Electrical Engineering - Alleged timed detonation:9/11/01?

Author

Alleged timed detonation:9/11/01?

Hatto von Aquitanien

2006-04-22, 5:21 am

Is this at all realistic? I'm not asking about the conspiracy aspects of
this suggestion. I'm asking about the technical feasibility of the
suggestion.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
"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."

I have to wonder if it's even reasonable to expect such signals to be
reliably sensed inside those huge steel lattices. Then I have to ask if
it's reasonable that explosives could be timed that precicely.
--
Nil conscire sibi

Bud--

2006-04-22, 6:21 am

Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:

> Is this at all realistic? I'm not asking about the conspiracy aspects of
> this suggestion. I'm asking about the technical feasibility of the
> suggestion.
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> "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."
>
> I have to wonder if it's even reasonable to expect such signals to be
> reliably sensed inside those huge steel lattices. Then I have to ask if
> it's reasonable that explosives could be timed that precicely.

There should be no problem receiving a signal inside the building if the
receiver was not destroyed by plane explosion or fire. IIRC the colapse
started at or adjacent to the fire floors. Not likely the planes could
have been flown into just the right floors for the explosives to be
adjacent. Not likely the explosives could have survived the fire. The
structural support was the outer walls and the central core. Major
portions of the impact wall was destroyed. The collapse was entirely
consistent with fire weakened steel and major structural damage, causing
collapse at the fire floors and the building pancaking down. Planting
explosives would make the plan far more complicated, risk detection, and
was not necessary. Even if the towers had not collapsed a message would
have been sent. I think this was the only collapse of a steel frame high
rise caused by fire. Ignoring the terrorism, for that reason alone the
cause of the collapse was investigated very closely. Inconceivable that
investigation wouldn't have found evidence of explosive action.

bud--

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-04-22, 7:21 am

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:58:49 -0400, Hatto von Aquitanien
<abbot@AugiaDives.hre> Gave us:

>Is this at all realistic?

You are an idiot if you think that anything other than avgas brought
those buildings down. Well, that and gravity.

Ken

2006-04-22, 11:21 am

Dave Holford

2006-04-22, 1:21 pm

"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:58:49 -0400, Hatto von Aquitanien
> <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> Gave us:
>
>
> You are an idiot if you think that anything other than avgas brought
> those buildings down. Well, that and gravity.

Not really relevant to the topic, but in the interest of getting the facts
right;

Jet fuel, not Avgas which is for piston engines.

Dave

Hatto von Aquitanien

2006-04-22, 5:21 pm

Ken wrote:

> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
> You liberals are still trying to blame GWB for something, even when a
> person with a sixth grade education can understand the effects of heat
> on a steel structure that is supporting several floors of a building.
> It is not surprising that you have difficulty getting your candidates
> elected, instead of recognizing the real enemy, you turn everything into
> a political issue.

That's funny.

I really don't know what happened on 9/11/01. All I know is that the
evidence doesn't match the official line. We've got two "Osama confession"
videos with fake "Osamas". C'mon the guy is filthy rich, and they (just
happen to) find a video that looks like it came from a cheap 1980 video
camera. The picture is so bad they had to call in "experts" to "verify" it
was "really Osama". The guy in the video is right-handed. The FBI says
Osama is a southpaw.

This is from the NIST report on Building 7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
"This report is an overview of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of
structural steel from the WTC, part of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Investigation of the WTC disaster. The purpose was
to analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 to determine the
metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal,
weldments, and connections, and provide these data to other part of the
NIST WTC Investigation for insertion into models of building performance.
The analysis focused on steel from the towers to provide data for modeling
building performance and characterizing the steel quality. In addition, the
steel used in the construction of _WTC_ _7_ is described based solely on
data from the literature, because _no_ _steel_ _from_ _the_ _building_
_was_ _recovered_ ."

This is from the FEMA report on Building 7:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wt.../WTC_apndxC.pdf
"C.2 _Sample_ 1 ( _From_ _WTC_ _7_ )
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were
examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36
structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the
subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building
was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further
consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron
metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded
regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel,
including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting,
was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic
mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot
corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated
preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the
beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for
this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the
steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than
would be expected for melting this steel."

And further:
"C.4 Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)
The origin of the steel shown in Figure C-9 is thought to be a
high-yield-strength steel removed from a column member. The steel is a
high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel containing copper. The unusual
thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by
grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both
iron and copper. Figures C-10, C-11, and C-12 show the region of severe
corrosion at different levels of magnification."

But NIST tells us:

"The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior
panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine
recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have
been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by
steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal
expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot
distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas
were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns
represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved
in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these
floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached
temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:
* WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
* WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
* WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in
the debris pile after collapse.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and
temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based
on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels
known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These
microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C
for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for
two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers."

Then there is the conspicuous wistelblowing on the part of Kevin Ryan of UL.
BTW, if you didn't catch on, the FEMA report provides solid evidence for
the use of some kind of cutting-charge augmented with sulfur.

Here's the Mathematica code for a basic "pancake" model. I need to fix it
up to make it a bit more realistic. Nonetheless, it gives a good
indication that an actual collapse would have taken far longer if the
structure of the building were intact.

(*Recursive time calculation*)
(*Recursion terminator*)

t[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, cf_] /; n == 0 := ti

(*Recursion formula*)
t[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, cf_] := Module[
{g = 9.8,
v0 (*Velocity immediately after coalescing*)
,
tf (*Final time for this iteration*)
,
mf (*Final mass for this iteration*)
,
vf (*Final velocity for this iteration*)
,
a(*acceleration*)
},
mf = mi + ms[n] ;
v0 = vi mi/mf;
mf -= ms[n] ej[n];
a = Abs[g - cf[n]];
vf = (v0^2 + 2 a dh)^(1/2);
tf = ti + 2dh/(v0 + vf);
AppendTo[result, {n, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, mf - mi}];
t[tf, vf, dh, mf, n - 1, ms, ej, cf]
]

(*Height of a WTC tower in meters*)
buildingHeight = 417.0;

(*Number of floors in a tower*)
numberOfFloors = 110;

(*Distance between floors in meters*)

floorHeight = buildingHeight/numberOfFloors;

(*Initial conditions*)
initialMass = 0;
initialTime = 0;
initialVelocity = 0;

(*Mass of one story in arbitrary units*)

floorMass[n_] := 1.0 + (numberOfFloors - n)/numberOfFloors;
ejecta[n_] := 0.3;
counterForce[n_] := 9.8;
result = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};
t[initialTime
, initialVelocity
, floorHeight
, initialMass
, numberOfFloors
, floorMass
, ejecta
, counterForce
];
result // TableForm

--
Nil conscire sibi

Michael A. Terrell

2006-04-22, 7:21 pm

Dave Holford wrote:
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
>
>
> Not really relevant to the topic, but in the interest of getting the facts
> right;
>
> Jet fuel, not Avgas which is for piston engines.
>
> Dave

I was a couple miles from a tank truck full of JP4 that exploded in
front of the entrance to Cairn Airfield (near Ft Rucker Alabama) and
felt the shock wave. The tanker was on top of a hill, so most of the
fuel ran down hill in the ditch but what was left burnt everything
except part of one axle on the cab, and the rear end bell of the tank
that rolled away from the flames when it separated from the rest of the
tank. It burnt away all the asphalt near the truck, and the fuel going
down hill was burning. Some of it made it to a creek a couple miles
away and was still burning as it went downstream. JP4 is some nasty
stuff to put out. They emptied a couple tankers full of foam to put out
the flames, but mostly it just prevented more damage to the highway.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-04-22, 7:21 pm

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:23:54 -0400, Dave Holford
<holford@sympatico.ca> Gave us:

>
>
>"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:
>
>
>Not really relevant to the topic, but in the interest of getting the facts
>right;
>
>Jet fuel, not Avgas which is for piston engines.
>
>Dave
Ahhh... good call... I post corrected.

It was the topic, however. There were no fucking detonations of
demolitions.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-04-22, 7:21 pm

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:50:44 -0400, Hatto von Aquitanien
<abbot@AugiaDives.hre> Gave us:

>Ken wrote:
>
>
>That's funny.
>
>I really don't know what happened on 9/11/01.

That's obvious.

> All I know is that the
>evidence doesn't match the official line.

Sorry. You do not even "know" that. You are a complete and utter
fucking retard.

> We've got two "Osama confession"
>videos with fake "Osamas".

You're a fucking idiot.

> C'mon the guy is filthy rich, and they (just
>happen to) find a video that looks like it came from a cheap 1980 video
>camera.

You really don't know how far behind US they are over there, do you?

> The picture is so bad they had to call in "experts" to "verify" it
>was "really Osama". The guy in the video is right-handed. The FBI says
>Osama is a southpaw.

You're a fucking retard.

>This is from the NIST report on Building 7:

Snipped dumb out of proper context shit.

Do you think we didn't go to the moon as well, dipshit?

Hatto von Aquitanien

2006-04-23, 12:21 am

Bud-- wrote:

> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> There should be no problem receiving a signal inside the building if the
> receiver was not destroyed by plane explosion or fire. IIRC the colapse
> started at or adjacent to the fire floors.

It depends how you interpret the evidence. On 1 WTC, the antenna appears to
have moved in a uniform downward direction slightly before the sides bagand
to move. That indicates a symmetric core-first failure.

> Not likely the planes could
> have been flown into just the right floors for the explosives to be
> adjacent.

Unless they had been electronically hijacked and flown into homing beacons.
But that is VERY SPECULATIVE. The gist of Dr. Jones's suggestion is that
the timing was flexible, and could be adjusted to simulate the collapse
beginning at the impact region.

I find this hard to explain, and thus hard to ignore:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...raplanet+9%2F11

Find the discussion of thermite in Dr. Jones's paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

> Not likely the explosives could have survived the fire.

That is a reasonable critique worth considering. OTOH, if there were
charges set throughout the building, it may not have matter much if
specific ones failed.

> The
> structural support was the outer walls and the central core. Major
> portions of the impact wall was destroyed. The collapse was entirely
> consistent with fire weakened steel and major structural damage, causing
> collapse at the fire floors and the building pancaking down.

The duration of collapse doesn't seem sufficient to account for the work
required to destroy each floor. I would have expected a much slower and
less uniform descent if it were due to "progressive collapse"

> Planting explosives would make the plan far more complicated, risk
> detection, and was not necessary.

Attacking the towers was not necessary.

> Even if the towers had not collapsed a message would have been sent.

I have to say, the evidence that Osama bin Laden is not the man in the
"confession videos" is pretty compelling. Assuming Osama was a decoy - I
believe he is long dead - then we are back to who done it, and why? One
view is that there were several motivating factors. But that really is not
the aspect of the problem I want to discuss in this news group. I'm
interested in the electronic aspects such as timed and/or radio controlled
detonation, and the possibility of a hijacking by autopilot.

> I think this was the only collapse of a steel frame high
> rise caused by fire.

These were the only instances of total collapse of steel frame high rises in
history that are not "officially" attributed to controlled detonation. All
three on the same day, and all under the same management, and at the same
site? WTC 7 is just a bit too conspicuous.

> Ignoring the terrorism, for that reason alone the cause of the collapse
> was investigated very closely.

Well, yes, and no. It was investigated extensively, but there were many
failures to gather essential evidence in a timely fashion. And the
investigations left huge unanswered questions. AAMOF, the "final" reports
don't even attempt to explain the mechanisms of progressive collapse once
this nebulous process was set in motion.

> Inconceivable that investigation wouldn't have found evidence of explosive
> action.

Wouldn't have *found* it, or wouldn't have *reported* it? I believe FEMA
*did* find physical evidence of controlled demolition. I also believe
there is lots of physical and testimonial evidence that has been ignored in
the official accounts. I find some troubling inconsistencies between FEMA
and NIST's reports.

This is from the NIST report on Building 7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
"This report is an overview of the mechanical and metallurgical analysis of
structural steel from the WTC, part of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) Investigation of the WTC disaster. _The purpose was
to analyze structural steel available from WTC 1, 2, and 7 to determine the
metallurgical and mechanical properties and quality of the metal,
weldments, and connections, and provide these data to other part of the
NIST WTC Investigation for insertion into models of building performance.
The analysis focused on steel from the towers to provide data for modeling
building performance and characterizing the steel quality. In addition, the
steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on
data from the literature, because no steel from the building
was recovered ."

This is from the FEMA report on Building 7:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wt.../WTC_apndxC.pdf
"C.2 Sample 1 ( From WTC 7 )
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were
examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36
structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the
subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building
was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further
consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron
metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded
regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel,
including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting,
was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic
mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot
corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated
preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the
beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for
this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the
steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than
would be expected for melting this steel."

And further:
"C.4 Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)
The origin of the steel shown in Figure C-9 is thought to be a
high-yield-strength steel removed from a column member. The steel is a
high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel containing copper. The unusual
thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by
grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both
iron and copper. Figures C-10, C-11, and C-12 show the region of severe
corrosion at different levels of magnification."

But NIST tells us:

"The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior
panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine
recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have
been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by
steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal
expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot
distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas
were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns
represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved
in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these
floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached
temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:
* WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
* WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
* WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in
the debris pile after collapse. _

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and
temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based
on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels
known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These
microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C
for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for
two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers."

They go on to say stuff like they didn't have enough samples to consider
this representative. _Uh...why? _Nonetheless, even their fire experiments
didn't produce steel that hot after removing the insulation.

Now this sentence is especially intriguing "Other forensic evidence
indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after
collapse." _Lotta heat in that there debris pile, eh?

--
Nil conscire sibi

ehsjr

2006-04-23, 4:21 am

Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
> Is this at all realistic?

Nope. It's trollistic.

Hatto von Aquitanien

2006-04-24, 10:21 am

ehsjr wrote:

> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
> Nope. It's trollistic.

No it really isn't. There are serious problems with the official account.
The more I dig, the more I find. I'm talking about tangible items. Right
now I'm trying to determine the viability of the planes being hijacked by
computer. From what I can gather, it would not be possible unless the
flight crew were disabled as well. If someone had access to the aircraft,
and the technical knowhow to replace the flight control software with code
that would cause the planes to home on beacons placed in the targets, they
could also have set the planes up to release some kind of poison gas such
as a nerve agent when they reached altitude. This would require even fewer
conspirators than the Cessna flightschool flunkies accused of being the
suicide hijackers.[*] My understanding is that 7 of the accused suicide
hijackers have come forward to deny that they did fly airplanes into
buildings on 09/11/01. Are they lying?

If we assume it was a hightech hijack, and not a pocket knife job, we are
down to one perpetrator per airport with access to the planes sometime
before the flights, and with some kind of sophisticated technical backing.
I don't know how many people it would take to rig the WTC with cutting
charges, but it sure seems that the buildings were felled by controlled
demolition, not aircraft impact.

My arguments supporting controlled demolition are these are:

*) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,
*) the thoroughness of the destruction,
*) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
several weeks,
*) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,
*) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower collapsed,
*) the speed of the collapses,
*) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers
*) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on the
same day and at the same location,
*) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
prior to the collapse of the north tower,
*) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
collapse,
*) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
south tower moments before it collapsed,
*) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator shaft,
but...)
*) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located,
*) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
they came down.
*) Evidence for ground level explosion just prior to the building collapse.

Here are the details and sources:

*) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,

This can be seen from the videos. The limited asymmetry of the South Tower
collapse /can/ probably be attributed to structural dammage from aircraft
impact and perhaps even from fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...deos/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi.../collapses.html

*) the thoroughness of the destruction,

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evid...sed_to_dust.mpg
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

*) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
several weeks,

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
http://georgewashington.blogspot.co...etal-under.html

*) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01...hermal.r09.html

*) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower collapsed,
?[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.?--Firefighter Richard
Banaciski

?I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building??--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen
Gregory

?[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic
Daniel Rivera
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html

You can follow the links and check the sources.

*) the speed of the collapses,

In order for the for the building to collaps at the rate it did, the work
necessary to crush each floor would have to be significantly less than half
the work needed to lift the building above it by the height of a floor.
See the code below. I am not sure exactly how to determine the work
necessary to crush a single floor. Somebody made sure all the physical
evidence to base such calculations was destroyed before it was examined.

*) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...erman-0112.html

*) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on the
same day and at the same location,

http://www.haifire.com/presentation...apse_Survey.pdf

*) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
prior to the collapse of the north tower,

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_h...%20collapse.mpg

*) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
collapse,

See previous video as well as others here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

*) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
south tower moments before it collapsed,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...raplanet+9%2F11
find the discussion of thermite in Dr. Jones's paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

*) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator shaft,
but...)

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpu..._explosions.htm

*) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located.

See the FEMA report linked above and NIST reports on the fire studies.

This melted steel could be from after the collapse, but it sure is
conspicuous:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg

*) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
they came down.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...coming.down.wmv
"...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
coming down."

"They're saying the second tower is coming...?"

"Yes, it's about to collapse."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

*) ground level evidence for explosion just prior to the building collapse.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I....explosions.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...carol.marin.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

And that doesn't even take into account the reports of as much as
$1,400,000,000 US in gold missing from WTC 4.

I acknowledge there are items of evidence such as phone calls and one
cockpit voice recorder tape, but I ask what it would take to stage that
stuff. The Osama "confession" videos aren't Osama. This is linked from

www.state.gov

The man in this video is right-handed:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...BC36E87F61F.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

"Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, "The
Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] /; n == 0 := ti
lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] :=

Module[{g = 9.8, v0 , tf = ti, mf = mi, vf = vi, ke},
mf = mi + ms[n];
v0 = vi mi/mf;
mf -= ms[n] ej[n];
ke = mf( v0^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2);
If[v0 + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(v0 + vf)];
AppendTo[lowerResult, {n, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, mf - mi}];
lower[tf, vf, dh, mf, n - 1, ms, ej, w]
]

upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] /; n0 > nt := ti
upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] :=

Module[{g = 9.8 , tf = ti, mi = 0, mf, vf = 0, dvw, ke, n = nt - n0},
mf = Sum[ms[i], {i, n0, nt}];
ke = mf( vi^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
If[mf != 0, vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2)];
If[vi + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(vi + vf)];
AppendTo[upperResult, {n0, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, ms[n]}];
upper[tf, vf, dh, n0 + 1, ms, w, nt]
]

buildingHeight = 417.0;
numberOfFloors = 110;
floorHeight = buildingHeight/numberOfFloors;
initialMass = 0;
initialTime = 0;
initialVelocity = 0;
floorMass[n_] := 1.0;
ejecta[n_] := 0.3;
work[n_, m_, dh_] := m dh 9.8*0.8;

topFloors = 19;
bottomFloors = numberOfFloors - topFloors;
topMass = Sum[floorMass[n], {n, bottomFloors + 1, numberOfFloors}];
lowerResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};

lower[initialTime
, initialVelocity
, floorHeight
, topMass
, bottomFloors
, floorMass
, ejecta
, work]

time = Last[lowerResult][[2]];
velocity = Last[lowerResult][[3]];
upperResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};
upper[time
, velocity
, floorHeight
, bottomFloors + 1
, floorMass
, work
, numberOfFloors
]

lowerResult // TableForm
upperResult // TableForm

--
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
http://www.germarrudolf.com/
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/ne...1115chicago.htm

Doug T

2006-04-24, 1:21 pm

Ken wrote:

> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:

> You liberals are still trying to blame GWB for something,

Ken if you remember this is no liberal. It's the same holocaust denying,
conspiracy advocating, the U.S. did it to support Israel and provoke a
backlash against Muslims, nut case that's posted here before. He has
nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans.

Hatto von Aquitanien

2006-04-24, 7:21 pm

Doug T wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>
>
> Ken if you remember this is no liberal. It's the same holocaust denying,
> conspiracy advocating, the U.S. did it to support Israel and provoke a
> backlash against Muslims, nut case that's posted here before. He has
> nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans.

That's for damn sure! I'm better than that. I did, however contact my
Congressman regarding this matter today. Nonetheless, you failed to
address any of the points I raised, so here they are again:

Start with this 5-second video, it should open your eyes:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...coming.down.wmv
"...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
coming down."

"They're saying the second tower is coming...?"

"Yes, it's about to collapse."

According to what is presented here, some folks knew for a fact that the
first tower was going to collapse before it came down. Rather insightful
of them to predict the firest ever total collapse of a steel-frame
high-rise that was not pulled in a controlled demolition, don't you think?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

There are serious problems with the official account.
The more I dig, the more I find. _I'm talking about tangible items. _Right
now I'm trying to determine the viability of the planes being hijacked by
computer. _From what I can gather, it would not be possible unless the
flight crew were disabled as well. _If someone had access to the aircraft,
and the technical knowhow to replace the flight control software with code
that would cause the planes to home on beacons placed in the targets, they
could also have set the planes up to release some kind of poison gas such
as a nerve agent when they reached altitude. _This would require even fewer
conspirators than the Cessna flightschool flunkies accused of being the
suicide hijackers.[*] My understanding is that 7 of the accused suicide
hijackers have come forward to deny that they did fly airplanes into
buildings on 09/11/01. _Are they lying?

If we assume it was a hightech hijack, and not a pocket knife job, we are
down to one perpetrator per airport with access to the planes sometime
before the flights, and with some kind of sophisticated technical backing.
I don't know how many people it would take to rig the WTC with cutting
charges, but it sure seems that the buildings were felled by controlled
demolition, not aircraft impact.

My arguments supporting controlled demolition are these are:

*) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,
*) the thoroughness of the destruction,
*) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
several weeks,
*) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,
*) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower collapsed,
*) the speed of the collapses,
*) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers
*) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on the
same day and at the same location,
*) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
prior to the collapse of the north tower,
*) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
collapse,
*) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
south tower moments before it collapsed,
*) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator shaft,
but...)
*) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located,
*) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
they came down.
*) Evidence for ground level explosion just prior to the building collapse.

Here are the details and sources:

*) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,

This can be seen from the videos. _The limited asymmetry of the South Tower
collapse can probably be attributed to structural dammage from aircraft
impact and perhaps even from fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...deos/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi.../collapses.html

*) the thoroughness of the destruction,

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evid...sed_to_dust.mpg
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

*) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
several weeks,

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
http://georgewashington.blogspot.co...etal-under.html

*) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01...hermal.r09.html

*) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower collapsed,
_?[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.?--Firefighter Richard
Banaciski

?I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building??--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen
Gregory

?[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic
Daniel Rivera
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html

You can follow the links and check the sources.

*) the speed of the collapses,

In order for the for the building to collaps at the rate it did, the work
necessary to crush each floor would have to be significantly less than half
the work needed to lift the building above it by the height of a floor.
See the code below. _I am not sure exactly how to determine the work
necessary to crush a single floor. _Somebody made sure all the physical
evidence to base such calculations was destroyed before it was examined.

*) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...erman-0112.html

*) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on the
same day and at the same location,

http://www.haifire.com/presentation...apse_Survey.pdf

*) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
prior to the collapse of the north tower,

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_h...%20collapse.mpg

*) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
collapse,

See previous video as well as others here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

*) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
south tower moments before it collapsed,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...raplanet+9%2F11
find the discussion of thermite in Dr. Jones's paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

*) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator shaft,
but...)

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpu..._explosions.htm

*) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located.

See the FEMA report linked above and NIST reports on the fire studies.

This melted steel could be from after the collapse, but it sure is
conspicuous:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg

*) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
they came down.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...coming.down.wmv
"...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
coming down."

"They're saying the second tower is coming...?"

"Yes, it's about to collapse."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

*) ground level evidence for explosion just prior to the building collapse.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I....explosions.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...carol.marin.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

And that doesn't even take into account the reports of as much as
$1,400,000,000 US in gold missing from WTC 4.

I acknowledge there are items of evidence such as phone calls and one
cockpit voice recorder tape, but I ask what it would take to stage that
stuff. _The Osama "confession" videos aren't Osama. This is linked from

www.state.gov

The man in this video is right-handed:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...BC36E87F61F.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

"Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, "The
Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] /; n == 0 := ti
lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] :=
_
_ Module[{g = 9.8, v0 , tf = ti, mf = mi, vf = vi, ke},
_ _ mf = mi + ms[n];
_ _ v0 = vi mi/mf;
_ _ mf -= ms[n] ej[n];
_ _ ke = mf( v0^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
_ _ vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2);
_ _ If[v0 + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(v0 + vf)];
_ _ AppendTo[lowerResult, {n, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, mf - mi}];
_ _ lower[tf, vf, dh, mf, n - 1, ms, ej, w]
_ _ ]

upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] /; n0 > nt := ti
upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] :=
_
_ Module[{g = 9.8 , tf = ti, mi = 0, mf, vf = 0, dvw, ke, n = nt - n0},
_ _ mf = Sum[ms[i], {i, n0, nt}];
_ _ ke = mf( vi^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
_ _ If[mf != 0, vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2)];
_ _ If[vi + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(vi + vf)];
_ _ AppendTo[upperResult, {n0, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, ms[n]}];
_ _ upper[tf, vf, dh, n0 + 1, ms, w, nt]
_ _ ]

buildingHeight = 417.0;
numberOfFloors = 110;
floorHeight = buildingHeight/numberOfFloors;
initialMass = 0;
initialTime = 0;
initialVelocity = 0;
floorMass[n_] := 1.0;
ejecta[n_] := 0.3;
work[n_, m_, dh_] := m dh 9.8*0.8;

topFloors = 19;
bottomFloors = numberOfFloors - topFloors;
topMass = Sum[floorMass[n], {n, bottomFloors + 1, numberOfFloors}];
lowerResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};

lower[initialTime
_ , initialVelocity
_ , floorHeight
_ , topMass
_ , bottomFloors
_ , floorMass
_ , ejecta
_ , work]

time = Last[lowerResult][[2]];
velocity = Last[lowerResult][[3]];
upperResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};
upper[time
_ , velocity
_ , floorHeight
_ , bottomFloors + 1
_ , floorMass
_ , work
_ , numberOfFloors
_ ]

lowerResult // TableForm
upperResult // TableForm
--
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
http://www.germarrudolf.com/
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/ne...1115chicago.htm

Michael A. Terrell

2006-04-24, 9:21 pm

Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
> "...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
> coming down."
>
> "They're saying the second tower is coming...?"
>
> "Yes, it's about to collapse."
>
> According to what is presented here, some folks knew for a fact that the
> first tower was going to collapse before it came down. Rather insightful
> of them to predict the firest ever total collapse of a steel-frame
> high-rise that was not pulled in a controlled demolition, don't you think?

You are an idiot. I was watching the towers burning live on TV and
knew it was going to collapse from the heat damage. I was surprised
that it stood as long as it did before collapsing.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

hob

2006-04-24, 10:21 pm

"Hatto von Aquitanien" <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in message
news:p7adnfdbZ-dF0dDZRVn-qQ@speakeasy.net...
> Doug T wrote:
>
>
> That's for damn sure! I'm better than that. I did, however contact my
> Congressman regarding this matter today. Nonetheless, you failed to
> address any of the points I raised, so here they are again:
>
> Start with this 5-second video, it should open your eyes:
>
>
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...coming.down.wmv
> "...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
> coming down."
>
> "They're saying the second tower is coming...?"
>
> "Yes, it's about to collapse."
>
> According to what is presented here, some folks knew for a fact that the
> first tower was going to collapse before it came down.

No shit - I did, and I was listening 1500 miles away. (What surprised all of
us was not that it fell -that was a "no shit, sherlock" prediction, but that
it fell ALL the way down instead of just falling a few floors)

Didja ever think there was a protocol to get firefighters out from under 30
stories of building being held up by steel that is sitting in the middle of
a burning fire - being told to get out by fire fighters and fire command who
are trained and retrained as to how long fire retardent on steel is supposed
to last? And that "the building is going to go down" doesn't mean total
collapse of the building?

Let's see -
1) I know fire retardent on steel holds for 30 minutes to an hour depending
on its grade and the fire, and then the steel is so hot it can't hold its
static load up.

2) SOP is that you have 20 minutes to get anyone in the safe zones out, and
then you pull back the crews because "the building is going to go down".

3) buildings with temperature sensors in the command center can be read to
tell a trained person of danger well before the steel reaches critical

4) The responsibility of the commander is to keep his people safe - and he
keeps the clock.

5) And two floors of superheated air forced into the stairwells by the
structural collapse of two floors above them is like putting a firefighter
in a huge gas torch flame chute?

And you find it odd that a fire commander in Manhattan, land of steel framed
structure fires, knew "the building" was going to go down? duh.

Rather insightful
> of them to predict the firest ever total collapse of a steel-frame
> high-rise that was not pulled in a controlled demolition, don't you think?

What, calling building two after building one went down, or that you think
calling a building collapse is calling a total building collapse?

>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
>
> There are serious problems with the official account.
> The more I dig, the more I find. I'm talking about tangible items. Right
> now I'm trying to determine the viability of the planes being hijacked by
> computer.

Turn off the switches --- check the loran and gps. Fly by compass and
sight -
hint - Manhattan is the big city by the water, and the two big pointy
things taller than the rest are the targets?

From what I can gather, it would not be possible unless the
> flight crew were disabled as well.

Which ones - the ones sitting in the seat when the pane took off, or the
ones that just were removed from the seat?
Ground control does not have a switch to override a pilot.
hint - Airplane mechanical thing - stuff break - pilot there to fly with
broken stuff like broken computers.
And if ground ocntrol can completely override a pilot, I am taking the
train from now on.

If someone had access to the aircraft,
> and the technical knowhow to replace the flight control software with code
> that would cause the planes to home on beacons placed in the targets,

Beacons? The sky is full of loran, gps, and there are radio towers on the
target- who the hell needs a planted beacon?

they
> could also have set the planes up to release some kind of poison gas such
> as a nerve agent when they reached altitude. This would require even fewer
> conspirators than the Cessna flightschool flunkies accused of being the
> suicide hijackers.[*] My understanding is that 7 of the accused suicide
> hijackers have come forward to deny that they did fly airplanes into
> buildings on 09/11/01. Are they lying?

Aren't they dead?

>
> If we assume it was a hightech hijack, and not a pocket knife job, we are
> down to one perpetrator per airport with access to the planes sometime
> before the flights, and with some kind of sophisticated technical backing.
> I don't know how many people it would take to rig the WTC with cutting
> charges, but it sure seems that the buildings were felled by controlled
> demolition, not aircraft impact.
>

They came down because the column braces were knocked off by the
over-structure collapsing into the voids, leaving the columns as strong as
an unbraced stick of spaghetti

> My arguments supporting controlled demolition are these are:
>
> *) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,

two tube design, relying on inter-column braces for column strength:
debris between the tube column members strips column stability braces,
turning smaller weaker inner tube into long thin rods - smaller tube fails
first, heavier outer tube follows the inner tube collapse as the mass
passes inside the outer tube.

> *) the thoroughness of the destruction,

per above -

> *) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
> several weeks,

the potential energy of a held object is not destroyed, only transferred.
Chinook winds off the Rockies are below zero when coming over the pass, and
are 40-50 degrees in winter after they fall 10,000 feet.
1/2 weight of building times 1000 feet is the amount of energy that went
into the material - not counting the fire energy itself - and most of that
potential energy was turned into heat and absorbed by the material - and
yes, it does melt steel.

> *) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,

no shit - caculate the potential energy in that building - not to mention
the inhernet themrite reactions from aluminum curtainwall and steel
structure under heat of the fire and heat energy.

> *) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
> suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower
collapsed,

Eyewithness accounts always suck - people see what their limited experience
allows, not what actually happens. People interpret, not record.

> *) the speed of the collapses,

It was easily within the range of sustained column collapse - it certainly
is not freefall, and pull kick out the braces on columns, and in sustained
load on the col;umns, it falls almost as fast as the column braces are
removed

> *) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
> erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers

"Sulfur-facilitated high-temperture erosion"? That's a high falootin term.
Sulfur means it's probably not an explosive. You are looking for picarates
and nitrates.
There is sulfur in jet fuel, however.

> *) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on
the
> same day and at the same location,

It's only a statistical anomaly when you don't know why - so three failures
in an earthquake is an anomaly? A building collapses a day after an
earthquake is an anomaly? Or is it that two went down from the same cause,
and the third went down from earthquake level shock AT THE IMMEDIATE SITE?

> *) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
> prior to the collapse of the north tower,

assuming the clocks were actually synchronized and can be thus trusted - ,
then try the inner core (tube) collapsing before the outer tube shows any
sign of collapse

> *) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
> vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
> collapse,

which verfies my comment above regarding inner tube going down first - the
antenna was attached to the inner tube.

> *) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
> south tower moments before it collapsed,

no, before the outer tube collapsed - remeber the comment about falling
building parts forcing superheated gas into stairwells and into any vents or
holes?

> *) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
> aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator
shaft,
> but...)
> *) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
> well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
> things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located,

the steel on the leading edge of a collapse absorbes more energy than that
in other areas, and the strongest last to fail is supposed to see the most

> *) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
> they came down.

Yeah, those office workers knew - "Ah knew it, Ah JESS knew it.. I tole' ya
so.."

Hindsight opportunists.

> *) Evidence for ground level explosion just prior to the building
collapse.
>
Push two floors cubic feet worth of heated oxygen-starved air down an
elevator shaft and see what it sounds like when it hits the combustibles and
fresh oxygen at ground level

>
> Here are the details and sources:
>
> *) the symmetry of the catastrophic failures,
>
> This can be seen from the videos. The limited asymmetry of the South Tower
> collapse can probably be attributed to structural dammage from aircraft
> impact and perhaps even from fire.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...deos/index.html
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi.../collapses.html
>
> *) the thoroughness of the destruction,
>
> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evid...sed_to_dust.mpg
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
>
> *) the numerous reports of hot and even molten steel in the ruins for
> several weeks,
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
>
http://georgewashington.blogspot.co...etal-under.html
>
> *) NASA/USGS thermal imaging showing an extraordinary amount of heat,
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01...hermal.r09.html
>
> *) eyewitness accounts of explosions with enough detail to strongly
> suggest controlled demolition just before the first (IIRC) tower
collapsed,
> ?[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
> television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was
going
> all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.?--Firefighter
Richard
> Banaciski
>
> ?I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
> like when they demolish a building??--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen
> Gregory
>
> ?[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
> certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic
> Daniel Rivera
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html
>
> You can follow the links and check the sources.
>
> *) the speed of the collapses,
>
> In order for the for the building to collaps at the rate it did, the work
> necessary to crush each floor would have to be significantly less than
half
> the work needed to lift the building above it by the height of a floor.
> See the code below. I am not sure exactly how to determine the work
> necessary to crush a single floor. Somebody made sure all the physical
> evidence to base such calculations was destroyed before it was examined.
>
> *) the clear physical evidence for sulfur facilitated high-temperature
> erosion of steel in building 7, and in at least one of the towers
>
> http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...erman-0112.html
>
> *) the statistical anomaly of three unprecedented structural failures on
the
> same day and at the same location,
>
> http://www.haifire.com/presentation...apse_Survey.pdf
>
> *) a video showing evidence of a 2 second ground tremor about 10 seconds
> prior to the collapse of the north tower,
>
>
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_h...%20collapse.mpg
>
> *) the observation that the antenna on the north tower began to descend
> vertically before the rest of the structure began to show signs of
> collapse,
>
> See previous video as well as others here:
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
>
> *) strong visual (video) evidence of some kind of pyrotechnic fire in the
> south tower moments before it collapsed,
>
>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...raplanet+9%2F11
> find the discussion of thermite in Dr. Jones's paper:
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> *) powerful explosions at and below ground level shortly after the initial
> aircraft impact (perhaps due to atomized fuel in an express elevator
shaft,
> but...)
>
>
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpu..._explosions.htm
>
> *) physical evidence that some of the structural steel temperatures were
> well in excess of that possible from the fires - and (as I understand
> things) not from the parts of the buildings where the fires were located.
>
> See the FEMA report linked above and NIST reports on the fire studies.
>
> This melted steel could be from after the collapse, but it sure is
> conspicuous:
>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg
>
> *) People on the ground knew the buildings were going to collapse before
> they came down.
>
>
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...coming.down.wmv
> "...it's coming over our radio, get out of the area, the second tower's
> coming down."
>
> "They're saying the second tower is coming...?"
>
> "Yes, it's about to collapse."
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
>
> *) ground level evidence for explosion just prior to the building
collapse.
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I....explosions.wmv
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/I...carol.marin.wmv
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html
>
> And that doesn't even take into account the reports of as much as
> $1,400,000,000 US in gold missing from WTC 4.
>
> I acknowledge there are items of evidence such as phone calls and one
> cockpit voice recorder tape, but I ask what it would take to stage that
> stuff. The Osama "confession" videos aren't Osama. This is linked from
>
> www.state.gov
>
> The man in this video is right-handed:
>
>
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...BC36E87F61F.htm
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
>
> "Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda,
"The
> Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane."
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
>
> lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] /; n == 0 := ti
> lower[ti_, vi_, dh_, mi_, n_, ms_, ej_, w_] :=
>
> Module[{g = 9.8, v0 , tf = ti, mf = mi, vf = vi, ke},
> mf = mi + ms[n];
> v0 = vi mi/mf;
> mf -= ms[n] ej[n];
> ke = mf( v0^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
> vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2);
> If[v0 + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(v0 + vf)];
> AppendTo[lowerResult, {n, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, mf - mi}];
> lower[tf, vf, dh, mf, n - 1, ms, ej, w]
> ]
>
> upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] /; n0 > nt := ti
> upper[ti_, vi_, dh_, n0_, ms_, w_, nt_] :=
>
> Module[{g = 9.8 , tf = ti, mi = 0, mf, vf = 0, dvw, ke, n = nt - n0},
> mf = Sum[ms[i], {i, n0, nt}];
> ke = mf( vi^2/2 + g dh) - w[n, mf, dh] ;
> If[mf != 0, vf = (Abs[2ke/mf])^(1/2)];
> If[vi + vf != 0, tf = ti + 2dh/(vi + vf)];
> AppendTo[upperResult, {n0, tf, vf, mf, tf - ti, vf - vi, ms[n]}];
> upper[tf, vf, dh, n0 + 1, ms, w, nt]
> ]
>
> buildingHeight = 417.0;
> numberOfFloors = 110;
> floorHeight = buildingHeight/numberOfFloors;
> initialMass = 0;
> initialTime = 0;
> initialVelocity = 0;
> floorMass[n_] := 1.0;
> ejecta[n_] := 0.3;
> work[n_, m_, dh_] := m dh 9.8*0.8;
>
> topFloors = 19;
> bottomFloors = numberOfFloors - topFloors;
> topMass = Sum[floorMass[n], {n, bottomFloors + 1, numberOfFloors}];
> lowerResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};
>
> lower[initialTime
> , initialVelocity
> , floorHeight
> , topMass
> , bottomFloors
> , floorMass
> , ejecta
> , work]
>
> time = Last[lowerResult][[2]];
> velocity = Last[lowerResult][[3]];
> upperResult = {{"f", "t", "v", "m", "dt", "dv", "dm"}};
> upper[time
> , velocity
> , floorHeight
> , bottomFloors + 1
> , floorMass
> , work
> , numberOfFloors
> ]
>
> lowerResult // TableForm
> upperResult // TableForm
> --
> http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html
> http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/
> http://www.germarrudolf.com/
> http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/ne...1115chicago.htm

Keith Williams

2006-04-25, 12:21 pm

In article <444D65E0.FDC18977@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
> Hatto von Aquitanien wrote:
>
>
> You are an idiot. I was watching the towers burning live on TV and
> knew it was going to collapse from the heat damage. I was surprised
> that it stood as long as it did before collapsing.

Anyone who knew anything about the construction of the towers knew
they'd fall. ...just as they were designed to.

--
Keith

Michael A. Terrell

2006-04-25, 1:21 pm

Keith XXXXXXXX wrote:
>
> In article <444D65E0.FDC18977@earthlink.net>,
> mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
>
> Anyone who knew anything about the construction of the towers knew
> they'd fall. ...just as they were designed to.

By comment was based on having watched a tank truck full of JP-4 burn
after a traffic accident. I guess that the winds created by the flames
helped cool the metal enough to let it stand a little longer. I had
read about the design of the frame after the first terrorist attack on
the WTC, so I had an idea of the damage the fuel was going to do to the
building.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-04-26, 1:21 am

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:47:17 -0400, Keith XXXXXXXX <krw@att.bizzzz>
Gave us:

>In article <444D65E0.FDC18977@earthlink.net>,
>mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
>
>Anyone who knew anything about the construction of the towers knew
>they'd fall. ...just as they were designed to.

NO building is designed to fall, you fucking retard.

Roy L. Fuchs

2006-04-26, 1:21 am

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:30:35 -0400, Hatto von Aquitanien
<abbot@AugiaDives.hre> Gave us:

>No it really isn't. There are serious problems with the official account.

You're a goddamned retard. You are certainly NOT an architect or
structural engineer. Fuck off. Then die!

Keith Williams

2006-04-26, 12:21 pm

In article <jjst42lpvg7l7adlkfkhcm9h8ig1mj34ji@4ax.com>,
roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org says...
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:47:17 -0400, Keith XXXXXXXX <krw@att.bizzzz>
> Gave us:
>
>
> NO building is designed to fall, you fucking retard.
>
Spoken like the true idiot you are.

--
Keith

LinkBot