Topic: Why did the World Trade Center towers fall?
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Now for something completely different.
There are a number of web sites that challenge the conclusion of the 9/11 Report that the towers fell due to fire weakening the structure.
One I came across points out that WTC 7 collapsed in only half a second longer than it would have taken a rock, dropped from the roof in a vacuum (no air resitance) to fall the same distance. Half a second for all of that steel and concrete to give way.
The same site, notes that WTC 2 collapsed in ten seconds, eight tenths of a second longer than it would have taken a rock to fall that distance in a vacuum.
Also noted was that in around one hundred years of the existence of steel framed skycrapers not one had collapsed due to fire until 9/11, when three came down on the same day. WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane and it collapsed into its own footprint many hours after the strike.
Finally, this source states that the maximum temperature of jet fuel flame is around 1500 hundred degrees. Offices are fitted with flame retardant materials. The steel used in skyscrapers is designed to withstand 2750 degrees of temperature.
This is not just one website dealing with the topic, there a many. A professor of (as I recall) physics at Brigham Young University has done an analysis and come to the conclusion that the only explanation is controlled demolitions. He adds that worldwide, there are probably only five companies that could have carried out such a job. The site I looked at today is:
posted
Only explanation that could be plausible is that the guy behind the grassy knoll was at work again.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let's keep in touch re: Iraq and WMDs. I think we'll be talking about the reality of their existence in the not too distant future.
I know, you disagree, all I'm asking is that you and I remember this little conversation, okay.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards.
The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
Theory #1:
quote:The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time.
There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter.
In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
Theory #2:
quote:The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence.
Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building.
When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it.
Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event.
Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel.
In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Theory #3:
quote:Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance.
Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down?
The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly.
The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.
Postscript:
More information A small paper by Tim Wilkinson entitled "The World Trade Center and 9/11: A Discussion on Some Engineering Design Issues" and presented at the annual conference of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, is available for download in PDF.
ICivilEngineer has a wide selection of articles collected from the world on engineering aspects of the WTC.
The best and most complete source of information on the towers is the official FEMA report, given at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, has official reports available at http://wtc.nist.gov/Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
But you might want to tell my buddies Dave&Dave that you are friends with the guy who does know where they're located and he knows how to use them.
As you can imagine, 25 years in the military, being around all those radioactive secret weapons out at Area 51 can make a guy do and think strange things.
I even scare myself sometimes.
(Now watch the NSA is going to be bugging my phone now that my secret is out) Thanks a lot Mo.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This brings back very vivid and traumatic memories for me..
therefore I am on a delayed response time than some others.
Meantime..
.. the imagery of LymeDad in the grassy knoll sitting on top of the WMD's is just cracking me up..
Bizzare sence if humor, I know..but it's a real hoot at the moment, I'm acually laughing and mumbling incoherently over it.
What that means, I do not know......
and with that I should retire to Dreamland.
Mo
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Now here's a real authoritative source for facts related to structural steel, architectural load bearings, structural and mechanical engineering and explosive dynamics.
Great source documentation, especially since the article you reference is no longer available on that website.
I'm still convinced the guy behind the grassy knoll had something to do with it, but then he'd have to be what something like 65 to 70 years old by now.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let's keep in touch re: Iraq and WMDs. I think we'll be talking about the reality of their existence in the not too distant future.
I know, you disagree, all I'm asking is that you and I remember this little conversation, okay.
Yes, I've been surprised that Bush and crew haven't planted a few by now. He's way down in the polls and people aren't believing him, so, I anticipate we'll find a WMD or two and maybe even 'ol Osama. Remember him?
To be able to get people to willingly give up their liberties, you have to keep them stirred up and scared. Oops... I forgot... here comes the bird flu and Iran now has WMD. Amazing.
Don't forget I said this, Dad. So, you and I can discuss it at a later point.
[ 10. March 2006, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've seen you refer to the "Operation Northwoods" memorandam on several of your posts.
I've assumed you meant the message to be that our government has, in the past, planned or even executed unlawful acts to coerce the American people into believing that a situation or war was necessary.
I had never heard of "Operation Northwoods" so I decided to do some research into the document itself and the historical events that were taking place at the time it was brought into being.
Here's what I found and observed:
1. The porported document was downgraded from TS - Special Handling - NOFORN (Top Secret - No Foreign Distribution) to Unclassifed.
I'm not trying to discredit the authenticity of the document; however, it has been my experience dealing with classified documents that the original classification of a document once it is downgraded is completely removed or completely covered prior to its release to the public.
The fact that the original classification; TS - Special Handling - NOFORN simply had a line drawn through it, bothers me.
2. The JCS, as proported by the author of the book, Body of Secrets by James Bamford, is not historically the agency that puts together covert plans. That function is normally left to the CIA.
3. In his book, Bamford writes;
quote:Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, presented the Operation Northwoods plan to Kennedy early in 1962, but the president rejected it that March because he wanted no overt U.S. military action against Cuba. Lemnitzer then sought unsuccessfully to destroy all evidence of the plan.
Lemnitzer and those who served with him in 1962 as chiefs of the nation's military branches are dead.
But two former top Kennedy administration officials said that they were unaware of Operation Northwoods and questioned whether such a plan was ever drafted.
Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy's White House special counsel is quoted as saying,
quote:I've never heard of Operation Northwoods. Never heard of it and don't believe it. Obviously, it would be totally illegal as well as totally unwise.
Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy's defense secretary, has been quoted as saying,
quote:"I never heard of it. I can't believe the chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations."
Bamford writes that besides the Joint Chiefs, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze also favored "provoking a phony war with Cuba."
"There may be a piece of paper" on Northwoods, said McNamara. "I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me."
And that's what I learned in school today.
OBTW: I'm ambivalent as to its authenticity. Additionally, I can't see the relevancy between it and today's war on terror.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've seen you refer to the "Operation Northwoods" memorandam on several of your posts.
I've assumed you meant the message to be that our government has, in the past, planned or even executed unlawful acts to coerce the American people into believing that a situation or war was necessary.
I don't know if any of the things they mention were actually done. I do think it is alarming that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were discussing killing Americans and others and blaming the Cubans to get the American public behind an invasion of Cuba.
The fact that the original classification; TS - Special Handling - NOFORN simply had a line drawn through it, bothers me.
I've seen that on several documents from an FOIA request.
"There may be a piece of paper" on Northwoods, said McNamara. "I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me."
And that's what I learned in school today.
OBTW: I'm ambivalent as to its authenticity. Additionally, I can't see the relevancy between it and today's war on terror.
Yes, I would imagine they would deny knowing about the plan. Did you really think they would? What amazes me though, is that this document wasn't destroyed.
You can't see the relevance between this and the supposed, War on Terror? Well, this document shows that we are quite willing to kill Americans, in a variety of ways to create an emergency and thus fear in the American populace, fueling the American citizenry to support a war with Cuba. Does this not sound eerily similar to what happened with 9-11?
Another declassified memo, "The McCollum memo", I previously posted about Pearl Harbor, is another example of this.
Problem ---> Reaction---> Solution
[ 10. March 2006, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: [QUOTE][b]Originally posted by lymedad: Teques,
What amazes me though, is that this document wasn't destroyed.
That is amazing Tesque. Someone just lefting laying out on a desk somewhere to be found.
What do they say, when something seems to good to be true it probably is.
I never did get to read it but I actually thought by you wanting it read so badly it had a direct link wo what is happening today. I didn't realize it was from before I was born.
Do we actually thing that the two humungo planes slamming into the towers at go knows how many miles per hour the inpact of the initial explosion of the plaines. How many pounds of pressure that must have applied. Doesn't that fall into any equasions.
People are so full of rage and detest for one man that they just start pulling stuff out of the sky.
I watched a strength team. They stacked 24 slabs of concrete on top of each other with about an inch of space between them.
The mucle man made one mistake. When he hit the concrete from the top he pulled his arm up too early. he had only boken them a third of the way but after he lifted his arm the wait of the ones on top contiued to break the ones at the bottom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But if it is easier, then just go with the guy on the grassy null.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, it was de-classified. It's wasn't just "found".
So, you're not going to read it, but you just "KNOW"?
I don't know for sure what happened with the WTCs any more than you know. I just said that I thought the similarity was interesting.
You're just going to get stubborn now and not read it? It's not my document. It's from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is not long.
Geez, people.
Yeah, you're right, softballmom... since you saw this little strength exercise, you must know everything there is to know about 9-11. You don't need to look at ANYTHING else. Must be nice to have all the answers, eh?
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
I told you so t...folks are getting tired of reading all your speculative junk here...
I mean I could post some speculative junk about the Iranians protesting and praying en mass after every prayer meeting "death to america" and "wiping Israel off the map" and people would get tired....oh oh...wait a minute...
this is true...oh gee...well folks would get tired of it also if I had about 27 posts up on the board...every stinkin day!
DUH YA THINK?....zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of this piece is garbage....but this part slays me:
Also noted was that in around one hundred years of the existence of steel framed skycrapers not one had collapsed due to fire until 9/11, when three came down on the same day. ********************* So what? how many steel framed skyscrapers have been hit by massive commuter airplanes carrying a full load of jet fuel EACH?? It's never ever happened before.
No one even thought they would need that contingency put in the structural code book (code book tells them earthquake stresses, weather loads --as in snow, wind stress, etc. and in such cases how strong to make the building)
I can hear �m now...... No Fred, guess it's just toast if that happens.
C'mon people, use your head. You saw the planes hit the buildings....how much can a building stand up to--instead of throwing up these conspiracy theories--how about researching them yourselves to see if they hold ANY validity? You know, its embarassing for you if you don't.
What is the temperature that will melt steel? Steel does have to be melted to form the beams for the structure. Most steel span buildings are not true steel, other ores are included in the metal....consequently, they have a LOWER melting point than steel.
I have never seen such a perfect example of the dumbing down of America as in these conspiracy sites~~RESEARCH~! It isn't someone elses job to find the answers for you. It is YOUR job to at least know something about which you speak or to know when you're being hoodwinked into believing garbage.
My father WAS a structural engineer. High rise, steel span buildings.....in large cities no less. He never questioned the fact that the buildings fell from the heat, never. Thats the truth!
[ 13. March 2006, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
Ok, about building 7. You know, the one that was not hit by a plane.
As I'm sure a lot of you, I was glued to the TV for several days when all this happened. I remember the discussion on TV about "pulling" building 7. The reason given was because of all the fire damage. It went down that day, which surprised me, since I thought it took a long time to setup the explosives.
Then, much, much, later, I was surprised to see this being reported on like building 7 had just come down on its own.
Anyone else remember this?
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your dismissal has no grounds whatsoever if you will not even read the document.
Lymedad did - tho he is dismising it's authenticity. I'm sure it's validity can be proven. It's a government document. (it ain't the LA Times)
In any event, I cannot cut and paste off the origional pdf document, but I found a copy of the text, in case anyone without adobe feels like reading something before they blow it off!
The Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake ``Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,'' including ``sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),'' faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a ``Remember the Maine'' incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods ``may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.''
If this doesn't get you thinking, I don't know what will. Things aren't always as they seem.
This is the portion that proposed actions:
************************************************
PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA
(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order. Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention in Cuba).
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
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.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which could be found, or intercepted, on the beach.
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
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 enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. 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 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.
b. 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.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
[document ends]
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
Ok let me try to figure out what you all are thinking.
You think that our government got people (suicide bombers) to highjack planes, and crash them into the WTC.
Plant demolition explosives in the WTC to colapse them after the planes hit.
Just so that we could have a reason to start a war.
Hahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahahaha
No I am not stubborn I have just grown very disinterested for some odd reason.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
I didn't offer an answer, just the problem. these buildings fell down too fast and into too small a footprint. What does it mean? I have no idea other than it suggests some sort of complicity, somewhere. IMHO, the question; "How did fire bring down the towers?" is completely differnt from; "Why did the towers fall?"
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. I'll read it slower tomorrow.
I *do* know that what they say about Building 7 can't be true. I taped a lot that day. I have the segment with Silverstein (owner of all 3 buildings), saying he has decided to "PULL" Bldg. 7. Later, it was "pulled". "Pulling" is demolition speak for detonation.
Why was the story changed later?
[ 13. March 2006, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SBM... surely you're not that naive. Things like this have happened before in other countries.
From news articles I've seen, it looks like some of the hijackers might have been trained by the military to fly. It was admitted, then later, they came back saying it must be people with the same name that they trained...not the hijackers. hhmmm...
I'm too tired to go on further, tonight. Plus, who really knows what happened.
Did you ever read the Northwoods Document, SBM? Mo found a copy of it that wasn't in pdf and posted it for you. That's what that document is all about... killing people, blaming it on Cuba, to get America to be willing to go to war with Cuba.
Also, the burning of the Reischtag by Hitler is another example. There are many others.
Why do you think WE are so immune?
I don't know... when something like this happens, I always ask myself... who gains?
BTW.. Do you still think Oswald killed Kennedy? Just wondering.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:these buildings fell down too fast and into too small a footprint.
By whose estimation did the buildings fall down too fast and by whose estimation was the footprint too small?
Which previous model did they use to make those statements?
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
OK suppose what you all are saying is posible. The hijackers were training as far back as 1995. During the Clinton Administration the FBI was warned of this.
This plan was iniciated years in advance. So if it was so well orcastrated why not do it before Clintons rein was up. Everybody blame Billy Boy and the Repub poster child can come in on a chariot to save the day. Cuz you know they had the elecions rigged to. The Bush secret society had this plan in place for years. I can see the old boys club smoking their cigars and plotting to take over the worls. BAA AAAHHHH Haaaa HAAA
For a man that you all claim to be so ignorant you sure are giving him alot of credit.
Hey you know the Bush's even had Reagan shot. Hehehe
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Oswald killed Kennedy, I think it was the Mafia who had plenty of reasons to bump him off/and or in hand with LBJ and the FBI chief who both hated the Kennedy brothers intensly. ******* I agree its laughable.....but on the flip side, I'm upset about the proliferation of these conspiracy theories.
These theories seem to spring from Fahrenheit 911, even thought MM never addressed the "fabrication" of the towers fall directly. He certainly had plenty of theories of his own....many of them expressed as truth on this board in various posts.
It would be wise to remember that MM made lots of bucks on these theories, and he's laughing himself all the way to the bank.
It's way bigger than Bush or Clinton. There has been a move for a long time to create a World Government. A lot of things had to be orchestrated to make this happen. One of the last big links in the chain is the U.S., primarily because of our Constitution and the freedom-loving people who wouldn't allow their government to do this. Well, we quit watching, because it's close to being a done deal.
I am sorry if this is shocking or if it sounds amazing. It does not change the fact that it is true.
quote:Originally posted by Softballmom: OK suppose what you all are saying is posible. The hijackers were training as far back as 1995. During the Clinton Administration the FBI was warned of this.
This plan was iniciated years in advance. So if it was so well orcastrated why not do it before Clintons rein was up. Everybody blame Billy Boy and the Repub poster child can come in on a chariot to save the day. Cuz you know they had the elecions rigged to. The Bush secret society had this plan in place for years. I can see the old boys club smoking their cigars and plotting to take over the worls. BAA AAAHHHH Haaaa HAAA
For a man that you all claim to be so ignorant you sure are giving him alot of credit.
Hey you know the Bush's even had Reagan shot. Hehehe
posted
SBM: "I can see the old boys club smoking their cigars and plotting to take over the worls."
Have you never heard of the Bilderberg meetings, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations? The vast majority of every administration and the presidents themselves, are members of one or more of these groups. Doesn't matter whether they are supposed Dems or Repubs. We are given 2 marbles out of the same bag and told we had a choice. But, it is not a choice. They both are for the same thing.
What do you think these heads of nations, globalist business leaders and international banks get together to discuss, anyway?
Our elected representatives are talking openly about the New World Order now. What do you think this means? Heck, even Pat Robertson talks about it in his book.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: I am sorry if this is shocking or if it sounds amazing. It does not change the fact that it is true.
Shocking? I'ts hallarious.
Well if I am wrong at least I am living here anxiety free in the dark.
Sorry people I guess I will remain niave forever. That is until I die or the Good Lord pulls me out.
Remember also I said before better or worse I will have the strength to endure.
And even though you think that I am crazy for not considering. I am also one of those that would not be suprised by anything. I just choose not look for it, or dwell on it.
I enjoy the less stress envioroment right here in my own little box.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
See now this is why I don't debate stuff with you t.
or Mo or any of you folks. Even when stuff is researched and brought to your attention you guys never read it anyway...
You just go from SPECULATION to TRUTH!
What a bunch of baloney! Actually the NSA puts all this stuff out on the internet so wacks like y'all can find it and access it and that's how they find their subversives...better watch out!
This Just in from an un-named unknown nonexistant govt source as told to the NY Times...
Govt documents revealed Headed DOGWOOD PLAN confirms that the dreaded Bush administration was instumental in the death of Jesus Christ.
Oh brother.....zman
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and that's exactly why things have gotten where they have gotten.
quote:Originally posted by Softballmom: And even though you think that I am crazy for not considering. I am also one of those that would not be suprised by anything. I just choose not look for it, or dwell on it. I enjoy the less stress envioroment right here in my own little box.
I suggested you do some research on your own. If not for you, I would think you would care for your kids.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I said I would read it and I will. I have already looked over it once and commented on one of the points.
I also noticed that one of the "experts" was FEMA. I'm sorry, that's like a snake investigating itself.
There are also other credible people out there that have investigated this too... structural engineers, ballistics experts and the like. Just because a mainstream magazine doesn't carry it, does not make it any less credible.
Cheers... Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to see a pattern here. I could be wrong but only one person will be able to prove that to me.
Topic: Why did the World Trade Center towers fall? Author David95928
Ole Dave makes some statements:
quote:There are a number of web sites that challenge the conclusion of the 9/11 Report
That number is never quantified, never substantiated with any source documents.
Then old Dave goes on to say:
quote:One I came across points out that WTC 7 collapsed in only half a second longer than it would have taken a rock, dropped from the roof in a vacuum (no air resitance) to fall the same distance. Half a second for all of that steel and concrete to give way.
The same site, notes that WTC 2 collapsed in ten seconds, eight tenths of a second longer than it would have taken a rock to fall that distance in a vacuum.
The "One I came across" is never mentioned, never sited with a URL, newspaper article, scientific paper, etc.
Then we hear from Mr. 95928:
quote:This is not just one website dealing with the topic, there a many.
Again, there's not just one website, but many. Yet they are not cited.
Then Mr Conspiracy cites as his only substantiating website:
And the article he refers to is no longer available on the one and only website he uses as proof of his theory.
Someone else at leasts does some research as to the claims made by Mr Dave and finds a non-governmental research paper written debunking all of the theories of old Dave.
Dave makes no response of any type.
Then Dave sits back and watches as 36 separate posts are written in response to his claims. This subject goes from WTC conspiracy to GWB planting WMDS, to the Cuban Operations Northwood, to The McCollum memo, etc.
Yet old Dave's only input past the post that started the thread is:
quote:I didn't offer an answer, just the problem. these buildings fell down too fast and into too small a footprint. What does it mean? I have no idea other than it suggests some sort of complicity, somewhere. IMHO, the question; "How did fire bring down the towers?" is completely differnt from; "Why did the towers fall?"
My conclusion: Dave is full of conjecture, no substance and he enjoys watching the bickering between members of this board.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think David has anything to do with the bickering here, LDad --
Sorry if I am interjecting... it almost sounded like you were challanging him to a duel
I happen to have found a paper by the professor David mentioned.
Here's an abstract and paper
-- a Physics Paper By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy. Brigham Young University.
It includes many sites that raise supportive info, it is published in a peer review journal.. and sites allot of info from the FEMA report.
I'm still taking this all in. However..the paper certainly supports asking the question.
Mo
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Physics Paper By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy. Brigham Young University. Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. Read the report in full below:
``Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,'' The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,
Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Let's start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this building as a basis for discussion.
WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..(pic)
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.(pic)
WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint(poc)
Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) - or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or ``squibs.'' Note that reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the ``official'' fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous ``pulling'' of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the ``official'' theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.
Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [``official theory''] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports).
Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.
2. A New York Times article entitled ``Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,'' provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
That's correct - no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called ``implosion'' or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan-- three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country... Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... `Fire and the structural damage ...would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated', Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
The observed ``partly evaporated'' steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to ``evaporate'' steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored - but is not mentioned in the ``official'' 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (``Twin Towers'') and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
`They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, `ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that ``As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.'' (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
`Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.''
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.
I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse.
So I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author. This could lead to an experiment crucis.
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = 1/2 gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.
However, the presence of such ``squibs'' proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at
The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled ``Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11,'' provides an intriguing puzzle piece:
The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center... All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated... The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of collapse. (pic)
Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse.
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first... (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have not forgotten.
Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a near-simultaneous ``pulling'' of these core supports? Certainly such an event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation, satisfying the ``Occam's razor'' test (Jones, 2005).
6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building... white smoke from the bottom... something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.'' (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down...It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)
And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me... He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.'' (Field, 2005) On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam's razor (Jones, 2005). Thus, it cannot be said that ``no evidence'' can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.
7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives - as well-explained in
Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization region.
Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded ``top-down'' rather than proceeding from the bottom - which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an independent investigation using all available data.
8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:
Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, [are considerations] for the... present and future generations... (Manning, 2002; emphasis added).
9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the ``official'' theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise.
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first...
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above) demonstrates a downward ``kink'' near the center of the building first, suggesting ``pulling'' of the support columns, then the building's sides pull inward such that the building ``collapses straight down into its own footprint'' (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a well-confined footprint:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the collapse of WTC 7, and yet:
This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, when ``toppling-over'' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The ``symmetry data'' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an ``inside job.'' Proof would require additional investigation and questioning of suspects outside of Al Qaeda.
One of the people a thorough investigation should question under oath would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview: ``If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.'' (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Just right - ``explosives in the basement'' agrees with eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the ``kink'' in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the ``handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt'' a symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses. A thorough investigation might also query the owner of WTC7, who received billions in insurance monies due to the demise of the WTC buildings on 9-11. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 17)
If you still haven't looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial ``kink'' or drop in the middle, and for the ``squibs'' blowing in sequence up the side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:
A great deal of further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).
10. I presented my objections to the ``official'' theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics - and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. Two local universities were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).
The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81).
We call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Correct - jet collisions did not cause collapses - we can agree on that. MIT's Thomas Eager also concurs ``because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure'' (Eager and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC... (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: ``The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes'' and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below...''(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Hold on - Bazant & Zhou do not explain how ``more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling'' at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total.
Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to
collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect explosives.
Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is
firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 �C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate ``addendum'' that burning natural gas might have been a source of the needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to note that NIST ``decoupled'' and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005) I agree with some of the NIST report; for example:
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2... where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)
At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.'' (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers... All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.'' (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)
However, I along with others challenge NIST's collapse theory. NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite the observations.
[ 13. March 2006, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: I suggested you do some research on your own. If not for you, I would think you would care for your kids.
OK supose I did spend countless hours researching and finally convince myselft that Bush is the antiChrist and world domination is going to squelch all my freedon and marshal law is going to take over the streets at any given moment. And our own Government is plotting terrorism agaist us and that any of us could get blown away at any time.
What could I do about it. The same as everyone else that is throwing a fit about it. Nothing.
And what would it do for my kids, I would freak them out from my own paranoia and they would find it harder to go on being happy in their childhood.
I am sorry Tesque I am not you. I have no desire to spend my life worrying about things that I have no power over changing. And if you think you do then I wish you the best of luck.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Paranoia is one thing; researching facts is another.
How you vote is important, SBM. One can also send letters to their Congressmen and Senators on various issues. The port thing was somewhat thrwarted. How? The aforementioned got bombarded by emails and phone calls.
We also have some states rights left. If the states don't blindly go along with federal power grabs, that certainly helps. We have a lot more power at the state and local level.
If everyone gives up and thinks nothing can be done, well then, that's what makes it inevitable.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
thanks for providing the articles from the BYU physics professor re: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
I've read through his paper once and will re-read it as time allows.
But here we are again, David95928 has not answered the call. First teques feels the need to defend Mr 95928 & HappyCarelessDave in the thread concerning Hillary Clinton and the military
Now you feel compelled to protect him with your input.
Like I said before;
My conclusion: both Daves are full of conjecture, no substance and enjoy watching the bickering between members of this board.
It must be the mothering instinct for you and teques to feel the need to protect these two.
OBTW:
quote:it almost sounded like you were challanging him to a duel
I was challenging him to substantiate his conspiracy claims and his positions, not have two ladies have to come to his rescue.
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Subject: Why did the World Trade Center towers fall?
Author: Dave with lots of numbers
Answer to question,
Two very large flying fuel tanks with wings impacted the two buildings while flying at a very high rate of speed.
These two very large flying fuel bladders came to a complete and full stop within the interior of the the two buildings and exploded.
The buildings caught on fire, weakened the basic structure of the buildings and they fell down.
More than 3000 people lost their lives, leave their families alone and let them grieve.
George Bush did not have anything to do with causing the airplanes to fly into the buildings.
We are at war with the people who did have something to do with killing so many of our countrymen.
Pretty horrific yet simple stuff!
LymeDad
Posts: 681 | From California | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
David95928
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3521
posted
Mo, thanks for finding and posting that paper. I read it online several months ago and then couldn't find it. It raises questions that seem to have been brushed aside. Lymedad, WTC7 was not struck by an airplane yet collapsed even more symetrically than WTC1 nad WTC 2. As far as who is posting things that are likely to provoke heated discussion, I think you should look in the mirror.
-------------------- Dave Posts: 2034 | From CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: SBM:
Paranoia is one thing; researching facts is another.
How you vote is important, SBM. One can also send letters to their Congressmen and Senators on various issues. The port thing was somewhat thrwarted. How? The aforementioned got bombarded by emails and phone calls.
We also have some states rights left. If the states don't blindly go along with federal power grabs, that certainly helps. We have a lot more power at the state and local level.
If everyone gives up and thinks nothing can be done, well then, that's what makes it inevitable.
Tesque, Look I was just trying to give you a different senario, but honest to goodness I just don't buy into most of the stuff you post here. Also some things that you take stand against I actually find purpose in.
I know you want to change the minds of some people, make them listen and believe but honestly I am not one of those people. No offence to you at all we are just in two totally different places.
I totally agree with Lymedads last post and nothing said on this board is going to change my viewpoint.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SBM - I don't think anyone is interested in changing your opinion..
just if we are gonna discuss on this discusion board, that maybe you might read something of another perspective.
BUT -- If you don't want to discuss, of course that's fine.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
quote:Originally posted by tequeslady: I suggested you do some research on your own. If not for you, I would think you would care for your kids.
If you are not looking to change my opinion then what was this supposed to mean?
I see the same news you see all the time and still have a different conclusion than you. Just because I don't read everything that you post does that mean i don't care about my kids?
You have also called me niave because I don't agree with you or your research. What is that supposed to mean?
There is a difference in discussing and rejecting others beliefs or opinions.
I don't reject your opion i just don't agree with it.
I also don't agree with everything that you call fact or Mo calls substance.
I also find alot of truth in what you both call lies. If that makes me niave or a non-caring mother then maybe I am. I of cource don't view myself in that way.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Mo 
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
Hehehe![[woohoo]](graemlins/woohoo.gif)
![[loco]](graemlins/loco.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic