kennedy and McNamara.
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 09:20 PM
The point is it WAS rejected. Using a rejected proposal, from half a century ago when the US was in the middle of the Cold War, to claim that a zillion times worse scenario would be acted on in 2001 is not logical.
Arthur
metamars
24th October 2005 - 10:23 PM
| QUOTE | The point is it WAS rejected. Using a rejected proposal, from half a century ago when the US was in the middle of the Cold War, to claim that a zillion times worse scenario would be acted on in 2001 is not logical.
Arthur
<br>This is a half-empty, half-full type of issue. Certainly, the Northwoods document doesn't PROVE that a similar plan was approved a century later.
However, IMO, it does show the mindset that can exist in the highest levels of government, and by extension, could have existed in 2001. Thus, it makes conspiracy more plausible.
Perhaps you object to even this observation. Fine. There are tons of other issues and facts to consider. I don't think it's worth anybody getting hung up on, pro or con.
More interesting, from my perspective, is the issue of whether President Rooosevelt really did withhold intelligence from the commanders at Pearl Harbor which would have allowed a more effective defence. We know that Roosevelt was lying when he was campaigning and told the American public something to the effect that "nobody is planning to send your sons overseas to die in a foreign war". We know he was lying because his son has related this to us. Wish I had the exact quotes, but I don't.
You might want to check out "Day of Deceit" by Stinnet.
metamars
24th October 2005 - 10:26 PM
| QUOTE | Certainly, the Northwoods document doesn't PROVE that a similar plan was approved a century later.
<br>sorry, make that about half a century later.
Foxx
24th October 2005 - 10:30 PM
QUOTE These pictures clearly show that at no time were the fires "almost out", what they show instead is a steadily INCREASING inferno in both towers. Hi adoucette. Thanks for those WTC tower fire photos. It is hard to dispute the fires which are clearly visible. The picture below is quite dark (as if it is at night) which I suppose has a tendency to obscure the flames, but I must admit they are certainly visible...  Here's one of the Edifico Windsor in Spain, remember that hi-rise fire... it wasn't too long ago. Very strange physics phenomena seemed to have been happening in Spain at that time because as you can see the flames seem to be shining much more brightly against a dark background ....  It is clear from the picture below that the WTC towers are flaming away like a torch in the sky. Unfortunately, that danged smoke is blocking out the flames in this picture...  Those silly Spaniards... heh. When they put on a raging fire extravanganza they seem to put more money into the glowing flame effect, rather than the smoke effect (as if that's what makes a torch in the sky). Very odd people those Spaniards. They must still be using the old physics of the middle ages.  I'm no fire expert, but doesn't it look like the WTC tower is 'melting' in this next picture, what are those silvery marks around the bottom of the impact hole there? Molten steel running down the side of the building? It is plain to see that even though the building is 'melting' the US is using the latest physics where smoke is the hottest part of a fire, and the flames are not really important at all... or maybe they are using those new invisible flames?  This is much more advanced physics that the old european method of 'melting' steel with fire.  I see that you are just learning about the World Trade Center fires. NIST has produced some much nicer pictures in their latest (Draft for public comment)... like the one below which they cropped and blew up to make it appear that the fires were really raging. This is much more convincing to the uninformed. 
Foxx
24th October 2005 - 10:32 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
As far as the "one floor" on fire, this shows that is not true and it also shows that the fire is extremely widespread and pretty much an inferno.
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...TC_on_fire7.jpg
Yes that one is quite famous and is used often to bolster the idea that there were multi-floor raging infernos in the World Trade Center fires (similar to the Edifico Windsor). But have a look at some facts about this picture...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled_Fire01.html
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 10:45 PM
QUOTE (metamars+) More interesting, from my perspective, is the issue of whether President Rooosevelt really did withhold intelligence from the commanders at Pearl Harbor which would have allowed a more effective defence. <br>Hardly seems likely, I mean, do you think the EFFECTIVENESS of the attack on Pearl Harbor was more important than the ACT of being attacked, whatever the outcome? Had they missed the Arizona and the death count been several thousand less, would that really have made a difference? How about if our scout planes had seen the ships approaching and our carriers in the area provided fighter support to Pearl resulting in almost no damage? I think it was the fact that we were attacked PERIOD that propelled us into war with the Japanese, not the extent of the damage. I have to believe that HAD Roosevelt known the attack was coming, his inclination would have been to protect his military assets. The Japanese had renounced the war ship building agreement years before and were known to have a stronger Pacific fleet, with battle trained men and pilots, shorter supply lines and, having signed a treaty with the Nazis, only one war to fight. Giving them a leg up by allowing battleship row to be turned into so much junk would hardly be a wise choice as a way to enter a world war. Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 11:07 PM
Yes, except it was A VERY BRIGHT, CLOUDLESS DAY in NYC, which MEANS, when shooting into the sky, MOST CAMERAS will UNDEREXPOSE the main subject, which is WHY they appear DARK. On the other hand, the photos of the fire in Spain were taken at night, and just looking at how OVEREXPOSED the street scenes are it is OBVIOUS that these are very LONG exposures, which is WHY the street lights are also FLARING. Now, it is true, that the fire in the tower is more EXTERNAL than the one in the WTC towers, BUT comparisons between the two are USELESS, unless they have SIMILAR construction. Do they? There was no damage to a substantial part of the Spanish structure prior to the fire was there? It doesn't appear so. (I ask because I have never seen these pictures before, so no I have no previous knowledge of this fire) And though its hard to tell from the pictures, it appears to me that the flames are consuming ALL of the upper part of the building, thus LOWERING the structural load on the relatively UNTOUCHED lower part of the building. It also appears to be a somewhat pointy shaped building, where the mass at the top floors would be a much less than the lower supporting floors. Was it? You say it burned for 24 hours, about how many hours into it are these pictures taken. The images I posted don't do justice to the originals See them at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.htmlThey show the same intense fire that you claim is only in "cropped" FEMA photos. The difference is these were shot at a longer distance and against a very bright sky, with a building that has an EXTERNAL metal structure that obscure the fire and floors that are a city block in size, thus only a relatively small part of the fire could be seen no matter how large the fire was. Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 11:15 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Oct 24 2005, 10:32 PM) | QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
As far as the "one floor" on fire, this shows that is not true and it also shows that the fire is extremely widespread and pretty much an inferno.
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...TC_on_fire7.jpg
Yes that one is quite famous and is used often to bolster the idea that there were multi-floor raging infernos in the World Trade Center fires (similar to the Edifico Windsor). But have a look at some facts about this picture...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled_Fire01.html
Oh yeah, this photo really shows how "minimal" the fire was:
Right.
My Bad, it was only HALF the floor.
Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 11:41 PM
As it turns out there appears to be little to compare these two fires.
The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side walls. The structure above ground was characterised by two transition floors at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.
The typical floor slab construction was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by RC columns on two sides below 17th Floor level.
The transition floors were formed with solid RC slabs and deep beams. The original facade mullions and transoms were fixed to the steel perimeter columns, and a new facade structure had been added to outside of old facade. The perimeter columns in turn were supported by transition structures at 17th and 3rd Floor levels.
Spanish codes, in common with most continental European codes, place more emphasis on passive control measures than on active measures. The Madrid regional code does not require sprinkler protection for buildings with an evacuation height of less than 100m so active measures were limited to automatic detection and alarm, fire hose reels and a dry riser system.
The building was being refurbished at the time of the fire so we do not know the state of the passive measures in place but from information available it would appear that Edificio Windsor had the following passive protection:
floor by floor compartmentation (typical compartment size 850 m2)
An unspecified fire resistance period for the concrete structure, steel columns protected below 17th Floor, unprotected above that level.
Vertical shafts forming separate compartments
1.0m or 1.5m deep vertical fire protection along the perimeter slab edge.
The control room in the basement of the building registered a fire signal from the 21st Floor at 23:05 on the night of Saturday 12 February 2005.
A time of 16 minutes elapsed between this signal and the call being made to the Fire Brigade - who arrived on site at 23:25. Security personnel claim that a time of 10 – 15 minutes elapsed from Fire Brigade arrival to first fire attack i.e. 30 – 35 minutes after the initial alarm was registered in the control room.
Development of the fire
It appears that the fire fighters used the stairs to reach the 21st Floor. Nothing has been said of their efforts to connect to the dry riser system or its effectiveness in relaying water to the 21st Floor (about 75m above ground). By the time the firemen intervened, fire fighters were not able to control the fire from the inside. By 01:00 they had retreated and adopted a defensive mode; wetting down the facades of adjacent buildings to avoid fire spread.
By about 01:15 the fire had spread to most of the floors above the 21st Floor, resulting in a 10-storey blaze. Soon afterwards the first chunks of facade started falling off, taking the perimeter bay of the RC slab with it in places. The spread of fire downwards was gradual at first, probably due to burning embers dropping through services penetrations, through slab edge openings and through other openings in the concrete slabs caused by core wall expansion.
The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th Floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse.
Arthur
adoucette
24th October 2005 - 11:45 PM
| QUOTE | I'm no fire expert, but doesn't it look like the WTC tower is 'melting' in this next picture, what are those silvery marks around the bottom of the impact hole there? Molten steel running down the side of the building? It is plain to see that even though the building is 'melting' the US is using the latest physics where smoke is the hottest part of a fire, and the flames are not really important at all... or maybe they are using those new invisible flames?
<br>I think those are twisted pieces of the outer frame which are catching the light slightly differently.
Its more obvious in this picture:
Arthur
Foxx
25th October 2005 - 12:14 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 24 2005, 11:45 PM) | QUOTE | I'm no fire expert, but doesn't it look like the WTC tower is 'melting' in this next picture, what are those silvery marks around the bottom of the impact hole there? Molten steel running down the side of the building? It is plain to see that even though the building is 'melting' the US is using the latest physics where smoke is the hottest part of a fire, and the flames are not really important at all... or maybe they are using those new invisible flames?
<br>I think those are twisted pieces of the outer frame which are catching the light slightly differently.
Its more obvious in this picture:
Arthur REALLLY !!!
I never would have guessed.
Thanks for straightening me out there.
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 12:24 AM
Look, I tend to take people literally unless they make it obvious they are kidding.
Considering some of what people post on these boards, how can you do otherwise?
Arthur
metamars
25th October 2005 - 01:17 AM
| QUOTE | I think it was the fact that we were attacked PERIOD that propelled us into war with the Japanese, not the extent of the damage.
<br>I think you missed my earlier post:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I think it was the fact that we were attacked PERIOD that propelled us into war with the Japanese, not the extent of the damage.
<br>I think you missed my earlier post:
Even after the Germans took the bait, and did attack us at sea, it was insufficient to rouse a pacifistic and isolationist American public to outrage sufficient to take the country to war.
From
America Prepares for War
QUOTE
October 31, 1941: The US destroyer Reuben James was sunk by a U-Boat with the loss of 100 of its crew.
<br>
Clearly, the US was attacked by Germany, and the public still wanted no part of war. (Perhaps because it was common knowledge that Roosevelt was provoking them and technically, the Lend-Lease violated neutrality?? I don't know all that much about US history back then. Maybe somebody else can enlighten us.)
Pearl Harbor was not only an attack on the US, it was a BIG attack on the US. If I recall correctly, a day after, about 1 million US men enlisted or tried to enlist.
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 01:38 AM
I did miss your earlier post.
I do think the "sneak" part of the attack was probably an important factor concerning PH, we were not at war with Japan and were not doing anything threatening. The closest the US came to fighting Japan at the time was with the "Flying Tigers", but that was financed by the Chinese.
Unlike PH, the Ruben James was "in the war", it was providing escort duty to a convoy bringing supplies to Britain, the Germans had said that military escorts were fair game, regardless of nationality (partly had to do with the difficulty in identifing with certainty while remaining undetected yourself), so in this case, our troops knew the risk but took it anyway.
So though it caused a little stir in the US, it did not have the same impact as the unprovoked attack in PH, which is what my analogy is about.
It is curious though, had the damage been slight, would we have gone to war?
Not sure, my dad says that by then, the mood of the country was changing, but it was before my time.
Arthur
cortez
25th October 2005 - 02:57 AM
Hi, I've been looking at this debate for a little while, and would like to ask what the puffs of smoke are in the lower floors far below the building falling?  Video link 
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 03:12 PM
While reported on these threads to be "squibs", setting of the "controlled demolition" which supposedly brought down the towers, they obviously aren't.
The building is pretty much identical all the way around. If one squib is visible than others would be too, but they aren't.
Watch a video of a real controlled demolition to see the difference, the explosions are ALWAYS quite evident. If they are big enough to break the inside columns they would blow the glass out on every floor they went off in. They don't.
A more reasonable explanation is that a number of structures ran through the building. A number of these are rigid, like water lines, standpipes and waste lines.
They are also fastened securely, they don't just run through an opening, to control vibration and provide support.
As the top of the building collapses, this would put incredible stress on these fixtures. Is it so hard to believe that here and there one fails below the point of collapse with enough built up strain/pressure to knock a projectile out a window here and there?
I'm sure there are other valid explanations, but having a few random "blow outs" as the structure collapsed is hardly proof that the building was demolished by controlled explosions.
Arthur
cortez
25th October 2005 - 04:52 PM
Gravity-Collapse Explanations Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory. The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib. The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above. The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs. The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would similar pressures across each floor and to successive floors. The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidnece of dust being sucked back into the tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.html---------------- here's a couple of pictures of 'real' controlled demolition squibs and all (for comparison)  
Foxx
25th October 2005 - 05:27 PM
Hi Cortez Many thanks, I had lost that video in my last computer meltdown, (which coincidentally collapsed exactly like the structure in the video) Demolition Waves http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wt...ition_waves.mpgAn excellently written explanation of the piston theory and the anomalous 'dust ejections' you wrote above. Thanks ------------------------------------ adoucette...| QUOTE | Originally posted by Foxx
Thanks for those WTC tower fire photos. It is hard to dispute the fires which are clearly visible. The picture below is quite dark (as if it is at night) which I suppose has a tendency to obscure the flames, but I must admit they are certainly visible...
<br>http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/02w_sm.jpg
Reply...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Foxx
Thanks for those WTC tower fire photos. It is hard to dispute the fires which are clearly visible. The picture below is quite dark (as if it is at night) which I suppose has a tendency to obscure the flames, but I must admit they are certainly visible...
<br>http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/02w_sm.jpg
Reply...
posted by adoucette
Yes, except it was A VERY BRIGHT, CLOUDLESS DAY in NYC, which MEANS, when shooting into the sky, MOST CAMERAS will UNDEREXPOSE the main subject, which is WHY they appear DARK.
<br>I see.
I'm afraid I can't claim to be a photographic expert either. So, you are saying they were dark flames?
I would have thought that the brightness of the flames would have showed up even better under the conditions you mention.
| QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
Now, it is true, that the fire in the tower is more EXTERNAL than the one in the WTC towers, BUT comparisons between the two are USELESS, unless they have SIMILAR construction. Do they?
<br>I'm not quite following. Do you mean that the construction (if dissimilar), would alter the fact of whether the flames appeared externally or would hide inside the structure? If so, I don't think the construction of a building changes fire behaviour to the extent that it would hide from a source of fresh oxygen.
However, granting that the fuel was pushed away from the impact opening, and also that there were broken windows on the debris exit side, where that fuel had piled up, I would think that we would have ideal fire conditions (where that fuel had piled up) to have a great raging fire within minutes bursting forth from those far-side openings. We have an abundance of pre-heated fuel, (from the 5 minute intense jet fuel fire)... we have a huge opening (impact opening) to allow great volumes of fresh air to be sucked in, and as that fire builds the flames will grow. In loose theory this sounds fine, however other factors can affect these 'ideal' fuel conditions.
The heat will look for the easiest path to escape (which will be the openings where the smoke is exiting). This will draw those flames to the opening where heat and smoke is exiting. I think this is because that smoke consists of already pre-heated and (only partially combusted fuel) which, as it escapes towards the exit openings is mixed with even more fresh oxygen creating the ideal fuel.
That's why flames always leap out of windows or openings. The fire is licking up as much of that perfect mix of fuel gases as it can grab before it gets away.
Of course, that is granting that we already have a well burning flaming fire inside.
If the fuel has been compacted into a dense mass then the flames will be small. Although there will plenty of oxygen at the surface of that compacted rubble (fuel), if it is compacted it will not readily penetrate into the dense rubble.
The smoke from that poorly combusting fire then becomes heavily laden with fuel particles incompletely mixing with the right amount of air to create what we generally call a 'raging inferno'. Remembering that:
* the majority of the oxygen will be going towards supporting the 'smouldering' rubble fire.
* these types of fires do not create large volumes of heat
* the smoke produced from these types of fires is dense, oxygen starved, and 'cool' (that is not being heated to the point of flashover)
* there will be little or no flames 'licking the heels' of the exiting fuel gases (smoke).
As is readily apparent in a real raging fire... (example - the Edificio Windsor fire in Spain) Once the fire has reached peak burning conditions - (ample fuel, oxygen, and the correct proportions of each), then always we will see large flames exiting the building as they try to consume the ideally mixed fuel gases exiting as 'smoke'. As in the Edificio Windsor fire these flames can extend for many many floors externally, the flames from the lowest floor combining with flames exiting from floors above to produce flames many stories high. A better example of this is raging forest fires where flames can reach 100' or more above the tree-top level.
This was not apparent in the WTC fires, except in relatively small localized areas where the best fire conditions were met.
Rather than being evidence of a real raging fire the photo below provides ample evidence of the opposite (that this localized fire was a cool burning fire). This is readily shown by the voluminous quantities of unburned fuel gases (smoke) pouring from the exit openings while the flames are barely extending for a story and a half...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
Now, it is true, that the fire in the tower is more EXTERNAL than the one in the WTC towers, BUT comparisons between the two are USELESS, unless they have SIMILAR construction. Do they?
<br>I'm not quite following. Do you mean that the construction (if dissimilar), would alter the fact of whether the flames appeared externally or would hide inside the structure? If so, I don't think the construction of a building changes fire behaviour to the extent that it would hide from a source of fresh oxygen.
However, granting that the fuel was pushed away from the impact opening, and also that there were broken windows on the debris exit side, where that fuel had piled up, I would think that we would have ideal fire conditions (where that fuel had piled up) to have a great raging fire within minutes bursting forth from those far-side openings. We have an abundance of pre-heated fuel, (from the 5 minute intense jet fuel fire)... we have a huge opening (impact opening) to allow great volumes of fresh air to be sucked in, and as that fire builds the flames will grow. In loose theory this sounds fine, however other factors can affect these 'ideal' fuel conditions.
The heat will look for the easiest path to escape (which will be the openings where the smoke is exiting). This will draw those flames to the opening where heat and smoke is exiting. I think this is because that smoke consists of already pre-heated and (only partially combusted fuel) which, as it escapes towards the exit openings is mixed with even more fresh oxygen creating the ideal fuel.
That's why flames always leap out of windows or openings. The fire is licking up as much of that perfect mix of fuel gases as it can grab before it gets away.
Of course, that is granting that we already have a well burning flaming fire inside.
If the fuel has been compacted into a dense mass then the flames will be small. Although there will plenty of oxygen at the surface of that compacted rubble (fuel), if it is compacted it will not readily penetrate into the dense rubble.
The smoke from that poorly combusting fire then becomes heavily laden with fuel particles incompletely mixing with the right amount of air to create what we generally call a 'raging inferno'. Remembering that:
* the majority of the oxygen will be going towards supporting the 'smouldering' rubble fire.
* these types of fires do not create large volumes of heat
* the smoke produced from these types of fires is dense, oxygen starved, and 'cool' (that is not being heated to the point of flashover)
* there will be little or no flames 'licking the heels' of the exiting fuel gases (smoke).
As is readily apparent in a real raging fire... (example - the Edificio Windsor fire in Spain) Once the fire has reached peak burning conditions - (ample fuel, oxygen, and the correct proportions of each), then always we will see large flames exiting the building as they try to consume the ideally mixed fuel gases exiting as 'smoke'. As in the Edificio Windsor fire these flames can extend for many many floors externally, the flames from the lowest floor combining with flames exiting from floors above to produce flames many stories high. A better example of this is raging forest fires where flames can reach 100' or more above the tree-top level.
This was not apparent in the WTC fires, except in relatively small localized areas where the best fire conditions were met.
Rather than being evidence of a real raging fire the photo below provides ample evidence of the opposite (that this localized fire was a cool burning fire). This is readily shown by the voluminous quantities of unburned fuel gases (smoke) pouring from the exit openings while the flames are barely extending for a story and a half...
By adoucette
"Oh yeah, this photo really shows how "minimal" the fire was:"
<br>
As can be seen NIST has kindly added floor numbers at the lower left, from which we can determine, these flames appear to be coming (for the most part) from floor 96, and barely extending to floor 97. Further evidence that this particular localized fire was not burning at optimal conditions is the fact that if you examine the fire maps and time lines provided by NIST...
( http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled_Fire01.html )... it is clearly shown that this particular fire burned out in approximately one hour and had moved away from this location. We can therefore conclude that either...
*There was little fuel to burn in that particular location, or...
*The fuel that was there was compacted to less than ideal oxygen-mixing conditions and the fire spread to other areas where there was better combustion conditions... leaving the compacted rubble fire in that corner to smoulder, produce large volumes of sooty smoke, and little to no flame.
adoucette / Arthur (which do you prefer?), I have saved your above post from where I have taken the first quote, and will attempt to address your other issues later. In the meantime, I have put together a notated picture of the Edificio Windsor which you can study in context with the text from your quoted article which I hope will clarify some of the terms you have emphasized in bold. The article you quote from is confusing in the use of these terms, however upon examination of my notated picture, I think you will find that the construction of the Madrid building was a 'tube within a tube' design (very similar in construction to the WTC towers)... the only significant difference being that the core columns in the Madrid building were steel reinforced concrete, whereas in the WTC towers there was no concrete surrounding the steel columns...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html .
If anyone sees any errors in the above, please feel free to point them out.
Thanks
Andrew Johnson
25th October 2005 - 07:07 PM
Adoucette and Foxx,
You are generally re-covering points made in earlier posts - the same points and counterpoints are being reposted. The basic issue, to me, is this (again):
The towers collapsed at near freefall time - perhaps with a 10% margin of error.
Given this error margin, what allows 100's of feet ot steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete 10% slower than it falls through air? Even by its own description, the pancake collapse does not account for the *speed* - softening and cracking of 6 or 7 floors - even 20 floors of beams would simply not result in a *simultaneous* failure of all supporting structures. A progressive collapse, JUST possibly, but it would be MUCH slower. This is a simple, basic observation - supported by video evidence from multiple sources and it supported by well-qualified witness testimony. Explosives - and lots of them were involved. Remember WTC 7 didn't suffer a pancake collapse - nothing hit it to cause a weakening - so that theory can't even be applied. Watch the WTC 7 video. HOW can a fire cause the collapse like that? WHY do Silverstein's statements about the building and FEMA's report not even come close to agreeing? It's crazy. (And before anyone says it, fire departments don't demolish 47 story buildings).
Thanks for reading.
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 07:33 PM
I would say their construction was somewhat similar, but the key difference being the use of RC columns both in the center and below the 17th floor on the sides. It is intersting to note that where it had a similar construction (above the 17th floor) using just steel columns for external support, there the floors collapsed, while the RC center stood.
Says alot about the value of RC columns in a fire situation, which of course the WTC didn't use.
Arthur
Either Arthur, my name, or adoucette, my id, is fine, as long as another Arthur doesn't start posting.
metamars
25th October 2005 - 07:56 PM
| QUOTE | I don't have the patience to repeat calculations explicitly, or even to find mathematical shortcuts, other than the following, to get an approximation of how many floors you can collapse before the collapse must cease. Nevertheless, we can approximate the number of floors which will collapse before there is insufficient energy to allow the collapse to proceed is given by n where
(.906)^^n = .3
n = ln(.906) / ln(.3)
= (.0987) / (1.204)
= 12.2
<br>This should read
(.906)^^n = .3
n = ln(.3) / ln(.906)
= (1.204) / (.0987)
= 12.2
a_ht
25th October 2005 - 08:01 PM
nt
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Oct 25 2005, 07:07 PM) Adoucette and Foxx,
You are generally re-covering points made in earlier posts - the same points and counterpoints are being reposted. The basic issue, to me, is this (again):
The towers collapsed at near freefall time - perhaps with a 10% margin of error.
Given this error margin, what allows 100's of feet ot steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete 10% slower than it falls through air? Even by its own description, the pancake collapse does not account for the *speed* - softening and cracking of 6 or 7 floors - even 20 floors of beams would simply not result in a *simultaneous* failure of all supporting structures. A progressive collapse, JUST possibly, but it would be MUCH slower. This is a simple, basic observation - supported by video evidence from multiple sources and it supported by well-qualified witness testimony. Explosives - and lots of them were involved. Remember WTC 7 didn't suffer a pancake collapse - nothing hit it to cause a weakening - so that theory can't even be applied. Watch the WTC 7 video. HOW can a fire cause the collapse like that? WHY do Silverstein's statements about the building and FEMA's report not even come close to agreeing? It's crazy. (And before anyone says it, fire departments don't demolish 47 story buildings).
Thanks for reading. I don't buy your analysis of the towers falling within 10% of freefall time. I don't recall anyone showing how S's calculations were wrong | QUOTE | d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia),
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. Gee, that's almost a quarter of the height it already fell! And we haven't even made it to ELEVEN seconds yet; my goodness, it could have fallen MORE THAN TWICE ITS HEIGHT in that additional four seconds! Well, what do you know. So sure, you betcha, the time for it to fall three and a half times its own height is REALLY, REALLY CLOSE to the free-fall time, right? My goodness, it's so close I can barely see the difference! Only THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS HEIGHT, what do you know.
<br>Or that NIST's estimates of 12 seconds were wrong.
The problem is real simple, I've yet to see an analyis of the actual speed of the fall, which YOU COULD DO from the video footage, which WOULD show the rate of fall related to a free fall. Every "conspiracy" starts with this minimal time as a starting point, when the actual time is always going to be an estimate due to the dust cloud. BUT, since you COULD do an actual comparison of the RATE of acceleration but have not done so, I presume it is because it doesn't support your theory.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Arthur
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 08:42 PM
I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC.
Is there a reasonably consistent theory as to WHY we would do so?
If one makes the assumption that we did then I take it the following are logical assumptions:
The Govt either knew of or was behind the hijackings.
The Govt either knew when or approx when the hijackings would take place.
The Govt installed significant numbers of explosives and associated wiring into the WTC1, 2 and 7 prior to 9/11
The Govt installed these under some ruse so as to not draw suspicion to the nature of all the boxes it was installing on the supporting structure of the WTC, nor the wiring.
The Govt installed these such that after installation their actual purpose could not be ascertained.
The Govt came up with some "alternate" explanation to satisfy building management of the purpose of all of these boxes and wiring.
The wiring and control system was structured such that it would still work after the WTC was hit anywhere by a 757 and after the structure had burned uncontrollably for a decent period of time.
The black boxes would have to be self powered in that a central source of power could not be assumed.
The black boxes would have to be "On" from the time they were set up, which would necessitate a reasonable size power supply.
The black boxes would have to be set off via radio transmission as no physical wiring would be possible.
The transmission would need to be "highly secure" such that accidental tripping would not be a concern, yet they would have to still work in an environment with potentially a lot of other transmissions and other RFI noise.
The person setting off the black boxes would have to be in a safe location that had good visual position to see both towers.
The person setting off the black boxes would need an independent power supply as local power could not be assured.
The transmitter would have to be strong enough to send a good signal to all receivers with little chance of missed signal.
The black boxes (thousands of them I presume) were of a nature that if their parts were discovered in the wreckage that their purpose would not raise suspicion.
The blasts were further "directed" so that few if any visible clues would be generated even though hundreds if not thousands of these explosives were going off in a very set pattern.
Though the WTC were clearly demolished by the jets and ensuing fires, and the people above the impact zones were doomed, there was some additional reason for them to collapse the towers.
Since Jets WERE used against the WTC, the conspiracy of not using a Jet for the Pentagon seems mutually exclusive. If the US was behind the Jets into the WTC it makes no sense to use a cruise missile against the Pentagon.
Just checking to see if these are logical assumptions from the "we did it" crowd.
Arthur
Foxx
25th October 2005 - 10:07 PM
| QUOTE | Posted by Andrew Johnson
The towers collapsed at near freefall time - perhaps with a 10% margin of error.
Given this error margin, what allows 100's of feet ot steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete 10% slower than it falls through air? Even by its own description, the pancake collapse does not account for the *speed* - softening and cracking of 6 or 7 floors - even 20 floors of beams would simply not result in a *simultaneous* failure of all supporting structures. A progressive collapse, JUST possibly, but it would be MUCH slower. This is a simple, basic observation - supported by video evidence from multiple sources and it supported by well-qualified witness testimony. Explosives - and lots of them were involved.[/b]
<br>Hi Andrew. It is good that you keep bringing the thread back to the main point which is irrefutable. The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable and absolute solid proof in-and-of itself that the buildings did not suffer any form of progressive collapse, simply because the basic physics principle of resistance refutes it.
Hoffmans energy sink calculations related to the dust clouds reinforces that mathematically from a different perspective.
Schneibster took a nonsensible crack at refuting Hoffman's calcs and failed.
We still await someone from officialdom to refute the irrefutable, but obviously we will be waiting til hell freezes over before that happens because it can't be done.
I think adoucette has become essentially the 'spokesperson for officialdom' because I don't see anyone else stepping up to support that position.
As communicating on the internet leaves us all blind to subtle human interactions such as facial expressions and tone of voice it is quite difficult to pick up clues about the true 'motives' of those we are communicating with outside of their black & white words.
Is 'adoucette' paid to speak about his viewpoints... or is he just genuinely interested in the subject at hand... or is he just playing 'devils advocate'? We really have no way of determining that.
As we all know, these dialogues related to events of 9/11 have a way of going about in circles.
It is certainly obvious to me that regardless of fires, structural damage, or a combination of those factors, such peripherals can NOT account for the near free-fall, symmetrical, explosive, squib-attended 'collapse' of those towers.
Nevertheless the powerful propaganda myth which has deluded a good percentage of the population is based upon these 'fire and structural' peripherals, so in seeking to convince (de-programme) those who have been led astray with the powerful psyopts of 'FIRE & STRUCTURAL' damages, I think we need be ready to show how those also are impossible to have even plausibly have contributed to this near free-fall collapse.
FEMA, NIST, and the mainstream media backed by powerful forces have hypnotized the masses into the belief that these fire and structural peripherals 'just might' somehow... in some unexplainable way... explain why those buildings fell down, yet we know that is not possible quite simply due to the near free-fall rate of collapse. Topics will digress, but we need to every few pages come back to the essential point of this thread.
Threads like this need to carry on, openly in as many places as they can be to counteract the powerful lie which has been propagated by 'officialdom'. When intelligent debates can be fostered without acrimony and name-calling, those sitting on the fence will see where the truth lies in this issue
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Posted by Andrew Johnson
The towers collapsed at near freefall time - perhaps with a 10% margin of error.
Given this error margin, what allows 100's of feet ot steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete 10% slower than it falls through air? Even by its own description, the pancake collapse does not account for the *speed* - softening and cracking of 6 or 7 floors - even 20 floors of beams would simply not result in a *simultaneous* failure of all supporting structures. A progressive collapse, JUST possibly, but it would be MUCH slower. This is a simple, basic observation - supported by video evidence from multiple sources and it supported by well-qualified witness testimony. Explosives - and lots of them were involved.[/b]
<br>Hi Andrew. It is good that you keep bringing the thread back to the main point which is irrefutable. The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable and absolute solid proof in-and-of itself that the buildings did not suffer any form of progressive collapse, simply because the basic physics principle of resistance refutes it.
Hoffmans energy sink calculations related to the dust clouds reinforces that mathematically from a different perspective.
Schneibster took a nonsensible crack at refuting Hoffman's calcs and failed.
We still await someone from officialdom to refute the irrefutable, but obviously we will be waiting til hell freezes over before that happens because it can't be done.
I think adoucette has become essentially the 'spokesperson for officialdom' because I don't see anyone else stepping up to support that position.
As communicating on the internet leaves us all blind to subtle human interactions such as facial expressions and tone of voice it is quite difficult to pick up clues about the true 'motives' of those we are communicating with outside of their black & white words.
Is 'adoucette' paid to speak about his viewpoints... or is he just genuinely interested in the subject at hand... or is he just playing 'devils advocate'? We really have no way of determining that.
As we all know, these dialogues related to events of 9/11 have a way of going about in circles.
It is certainly obvious to me that regardless of fires, structural damage, or a combination of those factors, such peripherals can NOT account for the near free-fall, symmetrical, explosive, squib-attended 'collapse' of those towers.
Nevertheless the powerful propaganda myth which has deluded a good percentage of the population is based upon these 'fire and structural' peripherals, so in seeking to convince (de-programme) those who have been led astray with the powerful psyopts of 'FIRE & STRUCTURAL' damages, I think we need be ready to show how those also are impossible to have even plausibly have contributed to this near free-fall collapse.
FEMA, NIST, and the mainstream media backed by powerful forces have hypnotized the masses into the belief that these fire and structural peripherals 'just might' somehow... in some unexplainable way... explain why those buildings fell down, yet we know that is not possible quite simply due to the near free-fall rate of collapse. Topics will digress, but we need to every few pages come back to the essential point of this thread.
Threads like this need to carry on, openly in as many places as they can be to counteract the powerful lie which has been propagated by 'officialdom'. When intelligent debates can be fostered without acrimony and name-calling, those sitting on the fence will see where the truth lies in this issue
Posted by adoucette
The problem is real simple, I've yet to see an analyis of the actual speed of the fall, which YOU COULD DO from the video footage, which WOULD show the rate of fall related to a free fall. Every "conspiracy" starts with this minimal time as a starting point, when the actual time is always going to be an estimate due to the dust cloud. BUT, since you COULD do an actual comparison of the RATE of acceleration but have not done so, I presume it is because it doesn't support your theory.
<br>I think you are missing the point, adoucette. You can't compare the rate of collapse with free-fall and simple say, "well it may have been 6 seconds longer, or even 40 seconds longer that the actual rate of free-fall through thin air". We are talking about a solid structure falling through itself at NEAR the rate of free-fall. As for myself, I could not believe that it would be possible for the building to fall at 3 times the rate of pure unimpeded free fall. The manner in which the building was constructed just would not allow it to fall ANYWHERE near free-fall. Even IF the collapsing floors could fall at that speed there is no way on earth the massive core structure could have disintegrated at that speed. And, to be honest, I am being conservative to believe that such a 'perfect' demolition could have been achieved by an expert conventional demolitions team. However the fact remains the buildings disappeared in seconds. Even should you allow for 15 - 20 seconds ! Simply Not possible according to physics. If you really believe so, Mr Walters is waiting to hand you a check for a million bucks.
Watch the video again...
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wt...ition_waves.mpg
Watch it over a few times until you can really see what is occuring and the speed at which it is occuring.
WTC 7 was almost half as high. Why didn't it follow the same pattern of destruction?
I think there is a common misconception that both the towers and # 7 fell due to same cause. They were completely different demolitions.
WTC 7 was an IMPLOSIVE demolition...
The towers were EXPLOSIVE demolitions...
let's not confuse the two and lump them together as the same phenomena.
anyway... just my .02 cents worth.
adoucette
25th October 2005 - 11:40 PM
| QUOTE | You can't compare the rate of collapse with free-fall and simple say, "well it may have been 6 seconds longer, or even 40 seconds longer that the actual rate of free-fall through thin air". We are talking about a solid structure falling through itself at NEAR the rate of free-fall. As for myself, I could not believe that it would be possible for the building to fall at 3 times the rate of pure unimpeded free fall. The manner in which the building was constructed just would not allow it to fall ANYWHERE near free-fall. Even IF the collapsing floors could fall at that speed there is no way on earth the massive core structure could have disintegrated at that speed.
<br>Well when you consider that the initial free falling weight was equal to, what, 15 stories at a minimum + the Top Hat structure, how much resistance do you expect the floor to put up?
What appears clear is the initial collapse occurs at the level of impact in both cases, clearly explosives on those floors were not the cause, right?
It appears to me, and I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer, that the weak point is where the beams attach to the outside columns. It would appear that these would fail almost immediately with the kind of kinetic forces we are talking about.
I have not looked this massive center column you refer to, but I will. I thought that that it just supported gravity loads, which, I would think would mean the column at the upper floors would not be that massive, as these are static loads.
What does seem kind of obvious is one only has to deal with the forces on a few of the upper floors (below the impact point), if they fail immediately the rest stand no chance.
If they offer resistance, which equates to time, even then, as you progress downward the force just keeps increasing which would decrease the time to failure.
If the top floors only last for a fraction of a second, it would appear that you would quickly get to immediate failure, which would mean virtually no time delay as you progressed down the structure.
Again, I'm not a structural engineer, and this is just my logical reasoning.
I don't get paid to post here, the idea is simply foolish, who WOULD get paid for this?
Arthur
Foxx
26th October 2005 - 04:30 AM
| QUOTE | Posted by adoucette
Well when you consider that the initial free falling weight was equal to, what, 15 stories at a minimum + the Top Hat structure, how much resistance do you expect the floor to put up?
<br>There was no initial free-falling weight. In order for that to happen virtually ALL central core columns AND perimeter columns would have to fail catastrophically at the same time. Remember Bhazant-Zhou? Their theory has been disproven long ago. Metamars recently (pg 11 - his calculations are there), showed how their theory was contradictory...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Posted by adoucette
Well when you consider that the initial free falling weight was equal to, what, 15 stories at a minimum + the Top Hat structure, how much resistance do you expect the floor to put up?
<br>There was no initial free-falling weight. In order for that to happen virtually ALL central core columns AND perimeter columns would have to fail catastrophically at the same time. Remember Bhazant-Zhou? Their theory has been disproven long ago. Metamars recently (pg 11 - his calculations are there), showed how their theory was contradictory...
Since I can use Zhou's paper to contradict what he is trying to show, I don't think it's of much value. (If I've made an error, don't be bashful about pointing it out.) Furthermore, I'm very skeptical that his approach can even tell us anything useful.
<br>I have shown by their very words that their theory is wrong (pg 14).
The NIST documents disprove their theory.
There WAS NO instantaneous 'free-fall' drop of the upper section onto the lower section resulting in tremendous dynamic forces being 'dropped' upon the lower section. That is a Fairy Tale.
Even IF you could somehow magically make this happen (the destruction of all columns on one floor)... for example, (like Bhazant-Zhou stated) "with explosives"...
even THAT would not provide enough dynamic force to initiate this 'chain-reaction' of pancaking right down to the ground.
Lets pretend you blew out (explosively demo'd) all the columns instantaneously at the impact zone (core and perimeter) so that the top portion of building falls on the lower, this would lead to great destruction to the top of the still intact lower portion of the building, but (as metamars said... at some point that collapse will grind to a halt just as in the Edificio Windsor collapse).
I believe metamars provided some calculations to show that the process must mathematically cease long before collapsing to the ground (Pg 15), without the input of more energy.
Where did that energy come from?
| QUOTE | It appears to me, and I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer, that the weak point is where the beams attach to the outside columns. It would appear that these would fail almost immediately with the kind of kinetic forces we are talking about.
<br>Neither am I a certified structural engineer, but your above idea (as far as I can see) is based upon some misunderstanding of the construction of the towers. This does not surprise me. I do structural design (not in buildings, but in another field), and 'they' had me fooled for about 2 years. Why? Simply because I did not take the time to look into the actual stucture of the building. I had no 'need' to. I bought the fairy tale 'hook, line, and sinker' from day 1. I believed what NOVA told me. It was NOVA, for goodness sakes! I had no reason to believe that such a respected program would lie to me. Given all the lies (whether intended or not) that mainstream media fed the populace it is easy to buy this pancaking fairy tale. I have been collecting some history on how the media has misrepresented the actual structure of the building. It's a half dozen pages or so, but if you are bored and like to read then, perhaps you'd like to take a look... The links there are not to a bunch of 'so-called' kook conspiracy sites, I have gleaned it all from mainstream media.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | It appears to me, and I am no structural engineer, I'm a software designer, that the weak point is where the beams attach to the outside columns. It would appear that these would fail almost immediately with the kind of kinetic forces we are talking about.
<br>Neither am I a certified structural engineer, but your above idea (as far as I can see) is based upon some misunderstanding of the construction of the towers. This does not surprise me. I do structural design (not in buildings, but in another field), and 'they' had me fooled for about 2 years. Why? Simply because I did not take the time to look into the actual stucture of the building. I had no 'need' to. I bought the fairy tale 'hook, line, and sinker' from day 1. I believed what NOVA told me. It was NOVA, for goodness sakes! I had no reason to believe that such a respected program would lie to me. Given all the lies (whether intended or not) that mainstream media fed the populace it is easy to buy this pancaking fairy tale. I have been collecting some history on how the media has misrepresented the actual structure of the building. It's a half dozen pages or so, but if you are bored and like to read then, perhaps you'd like to take a look... The links there are not to a bunch of 'so-called' kook conspiracy sites, I have gleaned it all from mainstream media.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
I have not looked this massive center column you refer to, but I will. I thought that that it just supported gravity loads, which, I would think would mean the column at the upper floors would not be that massive, as these are static loads.
What does seem kind of obvious is one only has to deal with the forces on a few of the upper floors (below the impact point), if they fail immediately the rest stand no chance.
<br>sigh... where does this thinking come from ?
Coastal
26th October 2005 - 04:31 AM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 20 2005, 07:58 PM) You're funny, Foxx. Are you seriously trying to push this horsepucky on a PHYSICS web site? And you think you're not going to come across anyone who knows better? Hee hee, boy have I got news for you. Heh..... Foxx has always suffered from delusions of relevance.... ....not to mention his other assorted delusions.
metamars
26th October 2005 - 07:39 AM
| QUOTE | There WAS NO instantaneous 'free-fall' drop of the upper section onto the lower section resulting in tremendous dynamic forces being 'dropped' upon the lower section. That is a Fairy Tale.
<br>Yes, but it (free-fall) is a smaller Fairy Tale than the Global Collapse Fairy Tale. A priori, I really don't know if a free fall of the upper part of a WTC tower could cause a global collapse of the lower part. (Of course, as Hoffman has pointed out, even if this were possible, it in no way would explain the collapse of the top part of the building. But one fairy tale at a time!)
If you can show that even granting the smaller Fairy Tale, the larger Fairy Tale still will not occur, that will shed light on just how unlikely the larger Fairy Tale is.
Also......
I've been thinking about the real-world result of the smaller Fairy Tale (i.e., Free Fall drop of the top.) Consider....
If you take a wire coat hanger, and press in the ends, it tends to bend toward the middle. Ditto a strand of spaghetti.
While assuming a floor by floor collapse accords with what was actually observed, in the real world I believe that if we tried to kick off the collapse by a 5 floor free fall, and if the top floor that we were dropping onto could "absorb" the blow in a symmetrical fashion, then what we would have observed is bending of the entire WTC building, more towards the middle. Since the columns got stronger towards the bottom, this would shift the maximum of the bending displacement more towards the top.
Precisely figuring out where the maximum of the bending would occur depends, of course, on the details.
In other words, I made the unspoken assumption that the bottom floors of the WTC building were infinitely strong, with the exception of the topmost "sound" floor, floor 73. After floor 73 collapsed, I then assumed that floor 72 was instantly reduced to it's real strength, but floors below it remained infinitely strong, etc. ( Let nobody say that I'm not trying hard to humor Mr. FEMA. )
Anyway, what is of greater interest is, what would a more realistic scenario like this tell us about the "collapse zone". In other words, if you actually simulated this on a computer , you probably would not get a floor by floor collapse, starting at the 'maximum bend floor', but instead would get a collapse of, say, a 4 floor region centered perhaps 1/3 of the way down ( ie., floor 49).
Well, very roughly speaking, you have a "floor collapse PE budget" of .30 PE(38) . So, again, very roughly speaking, if your collapse zone is 4 floors, no member of which absorbs more than .30PE(38), then you will get a kink, but not a collapse. The sum of the vertical crunching of these 4 floors will be less than the height of a single floor. But you would not get the complete collapse of even a single floor.
Andrew Johnson
26th October 2005 - 10:14 AM
Adoucette and others,
The "WHY" questions are of course very important. Here we move from Physics perhaps into Psychology. One very big question which relates to the "why" is as follows:
1) Sept 11th there are the attacks
2) Only about 7 weeks later (25th Oct 2001), the Patriot Act is passed.
The document for this is over 1000 pages long. Does it seem credible to readers that government lawyers and teams could have prepared and agreed such a long and complicated document in this period of time (and yes, many people would automatically say: "Well of course - it was an emergency, so they had to work quickly" and, of course, I cannot prove it one way or the other, hence it isn't a physics issue). However, do you think all the members of Congress actually sat down and read every page before voting for it? Again, it's possible, but is it likely?
The proof of the use of explosives and the situation with the partiot act seem to show that a government or "para-government" agenda was at work. Events since that time only serve to support this "agenda" hypothesis (not forgetting the freefall proof is not a hypothesis).
frater plecticus
26th October 2005 - 11:00 AM
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FELLAS. THIS IS A GREAT DEBATE. WITH REGARDS TO THE PATRIOT ACT, HERE´S A LITTLE CONTEXT The anthrax disruption of Congress allowed the US PATRIOT act to pass without it even being read It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." "the F word" (fascism) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/nov202001.htmlLeahy asked Ashcroft by what authority had he decided - on his own and without judicial review - to nullify the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He asked for an explanation and some description of the procedural safeguards that Ashcroft would put in place. He asked Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary committee and to respond in writing by November 13. His answer came a little late. On November 16, Patrick Leahy received an anthrax letter. And, as of this press time, Ashcroft has not responded in writing. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992265Anthrax attack bug "identical" to army strain 19:00 09 May 02 NewScientist.com news service The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory. The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared. But New Scientist can reveal that the two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland. The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations. April 8, 2002 Anthrax and the Agency: Thinking the Unthinkable By Wayne Madsen http://www.counterpunch.org/madsenanthrax.htmlNow that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has officially put the anthrax investigation on a back burner, it is time for Americans to think the unthinkable: that the FBI has never been keen to identify the perpetrator because that perpetrator may, in fact, be the U.S. Government itself. Evidence is mounting that the source of the anthrax was a top secret U.S. Army laboratory in Maryland and that the perpetrators involve high-level officials in the U.S. military and intelligence infrastructure. X: ANTHRAX | QUOTE | The anthrax incidents of October 2001 must be regarded as an integral part of the entire
9/11 operation. The 9/11 terror attacks were highly effective in terrorizing urban
populations, since no one knew when another city might be struck, and with what means.
But what of the vast suburbs, and what of rural America? Here kamikaze aircraft, poison
gas and dirty bombs were hardly likely. But everyone in the country had a mailbox, and
now that mailbox could become the delivery system for a deadly disease. Even the most
humble and obscure person living in the most remote location could never be sure that a
piece of junk mail in the letterbox had not brushed up against an envelope teeming with
lethal anthrax spores. The most harmless daily routine, that of checking the mailbox,
suddenly became a tense encounter with the world of biological warfare.
The anthrax attacks also provided a most welcome pretext for the Bush administration
and the FBI to scale down and to slow down the ongoing probes into 9/11. The anthrax
letters provided a reason to re-assign FBI agents to the new danger, before they got
anywhere near unearthing the explosive secrets of 9/11. On October 10, FBI assets were
shifted away from the 9/11 investigation with the explanation that they were needed for
the anthrax emergency.
At the same time the anthrax attacks, if properly regarded, can become the Achilles heel
of the entire 9/11 operation, since it is here that the cause and effect relationship reaching
into the secure weapons labs and military facilities of the US federal government is the
most obvious. Anthrax cannot be synthesized by a bunch of rag-heads in a distant cave.
Weaponized anthrax can only be obtained at the US Army’s biological weapons facility
at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and at a very few other centers of the same type controlled by
other governments. The existence of weaponized anthrax is ipso facto a strong case for
US government collusion in terror attacks on this country.
The anthrax cases also provide a case study in FBI obstruction of justice. After the
anthrax letters were used as a pretext for paring down the 9/11 searches, the agents so reassigned
accomplished virtually nothing. For a long time the bureau pretended that any
microbiologist could have been the killer. But the pool of potential anthrax suspects was
of course much smaller – it numbered in the dozens, or less. But, in order to define a
realistic suspect pool, the FBI would have had to admit that the most likely source of the
anthrax attacks was the government labs themselves, and that was something the FBI
clearly did not want to do, lest this revelation be projected backwards onto 9/11. After a
while Stephen Hatfill, a supposedly disgruntled former biowar researcher with a sinister
resume and opinions, and thus a probable diversionary scapegoat, was identified as a
person of interest. He was vilified by FBI leakers, but never indicted. The FBI made a
Potemkin show of an investigation by draining a pond near Frederick, Maryland, but
Hatfill was never charged.
We may also note in passing that the US government response to the anthrax cases
pointed up the extent of oligarchical stratification in this society. Bush and the White
House staff started taking Cipro, an antidote to anthrax, before the attacks even started.
Members of Congress and congressional staffers got Cipro as soon as anthrax letters were
found on Capitol Hill, and their offices were shut down instantly. In the case of black
postal workers, the Postal Service expected them to keep working in tainted facilities,
while at the same time there was a marked reluctance to give out free Cipro to these
workers. The head of the USPS, a Bush appointee, said that any criticism of how he ran
his agency amounted to aid and comfort for terrorists.
We cannot exclude the hypothesis that the anthrax cases were intended to become a much
larger epidemic, one that might have claimed thousands of lives rather than just a few.
Finally, in the anthrax cases, we have a prima facie case for political targeting. The first
recipients of anthrax letters were a tabloid newspaper which had been prominent in
publicizing the disorderly and at times illegal conduct of Bush 43’s two substanceabusing
daughters. Other recipients, like Senators Daschel and Leahy, were possible
sources of opposition to the Patriot Act and other liberticide measures demanded by Bush
and Ashcroft.
Between October 10 and October 11, just one week after the first case of anthrax had
been reported, the FBI contacted the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa. For seventy
years this university had maintained a comprehensive repository of samples of every
known strain of anthrax pathogen. This university was furthermore the source which
provided samples of anthrax pathogen to researchers seeking cures, and also to labs
seeking to weaponize the pathogen. Immediately after this phone call by the FBI, the
University of Iowa destroyed the Ames anthrax repository. While it is not difficult to
imagine the cover stories the FBI might have used to obtain this result, it is also clear that
the Ames repository could have been the key to definitively solving the anthrax letters
case. Analysis of the anthrax spores in the letters by chemical and DNA techniques
identified these spores as belonging to the Ames strain. With the help of the samples
collected in the repository, it would have been possible to identify with great precision
the specific batch from which the anthrax letters had been filled, along with a paper trail
leading to the agency to which the sample had been transferred. As the New York Times
reported:
Shortly after the first case of anthrax arose, the FBI said it had no
objection to the destruction of a collection of anthrax samples at Iowa
State University, but some scientists involved in the investigation now say
that collection may have contained genetic clues valuable to the inquiry.
Criminal investigators have not visited many of the companies,
laboratories, and scientific institutions with the equipment or capability to
make the kind of highly potent anthrax sent in a letter to Senator Tom
Daschle, the majority leader. Where investigators have conducted
interviews, they often seemed to ask general questions unlikely to elicit
new evidence, several laboratory directors said.
Evidence Disappears
Last month, after consulting with the FBI, Iowa State University in Ames
destroyed anthrax spores collected over more than seven decades and kept
in more than 100 vials. A variant of the so-called Ames strain had been
implicated in the death of a Florida man from inhalation anthrax, and the
university was nervous about security. Now, a dispute has arisen, with
scientists in and out of government saying the rush to destroy the spores
may have eliminated crucial evidence about the anthrax in the letters sent
to Congress and the news media.
If the archive still existed, it would by no means solve the mystery. But
scientists said a precise match between the anthrax that killed four people
and a particular strain in the collection might have offered hints as to when
the bacteria had been isolated and, perhaps, how widely it had been
distributed to researchers. And that, in turn, might have given investigators
important clues to the killer’s identity.
No matter how scientifically illiterate they might be, the reflex response of any real
detective would be to veto the destruction of anything remotely resembling evidence, or
even of a key to interpreting evidence. But this time around, the FBI was pleading
ignorance. According to Bill Tobin, a former forensic metallurgist who had worked at the
infamous and scandal-ridden FBI crime laboratory in Washington DC, “The bureau was
caught almost as unaware and unprepared as the public was for these events. It’s just not
realistic to ask 7,000 agents to overnight become sufficiently knowledgeable about
bioterrorist agents [sic] and possible means of theft of those items and how they might be
disseminated lethally to an American public.”
Dr. Martin Jones, an anthrax expert at Louisiana State University, commented: “If those
cultures were still alive they could have helped in clearing up the muddied history” of the
spores found in the letters. Ronald M. Atlas, the president-elect of the American Society
of Microbiology, the world’s largest group of “germ professionals,” saw large legal
implications in the destruction of evidence. “Potentially,” he said, “it loses evidence that
would have been useful” in the legal investigation. (New York Times, “Experts See FBI
Missteps Hampering Anthrax Inquiry,” November 11, 2002) The FBI was obviously out
to sabotage its own investigation. Here is yet another case of manifest obstruction of
justice by the FBI molehill. The 9/11 commission ignores both the anthrax affair overall
and the obstruction of justice by the FBI.
Starting about a week after 9/11, anthrax letters began to arrive at the offices of The Sun,
a supermarket tabloid based in Florida, of Senators Daschle and Leahy, NBC News, and
the New York Post. On October 5, Bob Stevens, photo editor of The Sun, died of anthrax.
A number of postal workers in Washington DC also succumbed. A total of five people
died. The anthrax spores found in the letters were the product of very sophisticated
milling, and were coated with a chemical, silica, that is unique to US laboratories, Iraqi
anthrax, by contrast, is coated with bentonite, a mixture of silica and aluminum.
A great deal of publicity was given to a series of reports by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a
former government official and microbiologist at the State University of New York who
was also working for the Federation of American Scientists. Rosenberg’s work was
enthusiastically supported by the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI), and the
radical ecologists of Greenpeace. The FBI orchestrated a series of derogatory leaks about
Rosenberg, suggesting that a gang/counter-gang operation might be in progress.
Rosenberg’s basic thesis was that the anthrax attacks were the work of a disgruntled lone
assassin who had once worked for the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious
Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, near Frederick, but had subsequently
been laid off. Naturally, the lone assassin approach tended to rule out an action by a more
extensive network of moles in the federal government, which seems much more probable.
Whenever extremely complicated and demanding operations are attributed to a
disgruntled loner, we should be on guard against disinformation fabricated by the
intelligence community. For example, the terrorizing impact of the anthrax letters was
vastly increased by their synchronization with the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Was this
a mere coincidence, or did the authors of the anthrax operation have advance knowledge
that 9/11 was coming? How could Hatfill have been able to coordinate his supposed
actions with 9/11? Once again, the rogue networks of the invisible government, and not
any disgruntled loner, emerge as the prime suspects.
And there were other disinformation operations. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a
neocon who worked for a law firm representing Achmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National
Congress, began a vigorous campaign to blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq. In addition,
an anonymous letter was sent to police, apparently in September, accusing an Egyptianborn
American scientist who had been laid off by USAMRIID of being a terrorist. The
FBI questioned him and said that he was innocent. Details of the letter have not been
released. Rosenberg thought it likely that this letter had been sent by the perpetrator.
According to Rosenberg’s January 2002 statement,
The FBI has surely known for several months that the anthrax attack was
an inside job. A government estimate for the number of scientists involved
in the US anthrax program over the last five years is 200 people.
According to a former defense scientist the number of defense scientists
with hands-on anthrax experience and the necessary access is smaller,
under 50. The FBI has received short lists of specific suspects with
credible motives from a number of knowledgeable inside sources, and has
found or been given clues (beyond those presented below) that could lead
to incriminating evidence. By now the FBI must have a good idea of who
the perpetrator is. There may be two factors accounting for the lack of
public acknowledgement and the paucity of information being released: a
fear that embarrassing details might become public, and a need for secrecy
in order to acquire sufficient hard evidence to convict the perpetrator.
As for the anthrax, Rosenberg agreed that there was no doubt that the spores came from a
US government lab:All letter samples contain the same strain of anthrax, corresponding to the
AMES strain in the Northern Arizona University database (which has been
used for identification)…..Contrary to early speculation, there are no more
than about 20 laboratories known to have the Ames strain. The names of
15 of these have been found in the open literature. Of these, probably only
about four in the US might possibly have the capability for weaponizing
anthrax. Those four include both US military laboratories and a
government contractor.
Rosenberg based these conclusions on a technical analysis of the anthrax spores:
The extraordinary concentration (one trillion spores per gram) and purity
of the letter anthrax is believed to be characteristic of material made by the
optimal US process…..The optimal US weaponization process is secret—
Bill Patrick, its inventor, holds five secret patents on the process and says
it involves a combination of chemicals. There is no evidence that any
other country possesses the formula. Under the microscope, the letter
anthrax appears to be unmilled. Milled anthrax spores are identifiable
because they contain debris. The optimal US process does not use milling.
The Daschle sample contains a special form of silica used in the US
process. It does not contain bentonite (used by the Iraqis). A “coating” on
the spores in the letter sample, indicative of the secret US process, has
been observed.
Rosenberg’s thesis was that the sender of the anthrax letters had been familiar with a
study about using a scenario of this type for a terror attack which had been conducted by
anthrax weaponization expert Bill Patrick of USAMRID a couple of years earlier:
A classified report dated February, 1999 discusses responses to an anthrax
attack through the mail. The report, precipitated by a series of false
anthrax mailings, was written by William Patrick, inventor of the US
weaponization process, under a CIA contract to SAIC. The report
describes what the US military could do and what a terrorist might be able
to achieve…..the report predicted about 2.5g of anthrax per envelope (the
Daschle letter contained 2g) and assumed a poorer quality of anthrax than
that found in the Daschle letter. If the perpetrator had access to the
materials and information necessary for the attack, he must have had
security clearance or other means for accessing classified information, and
may therefore have seen the report and used it as a model for the attack.
Rosenberg offered the following portrait of the anthrax killer: “Insider in US biodefense,
doctoral degree in a relevant branch of biology; Middle-aged American; Experienced and
skilled in working with hazardous pathogens, including anthrax, and avoiding
contamination; Works for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area; Has up-to-date
vaccination with anthrax vaccine; Has clearance for access to classified information;Worked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past, in some capacity, and has access now;
Knows Bill Patrick and has probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from
him, informally; Has had training or experience in covering evidence; May have had an
UNSCOM connection; Has had a dispute with a government agency; Has a private
location where the materials for the attack were accumulated and prepared; Worked on
the letters alone or with peripheral encouragement and assistance; Fits FBI profile; Has
the necessary expertise, access and a past history indicating appropriate capabilities and
temperament; Has been questioned by FBI.” (Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, “Analysis of the
Source of the Anthrax Attacks,” January 17-31, 2002)
During the autumn of 2001, the FBI blanketed central New Jersey with leaflets showing a
sample of the anthrax killer’s handwriting. The FBI also sent questionnaires to 32,000 US
microbiologists, most of whom worked in fields that had nothing to do with the
government’s anthrax labs. This was clearly busy work designed to avoid making the
government the prime suspects in the attacks. George Monbiot of The Guardian mocked
this farce as “kind of ‘investigation’ which might have been appropriate for the
unwitnessed hit and run killing of a person with no known enemies. Rather than homing
in on the likely suspects, in other words, it appears to have cast a net full of holes over the
entire population.” Monbiot reported that he had telephoned an FBI spokesman about this
issue. “Why, I asked, when the evidence was so abundant, did the trail appear to have
gone cold? ‘The investigation is continuing,’ the spokesman replied. ‘Has it gone cold
because it has led you to a government office?’ I asked. He put down the phone.”
Monbiot speculated that the reticence had to do with covering up US violations of
international biowarfare treaties, since “the army's development of weaponized anthrax,
for example, directly contravenes both the biological weapons convention and domestic
law. So does its plan to test live microbes in ‘aerosol chambers’ at the Edgewood
Chemical Biological Center, also in Maryland. So does its development of a genetically
modified fungus for attacking coca crops in Colombia, and GM bacteria for destroying
materials belonging to enemy forces. These, as the research group Project Sunshine has
discovered, appear to be just a tiny sample of the illegal offensive biological research
programmes which the US government has secretly funded. Several prominent scientists
have suggested that the FBI's investigation is being pursued with less than the rigour we
might have expected because the federal authorities have something to hide. The FBI has
dismissed them as conspiracy theorists. But there is surely a point after which
incompetence becomes an insufficient explanation for failure.” (The Guardian, May 21,
2002)
This would appear to have been Barbara Hatch Rosenberg’s line as well. In a sympathetic
profile in the March 18, 2002 New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann reported that Rosenberg
believes that the American bioweapons program, which won't allow itself to be
monitored, may be in violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons convention. If the
anthrax attacks were the work of a lone, disgruntled, mad scientist, the case for
strengthening international safeguards would be enhanced. Rosenberg’s basic demand
was that this program be monitored. Fair enough, but not the whole story.Towards the end of June, 2002 the FBI obtained a search warrant to examine the
Maryland home of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, 48, a bio-defence researcher who had worked at
Fort Detrick, Maryland. Hatfill said at once that he was the victim of a witch-hunt. When
he lived in Rhodesia, Hatfill once studied close to a school which bears the same name as
the bogus address on the envelopes containing the fatal doses of anthrax. (The Guardian,
June 28, 2002)
On July 2, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof referred to Hatfill as “Mr. Z”
and strongly suggested that the FBI should jail him as the anthrax terrorist. “If Mr. Z
were an Arab national, he would have been imprisoned long ago. It's time for the FBI to
make a move: Either it should go after him more aggressively, sifting thoroughly through
his past and picking up loose threads, or it should seek to exculpate him and remove this
cloud of suspicion.” In essence, the FBI did neither.
Kristof and the other journalists hostile to Hatfill claimed that in the late 1970s,
Rhodesian special forces attacked black-owned farms with anthrax, and sought to link
Hatfill to these attacks. Hatfill held a press conference on August 12, 2002 in which he
once again denied everything. In late August 2002, a paid two-page advertisement in the
Washington Times argued that the anthrax killer had to be a member of the US military,
probably someone with access to the U.S. off-budget, secret biological-warfare
laboratories, or else someone with access to the Science Applications International Corp.
(SAIC) report on anthrax-mailing. The author of the ad was a certain Pete Velis. Velis
asserted that Steven Hatfill was not the perpetrator. Velis maintained that the evidence
indicated that the mailings were probably prepared beginning two years earlier, and that
the purpose was political -- to scare the U.S. into a domestic security/wartime response --
and not to kill a lot of people. He noted that the targets were among the strongest
potential opponents of “Executive Branch/Homeland Security Wartime Powers
expansions,” citing, for example, the mailing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). The SAIC report, which Velis says contained “the exact
specifications of the anthrax mailed” would suggest that the mailers came from a group
of military officers with access to the SAIC report. (Washington Times, August 26, 2002)
A day earlier Hatfill and his lawyer held a second press conference, which received
exceptionally broad media coverage, denouncing the FBI and Attorney General John
Ashcroft for the tactics used in their investigation.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, after having been interviewed by the FBI, said that the agents
had asked repeatedly whether a team of government scientists could be trying to frame
Hatfill. “They kept asking me did I think there might be a group in the biodefense
community that was trying to land the blame on Hatfill,” she told the press. (Washington
Times, August 3, 2002)
Whatever the gyrations of the FBI, it was clear that the anthrax came from the US
government, and that the FBI had deliberately flubbed the investigation. The pond
draining of 2003 changed nothing in this picture. By the summer of 2004, it was evident
that the FBI would never solve the anthrax case because it did not want to awaken the US
population to the reality that terrorism can come, and indeed does come, not out of a distant cave, but out of a US government lab on a military base. As for Hatfill, he was
most probably a fall guy. If the FBI was incompetent before 9/11, and incompetent in its
first major test thereafter, what then is the likely truth value of the statements made by the
FBI about 9/11 itself?
anthrax note 1
THE WASHINGTON DC AREA SNIPER
In the fall of 2002, a series of sniper murders once again immersed the Washington DC
area in fear and terror. These started in Montgomery County, Maryland, and soon spread
south into Virginia. Here again the suspect pool was defined as snipers, and snipers are
trained by the military services and certain police units. Any competent investigation
would have started with lists of snipers trained by the government, especially recently
retired or disgruntled ones. But this would once again have made the government into the
prime suspect, and again the FBI refused to do this. The investigation was supposedly
placed under the control of Montgomery County police chief Charles Ramsey, who
ignored the imperative of sifting through the sniper pool, and instead acted as if the
shooters could have been any casual passerby. Ramsey announced that telephone tip lines
were being set up, and that he would rely on information from the citizenry to catch the
felons. Weeks went by. After every sniper attack, road blocks were set up to encircle the
entire surrounding area, but nothing was ever found. Local radio stations featured
interviews with trained snipers who argued that real snipers were humanitarians who
would never fire on unarmed civilians. Finally information arrived which permitted the
identification of the vehicle used by the shooters, who were caught while sleeping at a
rest stop on I-270. Sure enough, the older of the two shooters had been trained as a
sharpshooter by the US Army. He and his younger partner were quickly categorized as
lone itinerant psychopaths. This affair served to terrorize the national capital area,
including Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive departments, for the best part
of two months. It refreshed and revived the horror generated by 9/11, and provided the
immediate backdrop for the November 2002 election. That time around, al Qaeda and its
mythical apparatus were not needed.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/lon.../07/317435.html
<br>WIKIPEDIA ANTHRAX ATTACKS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
anthrax note 2
Wow, all the VISIBLE evidence points to crazy arab terrorists who want to destoy israel, but the PHYSICAL evidence points elsewhere. I think this debate is just about where it points to, a theoretical physics debate is just that....theoretical. Hard physical evidence on the other hand...
Andrew Johnson
26th October 2005 - 11:13 AM
frater plecticus (whatever that means - although I guess frater means Brother)
See how I goofed when I go off onto the non-physics? I didn't realize the timing of the Anthrax scares/attacks coincided with the release of the Patriot Act.
But remember folks, these Arabs are omnipotent - they can make any coincidence they want happen can't they? They can even make it a coincidence that the Anthrax is traceable back to US sources.
If we have ID cards and stuff, then that should reduce our coincidences to an acceptable level surely!
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 12:53 PM
There is no problem creating a piece of legislation like the Patriot Act in that time frame. Do you actually doubt Ashcroft would have any trouble putting quite a staff of lawyers to work on this within days of 9/11? Heading up the Justice dept. gives you quite a bit of legal "staffers". And considering Ashcroft's bent, you just gotta know that he had staffers that had been writing proposals for these kind of legislative changes since they got out into office.
What is a bigger concern is how it was passed.
Essentially unread and undebated.
But, I see this as someone like Ashcroft taking advantage of a situation to press his agenda, he had an almost "free pass", for a limited period of time, to do so.
As to the Patriot Act itself, this is an important time. At this point I am hopeful that the more restrictive Senate version will pass.
The W Post recently did a story on the abuses of the PA. They found, from Govt documents that there were 13 cases, from 2002 to 2004, that were referred to the Foreign Intelligence Oversight Board and these cases amounted to almost 300 violations of the Act's rules for domestic spying.
Now, this is bad. But it hardly seems reason enough for 9/11. Taking ADVANTAGE of 9/11, Sure. Instigating it? No.
As to the Anthrax.
Interesting, I see it as a more likely case of pointing suspicion to where it will be accepted without question. Could this be a "govt disinformation/conspiracy" a la Northwoods? Yes, this one is of the scope and limited lethality that I could see getting done by somewhat "rogue" agents, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, when the Govt was trying to focus attention on the dangers of AQ and OBL.
Arthur
Andrew Johnson
26th October 2005 - 01:07 PM
I used to think the fall of the towers was simply a terrible by product of the jets crashing; an unintended tragedy by those who flew the jets. This is before I realised explosives were used to bring the towers down.
This means even the LIHOP ideas just don't stand up. Even if you are willing to say gov't people just took advantage of the event, it's a tragic state of affairs.
If you research into compartmentalisation of classified operations, you can even forsee a situation where those that wrote the patriot act (probably after PNAC was published) may not have been aware of the events being engineered (i.e. the planting of explosives in the towers) to ultimately support their aims.
Really and honestly, all the evidence is there which shows the collapse was engineered - even down to the comprehensive (illegal) destruction of forensic evidence. A company was complicit in this too (Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore), so it ISN'T just a government operation. Is Silverstein a government official? I don't think so. He is a business man who made $100's million from the event. Think about these (again non-physics) facts. I have found this is the only way to make sense of what really happened.
frater plecticus
26th October 2005 - 01:23 PM
Hi Arthur.
| QUOTE | adoucette Posted on Oct 26 2005, 12:53 PM :Could this be a "govt disinformation/conspiracy" a la Northwoods? Yes, this one is of the scope and limited lethality that I could see getting done by somewhat "rogue" agents, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, when the Govt was trying to focus attention on the dangers of AQ and OBL.
<br>I am a little perturbed by the suggestion that "limited lethality" and "2 grams of weaponized anthrax" are mutually inclusive.
Whether the culprits are "rogue agents" as you suggest, (the strikingly obvious and I believe, correct culprit) or not, a gram of weaponized anthrax is capable of killing thousands, that´s why I believe that America would be "more secure" with the people responsible for these henious crimes (whether or not it was in an undercover/disinformation/intelligence role) because without accountability, there is no justice.
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 01:38 PM
| QUOTE | The existence of weaponized anthrax is ipso facto a strong case for
US government collusion in terror attacks on this country.
<br>No Facto.
Arthur
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 01:43 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Oct 26 2005, 01:23 PM)
I am a little perturbed by the suggestion that "limited lethality" and "2 grams of weaponized anthrax" are mutually inclusive.
Whether the culprits are "rogue agents" as you suggest, (the strikingly obvious and I believe, correct culprit) or not, a gram of weaponized anthrax is capable of killing thousands, that´s why I believe that America would be "more secure" with the people responsible for these henious crimes (whether or not it was in an undercover/disinformation/intelligence role) because without accountability, there is no justice. If you look at the number of spores needed to be lethal, then yes, in theory anthrax is capable of killing thousands. In practice, it is significantly less lethal, as the results of the mailings showed. Now if you do an aerial dispersal over a wide densly populated area, then you could push up the numbers, but then you need a whole lot more than 2 grams, to have any effect at all. My personal suspicions, with no proof of what so ever, is that it was a misguided "patriot" with access to the anthrax. This limits the possible suspects, and while I think the FBI may have a pretty good idea of who they think did it, they have no proof that will stand up to even the relatively easy grand jury process. The fact that the attacks stopped rather abruptly, I think, supports this interpretation. Arthur
brian
26th October 2005 - 02:51 PM
It appears many are unfamiliar with government agencies involvement with a number of so called terrorist attacks. The 1993 WTC bombing was an FBI controlled operation, this can be easily researched, it being reported in such mainstream media as The New York Times. The Oklahoma bombing another with similarities to the September 11 attack. There is a great deal of evidence to show government agencies complicity, an example below - Letter from General Partin to U.S. Senator Trent Lott Benton K. Partin Brigadier General USAF (Retired) 8908 Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652 July 30, 1995 Sen. Trent Lott United States Senate 487 Senate Russell Office Building Washington, DC 20510-2403 Dear Sen. Lott: The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level. Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.) --- Read on - http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/ok8.html?200520Same letter - Letter from General Partin to U.S. Senator Trent Lott --It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media's withholding of vital information from the American people. ----- We have the same media and no doubt many of the same people involved in the September 11 cover up.
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 03:31 PM
Ok, so now its clear, the US is in fact the sole terrorist organization that has been wrecking havoc within the US. This is known by the media which, being the lakeys they are, withhold this info from the gullible American population. The purpose of said terrorism being to make the Govt more powerful with the end result being the passage of the Patriot Act and/or war in Afghanistan & Iraq and/or control of ME oil.
Is there no end to this paranoia?
Probably not.
Arthur
Andrew Johnson
26th October 2005 - 03:43 PM
Yes, it does sound wild, mad and paranoid. Your analysis, however you may think of people like me, is closer to the truth than you might think. However, it isn't "the US" it isn't just "the CIA" etc. We have had smaller scale things happen here in the UK and there have been Bali and Madrid where events have happened and not been investigated properly. This all points to a Globalist group - elements of which operate in the US government - partly hidden. What's more, in my view, President Eisenhower warned us of this or a similar group in 1961.
| QUOTE | "In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
<br>If you want to hear the entire speech, so you can better judge the context of the quote above for yourself, here is the link for it:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/Eise...ddress-1961.mp3
To me, his remarks make much more sense in the context of there being a globalist or para-governmental group which has a lot of power, rather than from a "cold war perspective". But other people may disagree. Was Eisenhower just paranoid? Again, it's a possibility.... But for me, I am just trying to be as he suggested i.e. alert and knowledgeable
metamars
26th October 2005 - 04:23 PM
| QUOTE | I used to think the fall of the towers was simply a terrible by product of the jets crashing; an unintended tragedy by those who flew the jets. This is before I realised explosives were used to bring the towers down.
This means even the LIHOP ideas just don't stand up. Even if you are willing to say gov't people just took advantage of the event, it's a tragic state of affairs.
<br>Exactly.
MIHOP, not LIHOP. Bin Laden could not have provided the source of energy necessary for demolition.
This just underscores the ruthlessness of the black op, and explains the no-doubt-often-repressed fear that many people have in seriously looking at the issue. However, their "whistling past the graveyard" attitude is unpatriotic, and may lead us directly to WW3, if these murderous maniacs are not opposed. Even if we don't get WW3, we almost surely will end up living in a repressive police state. A cowardly citizenry does not the fabric of a free society make.
Some fear in confronting these crimes is understandable. However, IMO, what separates the coward from the non-coward is not that one experiences fear and the other doesn't, but that one refuses to surrender to fear, while the other does.
As an old roomate who was in Air Force ROTC at the time used to often tell me, "No guts, no glory." I would offer a similar maxim, "No guts, no freedom."
Guest
26th October 2005 - 06:10 PM
Metamars,
Your putting yourself in a very condescending position. By claiming to know the "truth" through investigation of other peoples well orchestrated arguments, you put yourself in the "knowing minority". I understand wanting to feel individual in a population of 6.5 billion, but please do not allude to the rest of us as ignorant, unpatriotic or fearful because we disagree with you.
Just a couple of questions to put you world changing ideas into perspective: Have you ever been out of your own backyard? Have you ever witnessed anything near as violent as a large airliner full of feul hitting a skyscraper at 500 mph?
No, I'm not the cigarette smoking man planted here to distract the sheeple who we want to keep in the dark. That would make you few guys very important indeed.
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 06:50 PM
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+) I am just trying to be as he suggested i.e. alert and knowledgeable <br>Me too. However, while I see the same evidence as you do, I do not draw the same conclusions. What I do find interesting is that if Bush/Cheney are at the center of all this, which I guess, if true, would make them possibly the "greatest" criminal masterminds of all time. Seems strange for a President who is generally portrayed as not working that hard at it and not having the keenest of intellects. Arthur
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 07:01 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Oct 26 2005, 04:23 PM)
Some fear in confronting these crimes is understandable. However, IMO, what separates the coward from the non-coward is not that one experiences fear and the other doesn't, but that one refuses to surrender to fear, while the other does.
One would think that if this WAS true, you and others who are pushing this idea would be in GRAVE danger. I mean, if what you claim was true, then these people have almost unlimited funds, manpower and expertise. Worse, they have no fear of the law. In fact, as far as I can tell, their only fear would be exposure. Which is what you are trying to do. Are you saying that those behind this would kill thousands of people, cause hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage, but they wouldn't take care of a few unknowns who are trying to expose them? I mean, come on, how difficult would it be to stage a few strategic car wrecks, bar fights, break-ins, suicides and maybe a few "drug plants" etc to make you gone? So, if what you claim is true, why are you still breathing? Arthur
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 07:09 PM
QUOTE (metamars+) if these murderous maniacs are not opposed <br>Which MMs would these be exactly? I don't recall you naming names. If fact I can't recall seeing anything SPECIFIC about anyone's SPECIFIC misdeeds. It all seems to be directed towards some non-specific entity called "THEY" or "Govt". It is interesting, that with all this due diligence, no names besides maybe Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft come up. (And they all have alibis for there whereabouts on 9/11 ) Arthur PS what does MIHOP/LIHOP stand for?
metamars
26th October 2005 - 08:06 PM
| QUOTE | please do not allude to the rest of us as ignorant, unpatriotic or fearful because we disagree with you.
<br>I am doing no such thing. Most people in my family believe the official Fairy Tale. I am specifically referring to those people who have understood the truth, and denied it, or have not allowed themselves to seriously consider the facts out of fear.
Of course, if you seriously consider the facts, and still believe in collapsing steel framed skyscrapers, that's your right and I certainly respect your right to your own opinion. I do not automatically assume that you are unpatriotic or a coward.
Hopefullly, you will return the favor and not automatically assume that I am paranoid.
metamars
26th October 2005 - 08:09 PM
| QUOTE | So, if what you claim is true, why are you still breathing?
<br>You need to ask "them" that question.
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 08:14 PM
I might do that, but you've never said who THEM is.
Arthur
brian
26th October 2005 - 08:16 PM
Naming names. What most familiar with the evidence, certainly myself, found odd about this below was that Ruppert was invited to the prestigious Commonwealth Club of SanFrancsco to make such a statement. His position was well known, he was one of the first to immediately point out the September 11 attack was not what we were led to believe. This was said in front of the great and the good - why did Cheney not sue? Statement by Michael Ruppert - I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC [National Military Command Center], or the White House Situation Room. Have any of those who are not convinced of controlled demolition and complicity ACTUALLY looked at the evidence presented such as this below? http://www.911proof.com/
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 08:21 PM
| QUOTE | those people who have understood the truth, and denied it, or have not allowed themselves to seriously consider the facts out of fear.
<br>And who would these people be?
I find it wierd that so much energy has gone into proving the towers were destroyed and so little into who would benefit from doing so.
Seems to me, detectives always focus on motive, a lot of people COULD have done a crime so you figure out who had a MOTIVE in order to limit the SUSPECTS.
MOTIVE is assumed to be related to the RISK/REWARD, meaning people don't typically take big risks except for big rewards.
Arthur
adoucette
26th October 2005 - 08:32 PM
QUOTE (brian+Oct 26 2005, 08:16 PM) Naming names. What most familiar with the evidence, certainly myself, found odd about this below was that Ruppert was invited to the prestigious Commonwealth Club of SanFrancsco to make such a statement. His position was well known, he was one of the first to immediately point out the September 11 attack was not what we were led to believe. This was said in front of the great and the good - why did Cheney not sue? Statement by Michael Ruppert - I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC [National Military Command Center], or the White House Situation Room. Have any of those who are not convinced of controlled demolition and complicity ACTUALLY looked at the evidence presented such as this below? http://www.911proof.com/ He basically can't sue. You can basically say anything you want about a political figure. Its called free speech, and once a public figure, you can't charge people with slander or else you would never have an open political debate. The bar is "Absence of Malice", in other words Cheney would have to prove the statements were made maliciously. So, if the guy has "evidence" to support his contentions, even if the evidence is as flimsy as one ply toilet paper, it is still not malice. In practice, this bar is so high that politicians almost never sue, as it just generates publicity that the accuser would never otherwise get. Public figures, like film stars, occasionally do sue and also occasionally win in these suits against media outlets, because they can sometimes prove that there is NO evidence at all, and of course they like the press coverage, win or lose. Arthur
Andrew Johnson
26th October 2005 - 08:37 PM
Adoucette,
It's so refreshing to see a polite and appropriate response (and I am not being sarcastic!):
| QUOTE | However, while I see the same evidence as you do, I do not draw the same conclusions.
<br>And this is, to me, truly what freedom is about. The right to draw your own conclusions.
Foxx
26th October 2005 - 08:41 PM
metamars, thanks for your observations related to the Fairy Tales of the 'free-fall' collapse of upper floors, and the bigger Fairy Tale of Complete Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse. I am working on this, as time permits... but it may take a few days or so to come up with a response to that post which addresses the points you brought up there. Unfortunately the secretary in charge of my files (that would be me), is not very organized at keeping files, and so it takes time to dig up the relevant facts. I do have them, just not sure what 'box' I put them in. Please bear with me In the meantime, while looking for relevant information to address your post, I have come across some other information related to figures related to the fire issues we were discussing earlier. The more one examines the boogie-woogie in the voluminous NIST obfuscation reports, the more it becomes obvious that NIST is following in FEMA's footsteps of becoming the laughing stock of independant and objective engineers, academics, and intelligent people everywhere. For now, I leave you with these... | QUOTE | From the floor plans and the combustibility data, it was estimated that the fuel load in the WTC tenant spaces was approximately 20 kg/sq m [4 lb/sq ft].
Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
From page 41(adobe) / xxxix (NIST)
Once again completely refuting Schneibster's exhorbitant and misinformed 'numbers' regarding floor fuel loads.
-----------------------
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | From the floor plans and the combustibility data, it was estimated that the fuel load in the WTC tenant spaces was approximately 20 kg/sq m [4 lb/sq ft].
Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
From page 41(adobe) / xxxix (NIST)
Once again completely refuting Schneibster's exhorbitant and misinformed 'numbers' regarding floor fuel loads.
-----------------------
"About 10,000 gal of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories, simultaneously igniting hundreds of workstations."
Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf
From page 50(adobe) / xlviii (NIST)
Here NIST has arbitrarily (and without providing any justification for presenting this number) increased the amount of fuel injected into the building which had already been widely disseminated and generally agreed to by all including FEMA.
This is revisionism.
Although we all agree that the FEMA report was a total joke, nevertheless; there is no legitimate reason to assume that their (FEMA's) calculations of the actual amount of fuel left in the planes at the time of impacts were 'off' by this order of magnitude.
FEMA would have assuredly checked the airlines to determine the amount of fuel originally loaded, and done the calculations to determine a close approximation of the amount left at the time of impacts. They also would have done calculations (as best as possible) to determine the amount of that remaining fuel which was expended in the fuel fireballs 'exploding' outside of the buildings, and having done so provided us with the aforementioned figure of 3000 gal incinerated in the fireballs.
As can be seen, in the quote from the revised numbers estimated by NIST, they are doing the same as Schneibster... ignoring the amount that was expended in the fireballs and adding that back into their computer modeling farce to raise the 'numbers' to fit their 'required' fire scenarios. Is this 'inculpable ignorance' on their part, or something more?
To those sitting on the fence, and thinking (emotionally) that they just can't believe that government appointed officials at the highest levels of NIST would deliberately obfuscate the facts... I remind you that NIST is deliberately (and has been caught red-handed) in attempting to 'bury' the forensic evidence which was recovered from WTC 7. I have given the evidence of this previously on page... (Whoops, it was on another thread, so I will add it again at the end of this post )
This is not currently widely known yet, but I have contacted Jim Hoffmans office and others to provide the evidence of this, and we are anxiously awaiting the WTC 7 report, to see whether they do some kind of fall-back to a position which 'explains' this 'burying' of forensic evidence. We must keep the pressure on so that the 'euctectic' samples don't get tossed into a smeltering pot somewhere.
Although the above is not earth-shattering in the sense of a smoking-gun... I remind all that a 'case' is built upon numerous details, which of course leads to the climactic and irrefutable proof that simply due to basic physics, it is impossible for these buildings to have fallen anywhere near free-fall speeds without the input of much more energy than the buildings contained in the first place.
Keep up the good work, guys. And thanks to all for your participation.
BTW, please don't feed the trolls. I have noticed a couple of 'newbies' since signing in this morning who have come to mock and accuse, without any attempt to address the scientific issues which the rest of us are examining. Responding to their insults and allegations only leads away from the bigger issue. Emotional issues such as 'whys', and whining about... 'they' just wouldn't do that... only detract from the scientific aspects we should be discussing. These obfuscating distractions and attacks are meant soley for the purposes of leading away from and disrupting the real discussion, and are not really relevant to this discussion.
Added... NIST Caught trying to Bury Evidence
| QUOTE | [by a_ht]
The NIST report is were the answers are. It is much more torought and complete.
<br>I would have to disagree with you a_ht that NIST is being far more thorough and complete in view of the following...
NIST Caught Trying to 'Bury Evidence'
Nist claims in it's NIST NCSTAR 1-3 report (page xliv )
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html
that...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | [by a_ht]
The NIST report is were the answers are. It is much more torought and complete.
<br>I would have to disagree with you a_ht that NIST is being far more thorough and complete in view of the following...
NIST Caught Trying to 'Bury Evidence'
Nist claims in it's NIST NCSTAR 1-3 report (page xliv )
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html
that...
E.6 Structural Steel in WTC 7...
quote: "No steel was recovered from WTC 7"
<br>
Folks, we [b]KNOW that this is a bold-faced LIE. They are exposed in this 'cover-up' by other federal documents which flatly state that WTC 7 steel was in fact collected...
| QUOTE | WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study
Page D1
FEMA - http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
<br>and here...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study
Page D1
FEMA - http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
<br>and here...
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labelled Sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. A mettallurgical examination was conducted.
C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
Source: FEMA Metallurgical Report
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
<br>and here...
The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18......
| QUOTE | An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
<br>-------------------
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
<br>-------------------
The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
<br>-------------
Did Barnett and Biederman receive this further funding and additional samples? NO! NIST denied their application.
Now, it has become abundantly clear that they are trying to 'bury this evidence' from WTC 7.
First, in denying further study... and secondly, by attempting to rewrite history, by claiming now that 'no steel was recovered from WTC 7'.
metamars
26th October 2005 - 09:12 PM
| QUOTE | Which MMs would these be exactly?
I don't recall you naming names.
If fact I can't recall seeing anything SPECIFIC about anyone's SPECIFIC misdeeds.
It all seems to be directed towards some non-specific entity called "THEY" or "Govt".
It is interesting, that with all this due diligence, no names besides maybe Bush, Chaney and Ashcroft come up.
(And they all have alibis for there whereabouts on 9/11 laugh.gif )
Arthur
PS what does MIHOP/LIHOP stand for?
<br>I've written a lot about 911 on the randi rhodes forum As this is supposed to be a physics forum, I don't want to post long replies here regarding the sociology of 911.
In fact, I may as well admit that I'm disappointed that there has not been more quantitiative analysis here on this board. E.g., it can't be that hard to figure out the heat distribution of a steel column as tall as a WTC, and as massive as it's frame, if it's perfectly insulated and you attach a heat reservoir for 17 minutes at a hot enough temperature so that the equivalent of 7K burning gallons of kerosene enters the steel, and then wait 55 minutes. Why has nobody done that? In fact, if you have a nice analytic solution, I think you should be able to find the maximum temperature attained at height h and time t. If h = the height of floor 73, is this temperature anywhere near the critical temperature of 555 Kelvin when t in [0, 55 min], or not?
Also, a calculation with a heat reservoir more like what was actually available - ie, one with a temperature equal to, say, 800 Celsius, would be of interest. As would one with a temperature equal to flashover.
It's been over 20 years since I took my physics degree, and all my calculations are really only using high school physics. I was hoping somebody who is not so rusty would do what to me are some rather obvious investigations.
How much force do you have to apply to a steel beam like those in the WTC towers X meters long before it begins to buckle? Will the buckling proceed to essentially 180 degrees, or will it break before that point?
Also, I don't think anybody has even tried to calculate the average upward force of resistance you'd have to have on each floor in order to slow down the collapse to 12 seconds (assuming a floor by floor collapse). What is this force? How does it relate to the strength of the columns? (Somebody may have done this in this thread, but I don't think so. The analysis basically seems to stop with the comparison to free fall speed. I suspect that such a meager analysis is unlikely to convince most working physicists, though it's certainly suggestive that something very different than the FEMA Fairy Tale is occurring.)
I still don't know if any civil engineers take "elastic dynamic analysis" seriously as a method of analyzing a collapse, or even small vibrations. Apparently, they are out drinking beer with the physicists.
LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose
MIHOP = Made It Happen On Purpose
Foxx
26th October 2005 - 09:16 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucette
So, if what you claim is true, why are you still breathing?
<br>I just couldn't resist this one... the answer is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|