The use Thermite: Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.
Tom Kennedy (FEMA) arrived September 10 (late Monday night???)
Commercial Real-estate tycoon Silverstein, who acquired the WTC in the spring of 2001 meet with Insurance brokers to negotiate insurance policy, which would include "acts of terrorism" as part of his policy.
I can't comment on conspiracy theories, but after watching this video, there do remain some questions about the nature of the fall of the towers. It seems somewhat peculiar that the towers would fall straight down. Portions of the towers located above impact fell as solid pieces while floors below were blown apart. Granted, the pressure and force accumulated by the upper portions of the towers could cause structural collapse on floors below, but the most telling part of this video is the rate at which the towers fell. At the rate supported by video evidence of the collapse, it does appear that the entire structure buckled below and gave way almost immediately as floors above impacted floors below. I'm no engineer, but even if the fires inside of the towers were sufficiently hot enough to cause a breach of structural integrity within the core of columns, how far would that breach spread down into the core?
I'm certainly not in a better position to buy into the rampant speculation surrounding the root of any attack on the towers after watching this video. That doesn't seem too prudent. But perhaps the reports on how the towers fell didn't tell the whole story.
237, are there other conclusions that could be made from evidence provided in this video for what can only be defined (without a complete set of evidence) for the visual evidence that could accompany demolition (collapse into the basement, steel deformation without brittle cracks, "squibs") in another scenario? Did the slurry walls buckle inwards as the towers fell in, and were structural members pulling the walls in as the collapsed towards the center? Was there enough heat to deform steel that, as the deformations occurred so rapidly, columns and beams just twisted up with the addition of increased pressure? Could it be possible that these perceived "squibs" were simply debris being blown out of floors as the core collapsed inside of the exoskeleton? In the face of this explanation, I'm certainly left with more questions than before. I'll ask some engineers I know.
Just as I won't take the explanations given for the collapse of the towers at the word of FEMA or the 911 Commission, I can't take the explanation of this video as wholesale truth, either. All I can say is that it raises questions. That hesitation is not born out of fear, paranoia or any other diversionary dalliances you mentioned; my hesitation is an attempt to prudently weigh the facts.
I live here, and I personally was more fortunate than others in that those close to me were able to get out of the towers that day. I remember the silence everywhere you went for about two weeks, and the dust and smell of burning metal that lingered in the air.
I appreciate how ardent and passionate you have responded to what you believe is apathy. But, give people a chance (and some time) to think things through themselves before you lash out.
I agree that one cannot take the explanation of this video as the wholesale truth; more importantly, we should research, challenge and raise questions, which support or discredit said statements.
On the contrary, I do not view 237's comments as an attempt to lash out; simply stated, given a 24-hour tirelessness repress, I too, am confounded to the silence.
i just believe that alot of things happen here in the u.s. that tends to be hush hush and we as a people are blind-folded to really see it...... i'm sure there are other questions/facts/etc.... but to this date i think that alot of the evidence stated could hold weight .........
on an architecture side, it's really gets me that a tower of that size could fall straight down....... and then the facts of building 7 i think it was also happened to fall...wtf......
the media tends to manipulate the population with criteria and other visuals that can alter how we see things...... i personally dont have a tv for this reason...too much b.s. on t.v. that makes people lazy and forget whats really going on in this world....
i also have some friends and family that are fighting this "so called" war in iraq........ if it all comes down to a reason for attacking iraq based off of the wtc then i would be really upset that this government sacrified sooo many people to make a statement....... and just think that we pay taxes to the government that in turn kills it own people for the sake of war/oil...........
i look at it this way... if a country attacks the u.s. then we should attack back .....but when was that last time there was a war on u.s. soil and how many times has the u.s. acted as tough guy and attacked other countries/etc.......... we have our own problems here...... we have homeless people/poverty/etc that needs to be taken care of..... we are losing jobs due to exporting over seas/etc......... it seems that the u.s. thinks more about getting into others shyt than taking care of itself....
i'm just a bit pissed about this whole matter.......
hope people have the time to at least watch the video....... it's a bit long but makes for some good questions...
I have visions of the Onion's post 9/11 headlines in my head after watching htis video: "Holy Fucking Shit!"
The film's analysis is flat out wrong , misguided, and under-complex at many points, but overall asks much more reputable questions than the official 9/11 Commission theory puts forward. Silverstein as the new Robert Moses with complicity all the way up the government. Absolutely insane boondogglers. Ah, the rage.
There is absolutely no way that at least several, if not dozens stories of the core should not have been standing after the 'collapse.' Bastards. What do we do?
the timing of the attacks always felt curious...
i mean if the intent is to kill as many people as possible..
why not use a flight in the middle of the day? there has to
be a midday flight from boston to la. also the collapse of seven
is very curious. why were no other buildings effected as dramatically?
i remember seeing other videos with the offices that were effected
by the collapse and the records that were archived in seven...and that
they were of a highly sensitive nature...but i can't remember.
also the fact that the command center for communications for this
kind of attack was located in the towers is curious as well..i mean the
towers had already been attacked...twice i believe. why would you
locate this kind of office in a building that is the only building that
had been attacked?
one other question:
if explosives were indeed placed throughout the building someone
would've had to notice, right? i mean wouldn't gyp walls have to be
opened up and extensive renovations have to take place? every
floor would have been effected. couldn't survivors be asked about
this?
237, I agree about the core. Even though we are given to the strength of the exoskeleton of the towers, if that structural facade peeled away and pulled all of the open web joists with it, would it necessarily tear the steel column-and-beam core apart? If what the video states is true, and those connections between exoskeleton and core were both bolted and welded, it doesn't seem that possible. imho, it would be more plausible that, were enough deformation to occur at the point of impact (with the connection failure of the open web joists), the top would shear away and careen (sp?) wildly down to the ground.
However, one thing the video didn't address in detail was the totality of core destruction on impact. If enough of the core was severed on impact, and the exoskeleton was punctured to a sufficient degree, could the collapse of the tower above impact create enough force to crush the remaining structure down on itself?
See, that's the part I don't get, also. While the video gave a tangible example of the exoskeleton (mesh screening), if you make a large enough puncture, you can sincerely compromise the integrity of the system.
I have a structures class tonight, and I intend to ask the question.
ok..so most of the questions i asked were answered in the video..
the collapse of seven is really suspicious. i've always felt that that
building collapsing was a planned event..or at least didn't happen
because of falling debree. it was the only building that completely
collapsed unlike the other buildings surrounding it that were punctured
and such as would be expected.
the fact that all of the files for most of the major corporate scandals
were held in that building as well as the cia and other govt agencies
makes it even moreso. giuliani not going to the control center there
makes sense..it was way too close to the towers...but why it was there
in the first place is the question.
also the fact that a bush was in charge of security and that all of the
building was getting new wiring is highly suspicious. these buildings
falling were the only reason for us going to war.
like i said above...it seems as though everything was done to sustain
a minimal loss of life...if this was truly terrorism and was done during
the middle of the day the numbers would be far worse. that and
the amazing fact that these are the only steel buildings that have
collapsed due to fire....THE ONLY steel buildings. that's crazy. i try
not to be cynical and believe my govt..but i feel like this is more than
a conspiracy theory.
i mean the rate of collapse is highly suspicious as well. it almost
looks as though the lower floors are collapsing before the upper floors
hit them..and as was said, if the floors collapsed in a pancake like
fashion..there would have been stages to the demolition or at least
a staggered, disjointed falling. that and the basement explosions
providing area for the debri above to fall into..seems like someone
was trying to make sure surrounding buildings were hurt as minimally
as possible.
also those core beams cut at an exact angle has to make you wonder.
unless they were cut during removal, which is also possible, and used
to prove the video's theories..the same technique would be used
to demo the debri i suppose. and would've cause the affect they were
describing.
i think the video mentioned that there was dust from the ventilation sytems of a concrete like powder... also empty floors with machining going on....... it just seems like there is tooo many "factors" involved here ..
you would think that if a plane hit one side and knocked out the "mesh" structure, then the building would lean to that side...right...... both towers stood straight up for an hour.......
also, jet fuel doenst burn when ignited...... jet fuel and other diesel fuels are based off of compression for reaction....... it a diesal truck, there are no spark plugs...they have glow plugs which heat up the air (i think) before the cycle of revolution to start the combustion process.....
i think the factor of having a plane crash during the time it did was for the 'scare" factor....that's the time people are in the streets/driving to work/etc........ have alot of people see the action take place is a major factor in pursueding other actions.......
was the core actually connected to the rest of the building?.... i'll have to double check that.....
237 - the open web joists spanned from core structure out to the exoskeleton. this type of structure was replicated throughout the three "stages" of each tower. the video didn't mention the structural differences at the transition points (between the lowest and closest to the ground stage 1 and stage 2, and between stage 2 and the highest, furthest from the ground stage 3) - at least to my knowledge.
Now, I believe that if the open web joists on one or two sides of the tower were severed, and enough of the exoekeleton was structurally compromised, the building would buckle in the middle and slump - as you suggested. the pierced exoskeleton would deform and buckle at the weak point - at least to a degree - if the loads could not be sustained by the structure. larslarson, I agree that the precision of the collapse does render the provided scenario a bit weak.
another question I have: the video briefly interviewed the structural engineer for the project and challenged that his firm did NOT account for the tempreature of burning jet fuel while they DID account for the possibility of plane impact. What the video DIDN'T ask was, worst case scenario, was the building designed to fall like this (straight down)? I know it seems implausible, but would such a contigency be made? considering the fact that this issue wasn't addressed, I would have to assume that the engineers don't consider the potential of a collapse during design of the structure. See, I never made a skyscraper and I wouldn't know the answer to that. one more question to ask in class tonight.
if you are to ask the questions in class, i wouldnt mention the topic wtc in the question... it might then become biased/etc..... not sure if you can sketch up on the board in class but this might make for a good discussion....
and burning jet fuel doesnt burn..... it will explode once
i asked my dad about jet fuel since he was a military mechanic back in the day and he said that jet fuel/kerosene/diesal/etc dont burn..
we need a chemistry person is here to do some "experimentations"
237...woudln't there be as many people/tourists out for lunch/
end of work day if the planes had hit at noon or afternoon?
plus lots more people would've been directly effected...due to more
people dying/ more tourists on the observation decks/ more people
on the streets etc..as opposed to indirectly..like i know two people that
died that day.
l8er...it seems implausible that an engineer would design a
building to detonate or self destruct. of course these being two
of the tallest buildings in the world..maybe it's possible. i mean
maybe they take into account that the destruction would be worse if
the building fell to one side. however, i still feel as though there
would be a more gradual descent...
and it doesn't explain why seven fell..to me seven is an undeniable
detonation...and the timing of it is either highly fortuitous to the
'vandal' or highly suspicious because it would imply the intentional
destruction of all three towers +.
aside from the fact that too much time is spent on oliver stoning this event...
lars i thought about the flight thing too, but consider this answer, the reason the terrorists took earlier flights was to limit the number of passengers they'd have to overcome, and that generally people flying that early are typically tired and disinterested and zoning out or sleeping to worry about "rowdy" passengers.
i looked at some of these vids through other sites and don't buy any claims made, it requires too much damned coordination and when you consider how unbelievably uncoordinated this admin and the previous admin was at just about anything it seems implausible that anyone governmental agency can do anything on the scale these theories suggest.
the newer lloks at the evidence of why these towers fell might be too overlooked.
maybe i jumped the gun by posting the video.... but it still has it's facts if they hold any weight.....
i know over the years governments do things to make shit happen.... if it was the government that did , then shit is really gonna hit the fan...... but then again the majority i would think would say....well since we are in war, we mine as well finish it and that's that.....
so I got some initial information on why the buildings fell straight down after briefly discussing this with my professor tonight:
buildings will fall straight down. so I guess what I was asking before IS true...buildings are engineered to fall straight down. this is part of the design, but not BY design - larger loads acted on by gravity and gravity ONLY need to be overcome by even LARGER loads to deviate from the path straight down (that of gravity).
granted, smaller buildings may have a tendency to lilt or shear off, perhaps even lean, but buildings this big centralize the load path with incredible dead load forces. these forces, acting along the load path, are obviously centered on the foundation, or footprint, of the building. think about the amount of force it would take to overcome the force simply created by gravity pulling the building down to topple the building in any direction but straight down. even with the resistance of the structure, the wind, or whatever, if the building is moving down, then is anything stopping it?
so, that actually makes sense that it happens that way.
then I asked about the possibility of the core...he said the thing would just absolutely crush if structural integrity was breached to a degree of failure. again, the dead loads are simply too great. however, since this was a side conversation during break, I didn't get to mention heat factor and deformation of steel, although I did mention that it was a steel building burning and deforming in a very short period of time.
he said he would take a look at the video and see what's up (at least the first part - the least persuasive and most informational part of the video)...so perhaps more next week.
the new evidence suggests that the open web joists with such a load actually pulled the outer "tube" columns towards the center of the building and that the outer structure "exploded." when they slow the frames down of the collapsing structures it is clear that this is what was happening. i wish i could add more, but i am tired...
if what beta said is true, and the open web joist connections were strong enough to pull the damaged exoskeleton into the center as the core collapsed, the I suppose one question remains unaccounted for (and we're now dangerously close to averting a conspiracy): how did the core fail? if there was not enough heat to cause deformation and failure (as this video describes), then was the impact enough to destabilize and compromise the integrity of the core?
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition†hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory†hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse†after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory†of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses†integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
but i disagree that it's the complete and only truth. just on the video
alone there are people with counter positions to what the NIST is saying..
and isn't the NIST a govt agency? so there's no way they'd lie or repeat
the same story as the government. it's easy to say that the impact dislodged
the fireproofing...now tell me why/how. and does or doesn't airplane fuel
burn high enough to melt steel? and why did it burn for so long? seems odd.
i'm not a complete cynic, but i don't buy the first story down the pike either.
the jet fuel wont burn..... it's a compression fuel......
near the end of the video....1.16 time... mentions about not seeing buckling in the members but rather bends in the steel...no cracks....
the skyscapers were designed for plane crashes and they even sway in the wind....so there is some sort of load calculation determing increase of percentage ....
Morgan Reynolds - cheif economist for US labor department in the bush administration on 9/11
Robert M. Bowman - Former director of US Airforce "Star Wars" program, former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.
Andreas von Buelow - Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Philip J. Berg, Esq. - Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, whose web site, www.911forthetruth.com, covers the RICO lawsuit that is pending against Bush, Cheney and 53 other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York
interesting stuff...
the pentagon attack definitely is the most suspicious of the 911 events (besides, of course, the overt demolition of wtc7)
"Zubaydah's interrogation leaves some questions unanswered which I think will eventually be run to ground," he says. "He's recanted his story. He's said he just picked these names out of a hat to spare himself some torture. But is it possible that he picked out three Saudi princes and the head of the Pakistani air force, and then they all just had the bad luck of dying -- the three Saudis within days of each other -- after the U.S. shared the information? And from a blood clot, a car wreck, dehydration and a plane crash? I guess technically it's possible. People do win the lottery. But as I view it, it's extremely unlikely."
so i was thinking about this..... if the side if the building failed and pulled the rest down, would the moment connection on the core snap/break.... it would have been more of a moment than a shear for the first set of floors........
was the center core concrete with steel beams buried inside?
why buildings fall down..... staged demo's
if you have 1.5 hours to understand
interesting....... a topic on 2 famous buildings and how the government blew them up and no reponses...wtf..........
evidence is there
but yet people choose to ignore it.
but then again we can talk about b.s. on graphics/cad/etc........
Most interesting aspects:
The use Thermite: Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.
Tom Kennedy (FEMA) arrived September 10 (late Monday night???)
Commercial Real-estate tycoon Silverstein, who acquired the WTC in the spring of 2001 meet with Insurance brokers to negotiate insurance policy, which would include "acts of terrorism" as part of his policy.
I can't comment on conspiracy theories, but after watching this video, there do remain some questions about the nature of the fall of the towers. It seems somewhat peculiar that the towers would fall straight down. Portions of the towers located above impact fell as solid pieces while floors below were blown apart. Granted, the pressure and force accumulated by the upper portions of the towers could cause structural collapse on floors below, but the most telling part of this video is the rate at which the towers fell. At the rate supported by video evidence of the collapse, it does appear that the entire structure buckled below and gave way almost immediately as floors above impacted floors below. I'm no engineer, but even if the fires inside of the towers were sufficiently hot enough to cause a breach of structural integrity within the core of columns, how far would that breach spread down into the core?
I'm certainly not in a better position to buy into the rampant speculation surrounding the root of any attack on the towers after watching this video. That doesn't seem too prudent. But perhaps the reports on how the towers fell didn't tell the whole story.
237, are there other conclusions that could be made from evidence provided in this video for what can only be defined (without a complete set of evidence) for the visual evidence that could accompany demolition (collapse into the basement, steel deformation without brittle cracks, "squibs") in another scenario? Did the slurry walls buckle inwards as the towers fell in, and were structural members pulling the walls in as the collapsed towards the center? Was there enough heat to deform steel that, as the deformations occurred so rapidly, columns and beams just twisted up with the addition of increased pressure? Could it be possible that these perceived "squibs" were simply debris being blown out of floors as the core collapsed inside of the exoskeleton? In the face of this explanation, I'm certainly left with more questions than before. I'll ask some engineers I know.
Just as I won't take the explanations given for the collapse of the towers at the word of FEMA or the 911 Commission, I can't take the explanation of this video as wholesale truth, either. All I can say is that it raises questions. That hesitation is not born out of fear, paranoia or any other diversionary dalliances you mentioned; my hesitation is an attempt to prudently weigh the facts.
I live here, and I personally was more fortunate than others in that those close to me were able to get out of the towers that day. I remember the silence everywhere you went for about two weeks, and the dust and smell of burning metal that lingered in the air.
I appreciate how ardent and passionate you have responded to what you believe is apathy. But, give people a chance (and some time) to think things through themselves before you lash out.
I agree that one cannot take the explanation of this video as the wholesale truth; more importantly, we should research, challenge and raise questions, which support or discredit said statements.
On the contrary, I do not view 237's comments as an attempt to lash out; simply stated, given a 24-hour tirelessness repress, I too, am confounded to the silence.
i just believe that alot of things happen here in the u.s. that tends to be hush hush and we as a people are blind-folded to really see it...... i'm sure there are other questions/facts/etc.... but to this date i think that alot of the evidence stated could hold weight .........
on an architecture side, it's really gets me that a tower of that size could fall straight down....... and then the facts of building 7 i think it was also happened to fall...wtf......
the media tends to manipulate the population with criteria and other visuals that can alter how we see things...... i personally dont have a tv for this reason...too much b.s. on t.v. that makes people lazy and forget whats really going on in this world....
i also have some friends and family that are fighting this "so called" war in iraq........ if it all comes down to a reason for attacking iraq based off of the wtc then i would be really upset that this government sacrified sooo many people to make a statement....... and just think that we pay taxes to the government that in turn kills it own people for the sake of war/oil...........
i look at it this way... if a country attacks the u.s. then we should attack back .....but when was that last time there was a war on u.s. soil and how many times has the u.s. acted as tough guy and attacked other countries/etc.......... we have our own problems here...... we have homeless people/poverty/etc that needs to be taken care of..... we are losing jobs due to exporting over seas/etc......... it seems that the u.s. thinks more about getting into others shyt than taking care of itself....
i'm just a bit pissed about this whole matter.......
hope people have the time to at least watch the video....... it's a bit long but makes for some good questions...
b
I have visions of the Onion's post 9/11 headlines in my head after watching htis video: "Holy Fucking Shit!"
The film's analysis is flat out wrong , misguided, and under-complex at many points, but overall asks much more reputable questions than the official 9/11 Commission theory puts forward. Silverstein as the new Robert Moses with complicity all the way up the government. Absolutely insane boondogglers. Ah, the rage.
There is absolutely no way that at least several, if not dozens stories of the core should not have been standing after the 'collapse.' Bastards. What do we do?
the timing of the attacks always felt curious...
i mean if the intent is to kill as many people as possible..
why not use a flight in the middle of the day? there has to
be a midday flight from boston to la. also the collapse of seven
is very curious. why were no other buildings effected as dramatically?
i remember seeing other videos with the offices that were effected
by the collapse and the records that were archived in seven...and that
they were of a highly sensitive nature...but i can't remember.
also the fact that the command center for communications for this
kind of attack was located in the towers is curious as well..i mean the
towers had already been attacked...twice i believe. why would you
locate this kind of office in a building that is the only building that
had been attacked?
one other question:
if explosives were indeed placed throughout the building someone
would've had to notice, right? i mean wouldn't gyp walls have to be
opened up and extensive renovations have to take place? every
floor would have been effected. couldn't survivors be asked about
this?
237, I agree about the core. Even though we are given to the strength of the exoskeleton of the towers, if that structural facade peeled away and pulled all of the open web joists with it, would it necessarily tear the steel column-and-beam core apart? If what the video states is true, and those connections between exoskeleton and core were both bolted and welded, it doesn't seem that possible. imho, it would be more plausible that, were enough deformation to occur at the point of impact (with the connection failure of the open web joists), the top would shear away and careen (sp?) wildly down to the ground.
However, one thing the video didn't address in detail was the totality of core destruction on impact. If enough of the core was severed on impact, and the exoskeleton was punctured to a sufficient degree, could the collapse of the tower above impact create enough force to crush the remaining structure down on itself?
See, that's the part I don't get, also. While the video gave a tangible example of the exoskeleton (mesh screening), if you make a large enough puncture, you can sincerely compromise the integrity of the system.
I have a structures class tonight, and I intend to ask the question.
ok..so most of the questions i asked were answered in the video..
the collapse of seven is really suspicious. i've always felt that that
building collapsing was a planned event..or at least didn't happen
because of falling debree. it was the only building that completely
collapsed unlike the other buildings surrounding it that were punctured
and such as would be expected.
the fact that all of the files for most of the major corporate scandals
were held in that building as well as the cia and other govt agencies
makes it even moreso. giuliani not going to the control center there
makes sense..it was way too close to the towers...but why it was there
in the first place is the question.
also the fact that a bush was in charge of security and that all of the
building was getting new wiring is highly suspicious. these buildings
falling were the only reason for us going to war.
like i said above...it seems as though everything was done to sustain
a minimal loss of life...if this was truly terrorism and was done during
the middle of the day the numbers would be far worse. that and
the amazing fact that these are the only steel buildings that have
collapsed due to fire....THE ONLY steel buildings. that's crazy. i try
not to be cynical and believe my govt..but i feel like this is more than
a conspiracy theory.
i mean the rate of collapse is highly suspicious as well. it almost
looks as though the lower floors are collapsing before the upper floors
hit them..and as was said, if the floors collapsed in a pancake like
fashion..there would have been stages to the demolition or at least
a staggered, disjointed falling. that and the basement explosions
providing area for the debri above to fall into..seems like someone
was trying to make sure surrounding buildings were hurt as minimally
as possible.
also those core beams cut at an exact angle has to make you wonder.
unless they were cut during removal, which is also possible, and used
to prove the video's theories..the same technique would be used
to demo the debri i suppose. and would've cause the affect they were
describing.
who to believe.
i think the video mentioned that there was dust from the ventilation sytems of a concrete like powder... also empty floors with machining going on....... it just seems like there is tooo many "factors" involved here ..
you would think that if a plane hit one side and knocked out the "mesh" structure, then the building would lean to that side...right...... both towers stood straight up for an hour.......
also, jet fuel doenst burn when ignited...... jet fuel and other diesel fuels are based off of compression for reaction....... it a diesal truck, there are no spark plugs...they have glow plugs which heat up the air (i think) before the cycle of revolution to start the combustion process.....
i think the factor of having a plane crash during the time it did was for the 'scare" factor....that's the time people are in the streets/driving to work/etc........ have alot of people see the action take place is a major factor in pursueding other actions.......
was the core actually connected to the rest of the building?.... i'll have to double check that.....
237 - the open web joists spanned from core structure out to the exoskeleton. this type of structure was replicated throughout the three "stages" of each tower. the video didn't mention the structural differences at the transition points (between the lowest and closest to the ground stage 1 and stage 2, and between stage 2 and the highest, furthest from the ground stage 3) - at least to my knowledge.
Now, I believe that if the open web joists on one or two sides of the tower were severed, and enough of the exoekeleton was structurally compromised, the building would buckle in the middle and slump - as you suggested. the pierced exoskeleton would deform and buckle at the weak point - at least to a degree - if the loads could not be sustained by the structure. larslarson, I agree that the precision of the collapse does render the provided scenario a bit weak.
another question I have: the video briefly interviewed the structural engineer for the project and challenged that his firm did NOT account for the tempreature of burning jet fuel while they DID account for the possibility of plane impact. What the video DIDN'T ask was, worst case scenario, was the building designed to fall like this (straight down)? I know it seems implausible, but would such a contigency be made? considering the fact that this issue wasn't addressed, I would have to assume that the engineers don't consider the potential of a collapse during design of the structure. See, I never made a skyscraper and I wouldn't know the answer to that. one more question to ask in class tonight.
if you are to ask the questions in class, i wouldnt mention the topic wtc in the question... it might then become biased/etc..... not sure if you can sketch up on the board in class but this might make for a good discussion....
and burning jet fuel doesnt burn..... it will explode once
i asked my dad about jet fuel since he was a military mechanic back in the day and he said that jet fuel/kerosene/diesal/etc dont burn..
we need a chemistry person is here to do some "experimentations"
237...woudln't there be as many people/tourists out for lunch/
end of work day if the planes had hit at noon or afternoon?
plus lots more people would've been directly effected...due to more
people dying/ more tourists on the observation decks/ more people
on the streets etc..as opposed to indirectly..like i know two people that
died that day.
l8er...it seems implausible that an engineer would design a
building to detonate or self destruct. of course these being two
of the tallest buildings in the world..maybe it's possible. i mean
maybe they take into account that the destruction would be worse if
the building fell to one side. however, i still feel as though there
would be a more gradual descent...
and it doesn't explain why seven fell..to me seven is an undeniable
detonation...and the timing of it is either highly fortuitous to the
'vandal' or highly suspicious because it would imply the intentional
destruction of all three towers +.
another issue.... doesnt most passenger planes have auto pilot that can be controlled by the tower in case of emergency?..........
and why would they let people into the other tower once the first was hit?....hmmmm
aside from the fact that too much time is spent on oliver stoning this event...
lars i thought about the flight thing too, but consider this answer, the reason the terrorists took earlier flights was to limit the number of passengers they'd have to overcome, and that generally people flying that early are typically tired and disinterested and zoning out or sleeping to worry about "rowdy" passengers.
i looked at some of these vids through other sites and don't buy any claims made, it requires too much damned coordination and when you consider how unbelievably uncoordinated this admin and the previous admin was at just about anything it seems implausible that anyone governmental agency can do anything on the scale these theories suggest.
the newer lloks at the evidence of why these towers fell might be too overlooked.
All commercial planes have auto pilot, but they are not controllable by the tower.
maybe i jumped the gun by posting the video.... but it still has it's facts if they hold any weight.....
i know over the years governments do things to make shit happen.... if it was the government that did , then shit is really gonna hit the fan...... but then again the majority i would think would say....well since we are in war, we mine as well finish it and that's that.....
so I got some initial information on why the buildings fell straight down after briefly discussing this with my professor tonight:
buildings will fall straight down. so I guess what I was asking before IS true...buildings are engineered to fall straight down. this is part of the design, but not BY design - larger loads acted on by gravity and gravity ONLY need to be overcome by even LARGER loads to deviate from the path straight down (that of gravity).
granted, smaller buildings may have a tendency to lilt or shear off, perhaps even lean, but buildings this big centralize the load path with incredible dead load forces. these forces, acting along the load path, are obviously centered on the foundation, or footprint, of the building. think about the amount of force it would take to overcome the force simply created by gravity pulling the building down to topple the building in any direction but straight down. even with the resistance of the structure, the wind, or whatever, if the building is moving down, then is anything stopping it?
so, that actually makes sense that it happens that way.
then I asked about the possibility of the core...he said the thing would just absolutely crush if structural integrity was breached to a degree of failure. again, the dead loads are simply too great. however, since this was a side conversation during break, I didn't get to mention heat factor and deformation of steel, although I did mention that it was a steel building burning and deforming in a very short period of time.
he said he would take a look at the video and see what's up (at least the first part - the least persuasive and most informational part of the video)...so perhaps more next week.
the new evidence suggests that the open web joists with such a load actually pulled the outer "tube" columns towards the center of the building and that the outer structure "exploded." when they slow the frames down of the collapsing structures it is clear that this is what was happening. i wish i could add more, but i am tired...
if what beta said is true, and the open web joist connections were strong enough to pull the damaged exoskeleton into the center as the core collapsed, the I suppose one question remains unaccounted for (and we're now dangerously close to averting a conspiracy): how did the core fail? if there was not enough heat to cause deformation and failure (as this video describes), then was the impact enough to destabilize and compromise the integrity of the core?
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition†hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory†hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse†after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory†of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses†integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
it all seems quite rational really.
i agree its rational..
but i disagree that it's the complete and only truth. just on the video
alone there are people with counter positions to what the NIST is saying..
and isn't the NIST a govt agency? so there's no way they'd lie or repeat
the same story as the government. it's easy to say that the impact dislodged
the fireproofing...now tell me why/how. and does or doesn't airplane fuel
burn high enough to melt steel? and why did it burn for so long? seems odd.
i'm not a complete cynic, but i don't buy the first story down the pike either.
the jet fuel wont burn..... it's a compression fuel......
near the end of the video....1.16 time... mentions about not seeing buckling in the members but rather bends in the steel...no cracks....
the skyscapers were designed for plane crashes and they even sway in the wind....so there is some sort of load calculation determing increase of percentage ....
b
Silverstein (WTC leaseholder) admitting that wtc 7 was "pulled" down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ufakK2fIc
scholar's for 9/11 truth site:
http://www.st911.org/
note some of the members:
Morgan Reynolds - cheif economist for US labor department in the bush administration on 9/11
Robert M. Bowman - Former director of US Airforce "Star Wars" program, former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.
Andreas von Buelow - Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Philip J. Berg, Esq. - Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, whose web site, www.911forthetruth.com, covers the RICO lawsuit that is pending against Bush, Cheney and 53 other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York
interesting stuff...
the pentagon attack definitely is the most suspicious of the 911 events (besides, of course, the overt demolition of wtc7)
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/pentagon.html
check out the hole that was "from flight 77" before the wall collapsed after the crash>>>
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html
Did the Saudies tell us before it happened?
Princes dying of thirst...rofls
"Zubaydah's interrogation leaves some questions unanswered which I think will eventually be run to ground," he says. "He's recanted his story. He's said he just picked these names out of a hat to spare himself some torture. But is it possible that he picked out three Saudi princes and the head of the Pakistani air force, and then they all just had the bad luck of dying -- the three Saudis within days of each other -- after the U.S. shared the information? And from a blood clot, a car wreck, dehydration and a plane crash? I guess technically it's possible. People do win the lottery. But as I view it, it's extremely unlikely."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/18/saudis/index.html?pn=1
And for the scariest shit...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
l8rpeace, I'd be interested to hear what your professor thinks, after you talk to him next week, please post..
so i was thinking about this..... if the side if the building failed and pulled the rest down, would the moment connection on the core snap/break.... it would have been more of a moment than a shear for the first set of floors........
was the center core concrete with steel beams buried inside?
?
I think the South Park episode that ran tonight explains it all. I took a dump in the urinal.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.