One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it`s challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. The older clown and Petie "I`m not psychotic
at all" Roehling operates at that level. Pitiful, but at least
slightly amusing.
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That`s also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you`ve got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7`s "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7`s picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7`s demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We`re still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7`s massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7`s free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush`s FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers`
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That`s been proved through
physics, and that`s why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross`
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government`s conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block`s internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn`t it? Here`s
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That`s not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>
From: Henry
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:54:51 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 91
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:07 am, Henry wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>
>>> Flaming bunch of paranoid buffoons too lazy to check
>>> their facts.
>> Speaking of being too lazy to check your "facts", do
>> you still stand by your claim that, "Absolutely nobody
>> in the structural engineering community seems to find
>> the collapse difficult to believe"?
> Let`s look at your experts.
There are hundreds of them, and it that would take weeks.
Let`s see you answer one question first. If you stand the
silly, easy debunked, and blatant lie above, you`re obviously
not capable of an honest, open discussion of the facts.
Do you still stand by your claim that, "Absolutely nobody
in the structural engineering community seems to find
the collapse difficult to believe"? There are over 300
members of http://www.ae911truth.org alone.
I noticed that you were unable to refute any of the
facts, research or evidence cited by the over 300
experts who have joined Architects and Engineers for
9-11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org
If there`s one thing consistent with Bush parroting
magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy kooks it`s
their inability to address the facts, defend their
impossible fairy tale, or cite any qualified references
to support their childish fantasies.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-question-collapse.html
Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government`s
version of events. However, that is now changing.
The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government`s account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:
Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in
structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation
here)
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government`s version of the destruction of the World Trade
Center.
More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove
demolition:
http://journalof911studies.com/
Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime`s
magic fire theory is physically impossible.
http://ae911truth.org/
Another one:
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
And quite a few more:
http://911proof.com/10.html
More yet:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
And a couple hundred more:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>
From: Henry
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:41:34 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 66
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> I think we`ve already discovered it. Now we could
> only figure out a useful application for Henry.
Rob, a while back, you cited Thomas Eagar as a credible
expert in an attempt to defend your WTC conspiracy theory.
I pointed out just two of many glaring errors in his
"research", either of which is enough to cost him all
credibility. He`s guilty of either deliberate and gross
misrepresentation of the evidence, or extreme ignorance.
The errors were:
1. Eagar depicted the central cores structures as a series
of horizontal slabs suspended in space. "Pancakes" somehow
floating in mid air, ready drop into a stack on a moment`s
notice. The Bush regime (for National Security, of course)
refused to release the structural drawings of the towers, so
millions of people believed the central cores were a series of
barely supported, ready to collapse, flat slabs.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1_files/coll_wtcdesign.jpg
Myself and others who work to expose the truth about 9-11 portray
the massive central core structures accurately. This is what they
looked like in reality. The Bush regime`s puppets also denied
the very existence of the cores. That`s another gross misrepresentation
of the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
Eagar`s second glaring error is also enough to cost him all
credibility. He claims that tall buildings can`t be made to
topple sideways, because according to Eagar "there`s nothing
that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways".
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
When I asked if you agree with with him, you replied,
"Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it
at an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or
does it travel straight to the ground at the same angle?"
Your "explanation" seems strange, since the tall buildings
are resting on the ground, so if supports on just one side
are destroyed, the unsupported side of the building begins to
drop and the undamaged columns act as a fulcrum causing the
building to tilt. That`s precisely what takes place in this
video, and exactly what all knowledgeable and credible experts
would expect.
http://tinyurl.com/yuaxsp
So, I have two questions for you.
1. How can you accept as credible or believable, a reference
who so grossly represents both evidence and basic physics?
If anyone ever pointed out disinformation and/or ignorance even
half that blatant on one of the references I use, I`d dump
it in a hurry. Eagar`s disinformation was broadcast on millions
of TVs all over the globe, yet, attempts to expose his errors
and reveal the truth and facts get little notice by the same
corporate media. That too, should tell you something.
2. What falling blocks and sticks have to do with the tilting
of a tall narrow structure that`s resting on the ground?
SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>
From: Henry
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:48:02 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 359
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid
.p.jm(at)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> (PDT), Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>> I think we`ve already discovered it. Now we could
>> only figure out a useful application for Henry.
>
> I have a rock in the yard that sits a little bit too low.
>
> He`d make a good shim.
I`d like to thank you silly clowns for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn`t have done it much better myself.
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it`s challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. The Older Clown and Petie "I`m not psychotic
at all" Roehling operates at that level. Pitiful, but at least
slightly amusing.
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That`s also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you`ve got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7`s "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7`s picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7`s demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We`re still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7`s massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7`s free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush`s FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers`
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That`s been proved through
physics, and that`s why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross`
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government`s conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block`s internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn`t it? Here`s
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That`s not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
Do you also think the central cores consisted of a series of
horizontal slabs suspended in space? That`s how they were portrayed
on millions of TV`s by your ruling masters as part of their brainwashing
campaign. "Pancakes" suspended in mid air, ready drop into a stack at
a moment`s notice. A blatant, deliberate, and gross misrepresentation
of the evidence, but that`s close enough for government propaganda
guzzling/puking cartoon conspiracy sheep...
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1_files/coll_wtcdesign.jpg
Myself and others who work to expose the truth about 9-11 portray
the massive central core structures accurately. This is what they
looked like in reality. The Bush regime`s puppets also denied
the very existence of the cores. That`s another gross misrepresentation
of the evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
Your ruling masters resort to lies and imaginary structures
portrayed in drawings, because actual photo evidence and facts
prove their cartoon kook theories to be impossible.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
Title: Thompson Stumps At Rev. Al's Birthday
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:29:04 +0000
Author: harlemworldblog
Politics Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson stumped for votes Saturday at the National Action Network h
More on: http://harlemworldblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/thompson-stumps-at-rev-als-birthday/
Powered by Lv501.com