Yes, They're called "al Qaeda", and they're led by a fanatic called "Osama bin Laden", a tall skinny guy who hates America with a fiery passion, and teaches others who likewise hate America how to kill as many Americans as possible.
Do a Google on "al Qaeda" if you're having trouble with the concept. You'll find that they have websites that promote terrorist acts like 9/11, and promise more like 9/11 in the future.
The definitive "Al Quaeda" library is online at
http://www.intelcenter.com/audio-video/which in turn is run by ?
Our focus as a company is on studying terrorist groups and other threat actors and disseminating that information in a timely manner to those who can act on it. We look at capabilities and intentions, warnings and indicators, operational characteristics and a wide variety of other points in order to better understand how to interdict terrorist operations and reduce the likelihood of future attacks.
The results of this work is then disseminated in a variety of Alert, Current Intelligence and Analytical Resource services. It also provides the foundation for our field books such as the "First Responder Chem-Bio Handbook." Our primary client base is comprised of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the US and other allied countries around the world.
Q: What did Afghanistan have to do with 9-11?
A: Nothing
frater plecticus
11th September 2007 - 10:38 AM
Daily Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this?
Osama Bin Laden: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace for the whole of humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent the Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to Ummat Publications for giving me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin [true Muslim] people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon [Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf].
I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. It is the United States which is perpetrating every sort of maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that has been going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to invoke the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries that witnessed all of this as silent spectators. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers, namely that America is an anti-Islamic power and is patronising anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just show, or rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Cast a glance around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.
The US has no friends, nor does it want any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him on par with yourself. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or its subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility of becoming someone else's slave. If we did that it would be disregardful both to our Sustainer and to his fellow beings. Most of the nations of the world who are upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or which the US itself considers to be its enemies.
The countries which do not agree to become US slaves are China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria [Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia] and Russia. Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US Government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him.
Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem until the existence of the ex-Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and the Talibans and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and to increase their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance would be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade in order to show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.
Daily Ummat: A number of countries have joined the call of the United States to launch attacks on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qaeda declare a jihad against these Islamic countries too?
Bin Laden: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them what is good for them and what is not, what Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want. Al-Qaeda was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to counter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared pillar of Islam. [The first five being the basic holy words of Islam: that there is only one God in the entire universe and that Muhammad is the last Prophet of God; prayers; fast; pilgrimage to Mecca; and giving alms.] Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of the jihad. Al-Qaeda wants to keep the jihad alive and active and make it a part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country. We do not consider a war against an Islamic country to be a jihad. We are in favour of an armed jihad only against those infidel governments that are killing innocent Muslim men, women and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think about what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic Shariah [jurisprudence] for such individuals, organizations and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous about them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Ameer-ul-Momeneen [the commander of the faithful Afghans] Muhammad Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.
Daily Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks could bring down the American economy. Why is Al-Qaeda not targeting their economic pillars?
Bin Laden: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [US Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally under the control of American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.
Daily Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, urging the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines and TV channels.
Bin Laden: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycot of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim World but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today's world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.
Daily Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qaeda and its jihad successes. Would you like to comment on this?
Bin Laden: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause. The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in the modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing for them. You can understand what will be the performance in war of a nation that suffers from fear and helplessness.
Daily Ummat: What will be the impact of the freezing of Al-Qaeda's accounts by the US?
Bin Laden: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qaeda or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, Al-Qaeda has more than three alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What can we say about the United States when not even the world combined can budge these people from their path? These people are not hundreds but thousands and millions. Al-Qaeda comprises modern educated youths who are as aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in the palms of their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate despite the passage of so many days.
Daily Ummat: Are there any safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?
Bin Laden: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am a helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Osama but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad existed when there was no Osama and it will continue to exist even when Osama is no longer here. Allah opens up ways and creates love in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the life after death. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.
Daily Ummat: What do you have to say about the Pakistani Government policy regarding the attack on Afghanistan?
Bin Laden: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade before the evil forces and stood in the first line of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended all its help to the Mojahedin and Afghan people. Then these are the very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Taliban. If such people emerged in just two countries, the domination of the West would diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is as sacred for us as a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defense of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who reforms Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.
frater plecticus
11th September 2007 - 12:08 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Sep 11 2007, 11:58 AM)
Does this interest anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
No.
No evidence to prove or disprove it.
adoucette
11th September 2007 - 12:51 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Sep 11 2007, 08:08 AM)
No.
No evidence to prove or disprove it.
What it shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, the rate of collapse is explainable WITHOUT resorting to CDs.
What is shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, is that ONCE the collapse began it would not stop.
The work is also published in a Peer Reviewed Journal, unlike all the HAND WAVING that remains the sole method of communication by the CT'ers.
So the QUESTION is?
What would it take to CONVINCE YOU?
I mean NIST produces a multi-year scholarly report that explains in detail the likely events leading up to the collapse, and in the 2 years since its publication NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE has been made to its findings.
Over that time MULTIPLE other groups (like Purdue) have confirmed the essence of what NIST found.
Other REPUTABLE scientists like Dr. Bazant and now Dr. Seffen have shown that the rate and manner of collapse, after initiation are logical and do not require additional energy inputs.
Finally, in 6 years not ONE SHREAD of incontrovertable evidence has been found to support the demolition hypothesis (which given the immensity of the towers represents a vanishingly small probability that NONE would be found)
So, Frater (and other CTers)
WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU?
Arthur
Chainsaw,
11th September 2007 - 01:23 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 11 2007, 12:51 PM)
What it shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, the rate of collapse is explainable WITHOUT resorting to CDs.
What is shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, is that ONCE the collapse began it would not stop.
The work is also published in a Peer Reviewed Journal, unlike all the HAND WAVING that remains the sole method of communication by the CT'ers.
So the QUESTION is?
What would it take to CONVINCE YOU?
I mean NIST produces a multi-year scholarly report that explains in detail the likely events leading up to the collapse, and in the 2 years since its publication NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE has been made to its findings.
Over that time MULTIPLE other groups (like Purdue) have confirmed the essence of what NIST found.
Other REPUTABLE scientists like Dr. Bazant and now Dr. Seffen have shown that the rate and manner of collapse, after initiation are logical and do not require additional energy inputs.
Finally, in 6 years not ONE SHREAD of incontrovertable evidence has been found to support the demolition hypothesis (which given the immensity of the towers represents a vanishingly small probability that NONE would be found)
So, Frater (and other CTers)
WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU?
Arthur
I have asked this a thousand times on a thousand site and never received an answer, what explosives would have survive in the environment of the twin towers, I have tested them all, now and none do.
So if the towers were CD, how was it done without unstable Chemical explosives?
From what I have seen there is no Physical way the towers could have been CD, in this universe, CTers are trying to warp the physical constants of the whole universe.
PS. The only thing I have not tested is NEU's A.P. theory, at least not yet, that is because it is a theory not based on explosives.
It is based on a Theory that is similar to what would occur from heating the buildings steel. IT also does not require an explosive to survive impact and fires.
lozenge124
11th September 2007 - 02:59 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 11 2007, 12:51 PM)
What it shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, the rate of collapse is explainable WITHOUT resorting to CDs.
What is shows is, that CONTRARY to claims frequently made by the CT'ers, is that ONCE the collapse began it would not stop.
The work is also published in a Peer Reviewed Journal, unlike all the HAND WAVING that remains the sole method of communication by the CT'ers.
So the QUESTION is?
What would it take to CONVINCE YOU?
I mean NIST produces a multi-year scholarly report that explains in detail the likely events leading up to the collapse, and in the 2 years since its publication NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE has been made to its findings.
Over that time MULTIPLE other groups (like Purdue) have confirmed the essence of what NIST found.
Other REPUTABLE scientists like Dr. Bazant and now Dr. Seffen have shown that the rate and manner of collapse, after initiation are logical and do not require additional energy inputs.
Finally, in 6 years not ONE SHREAD of incontrovertable evidence has been found to support the demolition hypothesis (which given the immensity of the towers represents a vanishingly small probability that NONE would be found)
So, Frater (and other CTers)
WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU?
Arthur
When the former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (James Quintere) calls for an independent review of NIST's report, it is completely inaccurate to state that "NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE has been made to its findings".
It's also misleading to say that the Purdue group "confirmed the essence of what NIST found" as they only covered the initial plane crash and damage, not the subsequent fires and collapse.
There has been no independent review or confirmation of NIST's fire damage analysis, and work up to collapse initiation. And quite frankly, to anyone who reads NCSTAR 1-6C, & 1-6D carefully - especially the section on the pull-in forces - it becomes quickly apparent how tentative and undefinitive their ANSYS model actually is. Then if you consider that they didn't even go beyond "collapse initiation", well...
Personally, I would be fairly satisfied with an FEA model/visualization of the collapse. Something like the Weidlinger models (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdfLYKOKhNI ), but going beyond the initial few moments to the crushdown phase of the collapse. If such a model was produced and truly peer-reviewed by independent entities (unlike the NIST report), it would go a long way towards proving that a gravity driven progressive collapse was indeed possible.
NEU-FONZE
11th September 2007 - 03:03 PM
To all who frequent this forum:
On this and every September 11th anniversary, let's first and always remember those who lost their lives on this day 6 years ago, and especially the heroes of the Fire and Police Departments of New York City.
"Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea, they shall rise again
Though lovers be lost, love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion"
Dylan Thomas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. to Chainsaw: You note that "The only thing I have not tested is NEU's A.P. theory, at least not yet, that is because it is a theory not based on explosives."
So what are you waiting for? (Although I wonder if AP is readily available.)
wcelliott
11th September 2007 - 03:52 PM
So frater, do you think the towers were a result of planted explosives, or the natural consequences of the airplanes' impact damage and subsequent fires?
QUOTE
which in turn is run by ?
If I interpret your meaning correctly, you're asserting that Osama bin Laden is taking orders from the CIA (or some other entity of the New World Order, or maybe from the giant lizards themselves).
If that's the case, then why did Osama bin Laden disavow responsibility for 9/11? If he was under orders, why didn't he stick with the gameplan and say he did it?
Then again, there's another (at least one more) interview/videotape of him saying he *did* plan/carry out the 9/11 attacks, also showing him embracing the hijackers who were making their "martyrdom tapes."
If he's so honest, why does he contradict himself?
If he's working for the Giant Lizards, why would anybody bother with planting explosives (which were never found)?
If it's your position that 9/11 was carried-out on orders from the Giant Lizards, then how do you feel about the CDiots' position that it was planted explosives (nevermind the airplane impacts and fires) that brought down the towers?
Your position simply isn't self-consistent, nevermind the fact that it has no evidence supporting it.
Chainsaw,
11th September 2007 - 03:52 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 03:03 PM)
To all who frequent this forum:
On this and every September 11th anniversary, let's first and always remember those who lost their lives on this day 6 years ago, and especially the heroes of the Fire and Police Departments of New York City.
"Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea, they shall rise again
Though lovers be lost, love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion"
Dylan Thomas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. to Chainsaw: You note that "The only thing I have not tested is NEU's A.P. theory, at least not yet, that is because it is a theory not based on explosives."
So what are you waiting for? (Although I wonder if AP is readily available.)
I have not figure out how too properly apply it yet, I think I can get my hands on some AP, just do have not figured out how I would apply it yet.
A man I worked for doing a sculpture actually works part time as an engineer, at a plant that makes it for NASA. He is also into model rockets and uses it in them, in small quantities.
A could make and test a similar compound that would have the same effect, the main thing I am wondering about AP, would it be subject to being ignited by an electrical spark.
That seems to be what troubled the engineer most he said how would you prevent static electrical discharges, electrical shorts, and lighting from igniting it?
He said lighting is one of the main problems with rocket launches, it could ignite the propellant, I wondering if a similar thing can happen to AP. applied to a steel structure.
adoucette
11th September 2007 - 03:57 PM
QUOTE (lozenge124+Sep 11 2007, 10:59 AM)
When the former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (James Quintere) calls for an independent review of NIST's report, it is completely inaccurate to state that "NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE has been made to its findings".
Total Horse Pucky.
Quintere stated his OPINION that the fires released more energy than NIST estimates and thus the damage to the structure didn't rely as much upon the removal of the SFRM by the plane's impact.
In fact his quote about the towers is:
QUOTE
I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,”
Note the KEY WORD here is ACCOUNTABILITY
But, the PROBLEM is he is acting as a CONSULTANT to the family members that did not take the Govt settlement, thus its in THEIR INTEREST to find the BUILDING at fault.
i.e they can prevail in their damage claim ONLY if they can show that the buildings weren't safe even with INTACT SFRM.
As to your point about Purdue, I didn't mean to imply that much of a scope to their work, just that an indepentent modeling excercise found EVEN MORE DAMAGE to the towers than NIST estimated.
So the point I made stands.
There has been NO serious challenge to the NIST findings.
NOTHING to suggest that an extra energy source was needed for the collapse initiation.
Arthur
OneWhiteEye
11th September 2007 - 04:43 PM
An aside from left field: perspective and rotation can't be completely ignored in video analysis. In the video einsteen linked, the window washing station at the roofline appears to go up before going down.
NEU-FONZE
11th September 2007 - 04:58 PM
Chainsaw:
It's precisely because of uncertainties in the ignitability of AP that it would be worth trying a few formulations with AP, a binder and additives. I am sure if AP WAS used, the perpetrators would have tweaked the formulation to get just the desired effect...
OneWhiteEye
11th September 2007 - 05:01 PM
Many years ago a buddy and I had a rule. Don't hold the 1.3 propellant (AP-based) in the same hand as your cigarette.
David B. Benson
11th September 2007 - 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Sep 11 2007, 04:58 AM)
adoucette
11th September 2007 - 07:33 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 12:58 PM)
It's precisely because of uncertainties in the ignitability of AP that it would be worth trying a few formulations with AP, a binder and additives. I am sure if AP WAS used, the perpetrators would have tweaked the formulation to get just the desired effect...
Not to mention employing the Vuclan Mind Control so that no one would friggin notice that they were spraying rocket fuel all over the tower's structure.
I wish I knew what are you trying to PROVE by spreading this kind of inane rumour on the internet?
Arthur
David B. Benson
11th September 2007 - 08:41 PM
Using 1630 tonnes as an average office story mass doesn't seem that far off. But one should not just multiple by 117 to obtain the mass of a tower, since there were quite a few considerably heavier stories, including the restaurant story in WTC 1, etc.
NEU-FONZE
11th September 2007 - 11:51 PM
DBB:
I agree, but I am simply reporting what NIST said about the mass of the towers in NCSTAR 1-5D.
An average floor mass is still a very useful concept.
Arthur:
Inane rumour?
No, I would say it's a plausible hypothesis and scientifically sound since it is potentially falsifiable.
However, anyone watching the SFRM being sprayed on the towers would have no reason to suspect anything was "going on". The spiked foam would be essentially indistinguishable from the real thing.
David B. Benson
12th September 2007 - 12:01 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 04:51 PM)
... it is potentially falsifiable.
How?
Chainsaw,
12th September 2007 - 02:13 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 11:51 PM)
DBB:
I agree, but I am simply reporting what NIST said about the mass of the towers in NCSTAR 1-5D.
An average floor mass is still a very useful concept.
Arthur:
Inane rumour?
No, I would say it's a plausible hypothesis and scientifically sound since it is potentially falsifiable.
However, anyone watching the SFRM being sprayed on the towers would have no reason to suspect anything was "going on". The spiked foam would be essentially indistinguishable from the real thing.
I will be able to tell you soon I will have some the next time the engineer returns to Kentucky probably next week, funny thing is he suggested Calcium sulfate might make a good binder, How about dry wall board heating up the core?
zoktoberfest
12th September 2007 - 03:10 AM
"Not to mention employing the Vuclan Mind Control so that no one would friggin notice that they were spraying rocket fuel all over the tower's structure."
I'm not up to speed on "Vuclan" mind control or NUE-FONZE's thoughts on AP dispersion; but the old (BP) ploy, disqualifying MIHOP theories on the grounds of lack of access and opportunity is all to familiar. It was the dullest knife in the draw then, and remains so now.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/339746/power...nd_before_9_11/
wcelliott
12th September 2007 - 05:18 AM
QUOTE
It was the dullest knife in the draw then, and remains so now.
Speaking of the dullest knife in the drawer...
Why do *you* think explosives of *any* sort were needed?
NEU-FONZE
12th September 2007 - 01:29 PM
I would say that the use of AP-spiked thermal insulation could have been verified or disproven by analysing recoverd samples of WTC debris.
Now in theory ALL the AP should have decomposed as follows:
4NH4ClO4 -> 0.48 Cl2 + 4.06 O2 + 6.48 H2O + 0.48 N2O + 0.92 NO + 3.04 HCl + 1.14 N2
Since these are all gases they would have escaped (or reacted) with materials they contacted. One possibility would be to look for chlorinated species in the WTC dust, but this approach is probably no good as a result of Cl2/HCl production by the decomposition of PVC. Another approach would be to look for nitrates and nitrites produced by nitrous/nitric acid derived from NO + O2 + H2O.
I would suggest, however, that the best way to show AP was used would be to look for un-decomposed residues of AP since some of the spiked material would have remained below 300 deg C - the decomposition temperature of AP. Thus I would analyse for perchlorate residues. Unfortunately, as it stands, I am sure no one has bothered to look for this species. Why would they?
Agent_X
12th September 2007 - 02:17 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Sep 11 2007, 11:58 AM)
Does this interest anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
"The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".
But NIST have ruled out pancaking:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
--
einsteen
12th September 2007 - 03:04 PM
They mean that pancaking of a floor didn't initiate a collapse, but the assymetric inward bowing, whatever that means
wcelliott
12th September 2007 - 03:30 PM
QUOTE
"The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".
But NIST have ruled out pancaking:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
Adding to einsteen's comment, the NIST study limited itself to how the collapse STARTED, not how it PROGRESSED ONCE STARTED.
They felt it was sufficiently obvious that once the collapse started, that it'd continue on its own to completion that they didn't need to go into specific details.
Clearly, in this "debate", nothing can be assumed to be too obvious to warrant going into excruciating detail.
Once AP has been proved absent, the CDiots will just postulate some Top Secret/Stealth silent explosive that's based on Giant Lizard technology from the 13th dimension (you know, the same stuff the Egyptians used to make the Pyramids), and we'll be back at square-one. Recognize, the CDiots never keep score of how many of their unsupported assertions turn out to be BS. They just keep throwing out one ridiculous notion after another.
Incidentally, ever notice how some CDiots think it's one kind of explosives that make loud BANGS and other CDiots think it's Thermate and other CDiots think the explosives were in the basement and other CDiots think they're sprinkled throughout the towers and some say they're precision-timed and others say they went off at random... AND YET NONE OF THEM ARE DEBATING EACH OTHER!!!
That's because NONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. All they want is people thinking Bush did it, and they don't care how or even whether it's true or not. If they cared about the TRUTH, they'd be CRITICIZING EACH OTHERS' POSITIONS.
Has any Troother ever criticized another Troother's position in this thread? No.
That says it all.
David B. Benson
12th September 2007 - 05:52 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 12 2007, 08:04 AM)
... the assymetric[sic] inward bowing ...
For WTC 1, the south wall was bowing-in the most, the east and west walls somewhat and the north wall not at all.
FactCheck
13th September 2007 - 12:18 AM
QUOTE
"The NIST and "Pancaking"
The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse.
Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".
What the NIST observed:
Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking".
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3
Of course this will be labeled a contradiction by conspiracy theorists. As if the NIST can't observe something without studying the behavior of it.
Let me make this really easy for them...
1) The NIST said, the heat from the fires sagged the trusses which bowed the columns inward CAUSING the collapse. Pancaking did NOT cause the collapse. The evidence I see agrees with this conclusion.
2) The evidence on the ground strongly indicates, after the collapse began, the building pancaked spreading the debris as we see below. The NIST never studied this so how could we be in disagreement?
I recently E-mailed the NIST to verify this. Here is their response:
NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.
Sincerely,
WTC Investigation Team
From the NIST report, page xxxvii:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
So while they did investigate the squibs issues and other parts of the global collapse like the gusset plates failure, they never studied the "structural behavior" of the global collapse, as they did "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse". And why should they? Every paper which passed peer review by respected scientific journals (The Journal of 911 Studies is not one of them.) on the collapse of the towers calculates the massive weight of the top sections would crush the buildings as seen. There are mathematical calculations which are shown in Bazant's paper (See below) and are peer reviewed. Others have passed similar papers. The idea that these buildings could not fall as they did flies in the face of these facts.
Conspiracy theorists are clearly lying about this in order to paint this site as unreliable. The irony of their claims seem to be what's most reliable in their movement."
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Trippy
13th September 2007 - 07:36 AM
DBB: I asked about the height, because using the seismic trace you can work out how much energy was involved. Once you know how much energy was involved, you should be able to set an absolute lower limit on the mass (which may or may not be useful).
Sorry it's been a couple of days, but it seemed somehow disrespectful to post during the 9/11 anniversary, and I am very disappointed to see that the CT'ers didn't have the respect for the dead to stay off the thread for that single day.
einsteen
13th September 2007 - 08:58 AM
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Sep 11 2007, 11:58 AM)
Does this interest anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
I'm wondering, isn't Bazant one of the first people who described the collapse and did calculations ? He should be on BBC news.
Chainsaw,
13th September 2007 - 03:47 PM
Well I found some AP, and did one test, it would work if you could get it to stick to the trusses, and you could keep it from igniting, both are difficult problems, that might be impossible to solve AP degrades rapidly into a gas, that is wonderful in a rocket engine, but worth less for use on trusses as it builds up a gas under the binder that actually pushes the binder and the AP off the truss.
IT also ignites pretty easy, so without a proper binding agent and a way to stop its ignition I do not see how it would work, any suggestions would be welcome.
PS. I did find a material besides AP that would work, but I know it was probably not used do to difficulty of getting away with it, so I am keeping it to myself, that way I will not start another useless CT.
David B. Benson
13th September 2007 - 06:45 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 11 2007, 09:43 AM)
An aside from left field: perspective and rotation can't be completely ignored in video analysis. In the video einsteen linked, the window washing station at the roofline appears to go up before going down.
I assume this is WTC 1. Which part of the structure and when? Are you sure this is not a camera bobble?
I ask, because I fail to comprehend how perspective could cause this. But there are other possible explanations.
wcelliott
13th September 2007 - 07:16 PM
QUOTE
I ask, because I fail to comprehend how perspective could cause this. But there are other possible explanations.
If it's attached to the outer perimeter of the tower, then any shock waves could easily fling it up as the rest of the building falls.
OneWhiteEye
13th September 2007 - 09:06 PM
QUOTE
I assume this is WTC 1.
Yes. It's the same video that einsteen used to produce the curve. It looks almost squarely at the north wall.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I assume this is WTC 1. |
Yes. It's the same video that einsteen used to produce the curve. It looks almost squarely at the north wall.
Which part of the structure and when?
It's a window washing rig (I assume) at the roofline, upper right corner on the building in the frame. The sequence of frames I analyzed (frames 800-889, 29.97 fps, 3 seconds) begin several frames prior to detectable motion above the noise and conclude with obvious tilt/descent, though still subpixel. I'd guess anyone trying to measure with pixel accuracy would put the first frame of motion somewhere between the
end of this sequence and a second later, depending on how carefully they looked.
QUOTE
Are you sure this is not a camera bobble?
Unlikely. The source video is excellent in that it's stable and the left portion of the scene includes the face of a nearby building with many well-focused windows frames which can serve to detect camera motion (necessarily of a lesser magnitude than the distant tower). While there is camera vibration prior to collapse, this action seems to be fully damped prior to frame 800. I've extracted data on the rig from the end of the shaking to start of the sequence as a baseline. The tail-off of the vibration is clearly observed and a baseline noise level is apparent. I will have to check to be more precise but the observed 'travel' exceeds the noise magnitude by a fair margin and is sustained. It 'moves' horizontally to the left more than up.
During the same time, the apparent motion of the antenna is down and to the left. In order for camera motion to be responsible, it would have to be rotational about the line of sight axis and this is not apparent in other reference objects I've looked at to this point. Moreover, it would have to be essentially monotonic drift over more than a 1.5 second period.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you sure this is not a camera bobble? |
Unlikely. The source video is excellent in that it's stable and the left portion of the scene includes the face of a nearby building with many well-focused windows frames which can serve to detect camera motion (necessarily of a lesser magnitude than the distant tower). While there is camera vibration prior to collapse, this action seems to be fully damped prior to frame 800. I've extracted data on the rig from the end of the shaking to start of the sequence as a baseline. The tail-off of the vibration is clearly observed and a baseline noise level is apparent. I will have to check to be more precise but the observed 'travel' exceeds the noise magnitude by a fair margin and is sustained. It 'moves' horizontally to the left more than up.
During the same time, the apparent motion of the antenna is down and to the left. In order for camera motion to be responsible, it would have to be rotational about the line of sight axis and this is not apparent in other reference objects I've looked at to this point. Moreover, it would have to be essentially monotonic drift over more than a 1.5 second period.
I ask, because I fail to comprehend how perspective could cause this.
Good call. I realized after I posted that the comment would be misleading. You're probably thinking in terms of how the camera perspective could produce 'retrograde' motion - appearing to reverse the direction of real displacement (though that concern does apply to videos generally). The perspective to which I refer is with respect to the rig. If the camera line of sight were normal to the surface presenting the greatest cross-sectional area, the reflection from the projected image would not (likely) be as sensitive to small real rotation. This possibility may invalidate the method I used to extract numeric data (see below).
QUOTE
But there are other possible explanations.
Yes. One is that real rotation changed the apparent luminosity of the feature so as to skew my results upwards. The rig is a complex shape providing the majority of its luminosity from direct reflection. Even a small change in angle of orientation could shift the location of the specular region sufficiently to produce these results. Without another feature in close proximity to confirm or deny, I can't really know.
I can see the upward displacement with my eyes when comparing initial and final frames side by side, just can't put a number to it that way. Some ways to accomplish this are unweighted/weighted boundary and weighted area, with and without threshold filtering. I chose area calculations with no threshold as a first pass and I've only done these calculations using a rectangular region for simplicity.
The procedure is to calculate a center of brightness (or darkness - the complement) analagous to center of mass calculation. Here, pixel intensity is used to weight the position vector components of a rectangular grid of pixels just barely enclosing the feature of interest. So long as the feature is mostly surrounded by contrasting background, the change in center of luminosity can reliably be calculated. For a real video, it's like measuring a noisy signal with a sensitive voltmeter - precise renderings of data with much artifact. Artifact from all sources (except smoke) in this particular context are amplitude-limited and dominated by quasi-periodic components in aggregation as can be established by examining the baseline for a feature. I don't see obscuration of smoke nor does it appear in the baseline but I can't rule it out.
The only remaining reason for drift in center of luminosity is physical motion of the underlying object. Stationary objects in videos may be grainy, but they do not morph over time. If all motion is translational, one expects very accurate time-averaged location of the center of luminosity in correspondence. Small displacements ( < 1 pixel) can be determined as the blob transitions between adjacent pixels.
The only way it could be real upward motion is if the window washer rotated about its mounting due to deformation, or the north wall stretches/breaks in tension, neither expected - correct? Clearly, the top block is not rotating
towards the camera in this video, which could produce upward deflection on the image plane despite loss of true elevation.
In the absence of further investigation, I'd have to conclude that the technique is invalid for this feature. It's disappointing because, of all the features in the frame, this is one of only seven candidates for this procedure (the other six all on the antenna). The purpose of my comment was to say that I cannot select a contrasting feature and plot small vertical motion without consideration for perspective and rotation. Garbage may result.
OneWhiteEye
13th September 2007 - 10:00 PM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 13 2007, 07:16 PM)
If it's attached to the outer perimeter of the tower, then any shock waves could easily fling it up as the rest of the building falls.
This is prior to what I'd expect would be called first motion in a rough analysis. I don't think anyone has got the tweezers out like this before. I wouldn't say the building is falling during this time period. Moving, yes, in what way I don't really know. This is very small motion, of the order of inches over seconds. It's only possible to derive such information under particular circumstances, then it's highly suspect without some confirmation, and even then it's riddled with noise.
As has been observed here, shock waves travel fast. This is a slow drift over about a second and a half.
David B. Benson
13th September 2007 - 11:42 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 13 2007, 03:00 PM)
... I don't think anyone has got the tweezers out like this before. ...
Absolutely, and this is most interesting.
Now centimeters of seconds is enough to say the tower is starting to fall, bur before NIST's t_0.
Some more questions:
(1) I believe you stated that the antenna tower is moving at the same time? I'm just after confirmation of this important point.
(2) The other features that you have studied do not show this apparent upward motion?
(3) The was an expulsion of smoke and actual flame from floors 97 and 98 about 2 seconds before NIST's t_0. When is the apparent upward motion in comparison to this expulsion.? Before, essentially during, or after?
Now for some possible explanations, assuming this was real motion:
(1) Human activity. Somebody had obtained access to the controls.
(2) The slow tilting of the tower to the south (and maybe also to the east) would affect the north wall. The wall might be shaking a little and this is amplified by the nature of the connections between the wall and the window washing apparatus.
(3) If the comparative timing is right, the collapse event of floors 97 and 98 might have provided the energy, via the north wall, to move the window washer.
wcelliott
14th September 2007 - 01:01 AM
QUOTE
This is prior to what I'd expect would be called first motion
Recognize that prior to the global collapse one should expect structural columns failing in an accelerating succesion. As noted before, when a column gets unloaded (from failure above), it recoils by the amount the load had compressed it, so that recoild would get coupled to whatever's attached to it.
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 01:43 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 13 2007, 11:42 PM)
(1) I believe you stated that the antenna tower is moving at the same time? I'm just after confirmation of this important point.
Without a doubt. The antenna moves down and to the left in the image plane during this time. Wish I could quantify it for you but it's taking some time to tease the numbers out.
QUOTE
(2) The other features that you have studied do not show this apparent upward motion?
No, but the only other features I've been able to examine at this resolution are associated with the antenna. These were done with a similar 1-D technique on selected strips of pixels. I just finished some code to process the 2-D case which requires the feature be surrounded by contrasting background, and ran it on the washing rig.
I'm going to do a 2D run on the six 'dots' on the antenna tonight. Let you know what happens with that but I can already tell you the antenna motion is strictly to the left and down. All of this is a work in progress. When I can get some trustworthy results on the easy features, I'll start looking at patterns on the wall to see what's happening there. Unfortunately, the smoke is a problem for most of the building surface and edges.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (2) The other features that you have studied do not show this apparent upward motion? |
No, but the only other features I've been able to examine at this resolution are associated with the antenna. These were done with a similar 1-D technique on selected strips of pixels. I just finished some code to process the 2-D case which requires the feature be surrounded by contrasting background, and ran it on the washing rig.
I'm going to do a 2D run on the six 'dots' on the antenna tonight. Let you know what happens with that but I can already tell you the antenna motion is strictly to the left and down. All of this is a work in progress. When I can get some trustworthy results on the easy features, I'll start looking at patterns on the wall to see what's happening there. Unfortunately, the smoke is a problem for most of the building surface and edges.
3) The was an expulsion of smoke and actual flame from floors 97 and 98 about 2 seconds before NIST's t_0. When is the apparent upward motion in comparison to this expulsion.? Before, essentially during, or after?
I remember you mentioning this. I'll have to check. Which side(s) show this expulsion? Is it obviously distinguishable from the other puffs and billows?
QUOTE
Human activity. Somebody had obtained access to the controls.
Never thought of that. Kinda creepy, not sure why. Rescue attempt?
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 02:01 AM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 14 2007, 01:01 AM)
Recognize that prior to the global collapse one should expect structural columns failing in an accelerating succesion. As noted before, when a column gets unloaded (from failure above), it recoils by the amount the load had compressed it, so that recoild would get coupled to whatever's attached to it.
I recall you saying that some time ago. An interesting idea. Makes me wonder what would happen with the shaft on my office chair, should it break...
Recoil would be visible only below a break, by definition, correct? Recoil doesn't affect the structure above, otherwise the load is not removed. The rig is on top of the roofline, so it can't apply. Yes?
wcelliott
14th September 2007 - 04:08 AM
QUOTE
Recoil would be visible only below a break, by definition, correct? Recoil doesn't affect the structure above, otherwise the load is not removed. The rig is on top of the roofline, so it can't apply. Yes?
Prior to the global collapse, the columns are still attached to other parts of the structure. A 1000' column compressed to .998 of its nominal length would suddenly be two feet taller if the whole load were removed instantaneously, but if the load is removed bit-by-bit, as it would be when brackets/bolts/welds fail, then the recoil would be in inch here, an inch there. Floors' concrete isn't flexible, but would be subjected to lots of sudden differential one-inch accelerations from this column failing, then the one next to it. Every bracket/bolt/weld that failed would've warped the floor. This would've cracked a lot of concrete prior to the global collapse.
But back to the question. Prior to the global collapse, there was still a space-frame of interconnected structural steel, and shock waves would've been propagating throughout the network in all directions, the energy of each failed structural member would've been transmitted to the rest of the remaining structure. Horizontal members would've been under tension, vertical members under compression, but each would have significant unbalanced forces when it failed.
I'm thinking that when the last remaining structural members were at their breaking point, that the shock of the last member prior to global collapse would've itself triggered a cascade of failures, a chain reaction of failures and their associated recoils causing more failures.
The symmetry of the tower that fell straight down (I get them confused) would've been the reason for the "BANG-BANG-BANG" heard when that one fell, the asymmetry of the tilted one yielded only freight-train-type sounds, a random assemblage of impulses of different amplitudes and phases.
Still not particularly surprised that the window washer rig ascended while everything was failing. If you slip on a banana peel, your tie will fly straight up as you fall over backwards. Think "trebuchet".
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 04:59 AM
I'll give that some thought.
The apparatus does thrash about quite a bit later on, once the drop picks up speed. Doesn't seem to be too rigid, at least the mounting.
No need to be too quick to explain this. It could be smoke. or change in reflective attributes from orientation. Or even DivX compression (I failed to mention that wild card in the litany of artifacts).
Trippy
14th September 2007 - 08:39 AM
The frequency spectrum of the seismic trace shows some interesting resonance features that are either absent or not as apparent in the second collapse.
David B. Benson
14th September 2007 - 06:24 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 13 2007, 06:43 PM)
... Which side(s) show this expulsion? Is it obviously distinguishable from the other puffs and billows?
If I remember correctly, all four.
This is the only expulsion with actual flames being shoved out with the smoke, on at least one side. Now earlier there were several broken windows with flames out them, but this is burning materials being shoved out the windows. NIST remarks about this rather strongly in at least two sections of the report.
David B. Benson
14th September 2007 - 08:30 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 13 2007, 06:43 PM)
... Unfortunately, the smoke is a problem for most of the building surface and edges.
I'll also suggest that a large puff of hot air moving up the tower, or otherwise modifying the air flow as a likely explanation.
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 08:31 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 14 2007, 06:24 PM)
If I remember correctly, all four.
This is the only expulsion with actual flames being shoved out with the smoke, on at least one side. Now earlier there were several broken windows with flames out them, but this is burning materials being shoved out the windows. NIST remarks about this rather strongly in at least two sections of the report.
Thanks. I did look at the few seconds before and during the interval, and about a second afterward. All I saw in the area of the floors in question was smoke. There was flame a few floors below (94? I'm not sure where to start counting down from the top) across a substantial number of windows. This does roar with expelled flame once vertical motion is well underway, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
It looks as if an extra volume of smoke originates from the area around the time of my interval but it's just pouring out, not being expelled.
I'll need to look again when it's dark. It's so hard to see anything subtle in my environment until the sun goes down.
PS I have to add optical distortion from hot gases passing in front of the feature to the list of artifacts.
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 08:35 PM
Haha. Cross post. Duh.
OneWhiteEye
14th September 2007 - 08:41 PM
I realized last night running the antenna dots that there was a lot of drift in the baseline values. Then it occurred to me thermal effects could be causing it; it would be worse for the antenna than the washer, but that doesn't preclude the washer from getting a hot blast around the time it seems to move upward.
Trippy
14th September 2007 - 10:42 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 15 2007, 08:31 AM)
Thanks. I did look at the few seconds before and during the interval, and about a second afterward. All I saw in the area of the floors in question was smoke. There was flame a few floors below (94? I'm not sure where to start counting down from the top) across a substantial number of windows. This does roar with expelled flame once vertical motion is well underway, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
It looks as if an extra volume of smoke originates from the area around the time of my interval but it's just pouring out, not being expelled.
I'll need to look again when it's dark. It's so hard to see anything subtle in my environment until the sun goes down.
PS I have to add optical distortion from hot gases passing in front of the feature to the list of artifacts.
I had a thought. If there was a partial collapse somewhere on the burning floors that was part of the process, and that partial collapse opened up a passage for increased airflow, and increased flames, or, alternatively, a partial collapse could have blocked off a source of air flow, increasing the volume of smoke being emitted.
Something else to bare in mind, I think, is that fires do breathe - literaly, it's to do with the dynamic balance between the egress of smoke, and the ingress of air.
Something else to consider. If a non-burning floor collapsed partially (or fully) onto a burning floor, the sudden introduction of fuel would have increased the volume of smoke being produced by the fire.
David B. Benson
15th September 2007 - 12:44 AM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 14 2007, 01:31 PM)
Thanks. I did look at the few seconds before and during the interval, and about a second afterward. All I saw in the area of the floors in question was smoke. There was flame a few floors below (94? I'm not sure where to start counting down from the top) across a substantial number of windows. This does roar with expelled flame once vertical motion is well underway, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
It looks as if an extra volume of smoke originates from the area around the time of my interval but it's just pouring out, not being expelled.
I may have misunderstood what NIST was trying to say, or else this effect cannot be seen from the north side.
Counting down: Below the roofline is the PH Roof level, strictly speaking floor 111. I suppose there were windows, since for WTC 1 it was an 'observation' floor. Floors 109 and 109 were a pair of mechanical floors, with ventilators rather than windows. This might be quite distinctive in the video.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 04:06 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 15 2007, 12:44 AM)
I may have misunderstood what NIST was trying to say, or else this effect cannot be seen from the north side.
Counting down: Below the roofline is the PH Roof level, strictly speaking floor 111. I suppose there were windows, since for WTC 1 it was an 'observation' floor. Floors 109 and 109 were a pair of mechanical floors, with ventilators rather than windows. This might be quite distinctive in the video.
That's helpful, thank you. I wasn't sure what was up at the very top, and the mechanical floor is not visible in this video to count up. I'm not that savvy about the architecture.
I looked again (+/- 3 floors just to be sure) and didn't see flame around 97/98. There is quite a bit of smoke so it's possible flame has been obscured from this viewpoint. In another video, flame IS visible around that level on another wall but I get almost a count of six before the real fall begins - which was from the beginning of the clip so who knows how long it was present.
I have some ideas about synchronizing our time frames I'll post in a few hours.
I'm quite bummed about the thermal business. It's not easy to wave that away.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 09:07 AM
A picture is worth a thousand words, a moving picture is worth 1000*frameCount.
Hopefully, this is viewable.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 09:18 AM
The picture is a blow-up of a part of the antenna. This is the previously mentioned (~3 second) period running a little slower in a GIF file. At the start there is blue dot in the upper left and the first frame remains frozen for a short time. When the dot disappears, the sequence runs. At the end, a red dot appears and the last frame is similarly frozen. Then it starts back at the beginning. You can compare the positions when it restarts.
There's some distortion visible that could be from waves of hot gases.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 09:56 AM
This is what's happening down below at the same time, in the 90s. I may be pushing the limit with frame count. I think both this GIF and the previous had some frames cut but the basic idea is right.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 11:34 AM
This is the same dark band of the antenna. Fifteen frames are averaged together to produce each one of the images below, each representing a half second for a total of four seconds - the aforementioned interval plus another second. Lines added for reference. Do follow the link to the larger image.
0-4 sec antenna
David B. Benson
15th September 2007 - 07:13 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 15 2007, 02:07 AM)
Hopefully, this is viewable.
Well, sorta. For me, nothing moves.
And the others you posted don't make sense to me with more explanation.
However, do not worry about thermal effects. Once I have numbers (and time to work on it) I could pass the data through a low-pass filter to remove the tiny bobbles. But I'll not bother. I intend to use the data to get the best fit to the crush down equation, using a varying resisting force which starts high and declines. With enough data I can use a parameter estimation method which should give a very good fit.
OneWhiteEye
15th September 2007 - 08:21 PM
QUOTE
And the others you posted don't make sense to me with more explanation.
Explanation: The second posting shows the right half of the north wall centered at around floors 97/98, as well as around the corner to the west wall. It covers exactly the same time frame (3 seconds) as the antenna animation above, so you can see what's happening in the area where NIST mentioned an expulsion. Basically, it shows no expulsion, nothing different from what had been happening in the seconds prior except a little flare-up down low in the corner. By comparing the two graphics, you can see the antenna is moving before any expulsions occur below, unless they happened earlier (but I haven't seen that).
Both animated graphics repeat the loop forever. I've added colored dots in the upper left to distinguish the beginning from the end, blue for initial, red for final. The animations pause at the beginning and end frames so the viewer can get their bearings and prepare for the motion segment. Merely have them loop without pause is too jarring for the eye. I admit that I can't see much in this second graphic because it's so dark; that is, dark everywhere except where flame is present, so any expulsions should be evident.
The third posting is an image composed of 8 small images in a horizontal strip. Each of these images represent a half second of video (15 frames) which has been averaged pixel-by-pixel into a single image - this also gets rid of bobbles, visually. The subject of the image is a (mostly) horizontal dark band on the antenna which is really just the area between two bright regions. The result is 8 'frames' or snapshots covering 4 seconds of time, the 3 second interval we've been talking about plus another second on the end to see how the antenna keeps moving in this direction.
The yellow lines are added to aid the eye in seeing the small displacement over the 8 snapshots. They are intially aligned with edges on the feature in the first snapshot. With each successive snapshot, the movement of the image blob with respect to the lines can be seen until the final snapshot, where the blob has moved considerably from its original position. Without the lines, one would not be able to discern a difference with the naked eye.
David B. Benson
15th September 2007 - 09:58 PM
Now I can see it!
The red and blue dots and the yellow lines made all the difference...
metamars
16th September 2007 - 02:05 AM
Seeking Information on CIA contracts awarded to Northwestern University Civil Engineering Dept.
I have learned that the CIA used to smuggle cement trucks in from behind the iron curtain, with a view to having the cement analyzed. The place mentioned to me where these trucks* were studied was Northwestern University.
I am curious as to who benefited from any (presumed)** CIA contracts.
In particular, I am curious as to whether Dr. Bazant was one such recipient.
I don't check this thread so often, anymore, so please PM me after posting if you find something out.
* As it was told to me, I interpreted this information as implying that the trucks themselves were sent to Northwestern U. However, as I would expect it to suffice to send just some of the contents, perhaps my source was not speaking rigorously. Also, I have no idea if other universities were also involved in such an effort.
** It's quite possible that some engineers at Northwestern may have helped out the CIA pro bono.
David B. Benson
16th September 2007 - 02:14 AM
No CommentHowever, while Professor Bazant has certainly done work on concrete, crushing, etc., he is quite theoretical and AFAIK does not himself do experiments.
OneWhiteEye
16th September 2007 - 02:21 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 15 2007, 09:58 PM)
Now I can see it!
The red and blue dots and the yellow lines made all the difference...
Excellent!
Here are a few more still sequences, this time 5 seconds' total duration with 30 frames (1 sec) averaged into one snapshot. The additional second at the end shows how velocity has increased enough to cause motion blur in all three cases. The board insists on thumbnailing all but the smallest of pictures so follow the links to full size images (35x zoom).
1) The dark band on the antenna. The band is virtually obliterated by motion blur in the last image. The band itself is about 3 pixels high so about that distance is traveled during the 5th second. Snapshot #4 is deflection of approximately a pixel, #2 and #3 subpixel.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6agambr.jpg2) The main tower antenna section including six small dish antennae. Here I've added a thin green line to separate the images but no reference lines. Each of the blobs seemed like a good candidate for 2D analysis, but that remains to be seen.
http://i18.tinypic.com/61ls1o1.jpg3) The window washing apparatus. Luminosity calculations indicate slight upward motion in the two and three second range. Snapshot #3 shows a bit of smoke. It's mostly a change of apparent shape that causes the upward shift, I think, along with part of the bottom being attenuated by smoke. Into more rapid motion by #5.
http://i5.tinypic.com/5xr3tl1.jpg
wcelliott
16th September 2007 - 03:06 AM
QUOTE
I have learned that the CIA used to smuggle cement trucks in from behind the iron curtain
I'm just dying to hear more about this.
Sources?
adoucette
16th September 2007 - 04:00 AM
QUOTE (metamars+Sep 15 2007, 10:05 PM)
I have learned that the CIA used to smuggle cement trucks in from behind the iron curtain, with a view to having the cement analyzed. The place mentioned to me where these trucks* were studied was Northwestern University.
Does SLEAZE have NO LIMITS with you Metamars???
Arthur
metamars
16th September 2007 - 04:48 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 16 2007, 04:00 AM)
Does SLEAZE have NO LIMITS with you Metamars???
Arthur
I expected just such a slimy comment from you....
adoucette
16th September 2007 - 04:56 AM
Six years and Metamars arguments are reduced to this level.
PRICELESS
Arthur
wcelliott
16th September 2007 - 06:17 AM
Really, I'd love to hear more about this Top Secret covert CIA operation to smuggle cement trucks out from behind the Iron Curtain.
Did they smuggle these trucks out piece by piece, hidden in amputees hollowed-out legs?
Or did they strap them to the bellies of U-2s and fly them out?
And the net objective was...? To discover the "strategic secrets" of Russian concrete?
Tell me more about this CIA operation to steal Russian concrete technology.
This ought to be good.
frater plecticus
16th September 2007 - 08:33 AM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 16 2007, 06:17 AM)
Really, I'd love to hear more about this Top Secret covert CIA operation to smuggle cement trucks out from behind the Iron Curtain.
Did they smuggle these trucks out piece by piece, hidden in amputees hollowed-out legs?
Or did they strap them to the bellies of U-2s and fly them out?
And the net objective was...? To discover the "strategic secrets" of Russian concrete?
Tell me more about this CIA operation to steal Russian concrete technology.
This ought to be good.
No, they smuggled heroin out in the body bags of dead US servicemen.
Synopsis
The CIA and the British secret service MI6, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services set up a network of clandestine anticommunist armies in Western Europe after World War II. The secret soldiers were trained on remote islands in the Mediterranean and in unorthodox warfare centers in England and in the United States by the Green Berets and SAS Special Forces. The network was armed with explosives, machine guns and high-tech communication equipment hidden in underground bunkers and secret arms caches in forests and mountain meadows. In some countries the secret army linked up with right-wing terrorist who in a secret war engaged in political manipulation, harrassement of left wing parties, massacres, coup 'Etats and torture. Codenamed "Gladio" ('the sword'), the Italian secret army was exposed in 1990 by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to the Italian Senate, whereupon the press spoke of "The best kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II" (Observer, 18. November 1990) and observed that "The story seems straight from the pages of a political thriller." (The Times, November 19, 1990).
http://www.plectic.com/library/gladio.pdf2.9MB pdf
Synopsis
"I studied American history, so I knew that the US government had fabricated 'incidents' as an excuse to go to war several times before. Nevertheless, although the thought did cross my mind that 9/11 might likewise have been arranged, I did not take this possibility seriously." So writes David Ray Griffin, an eminent philosopher and theologian, in his introduction to The New Pearl Harbor. From this sceptical vantage point Griffin brings together an account of a terrible tragedy that is far more logical than the one we've been asked to believe. Gathering stories from the American press, from the work of other researchers and the contradictory words of members of the Bush administration themselves, Griffin presents a case that leaves very little doubt that the attacks of 9/11 need to be further investigated.
http://www.plectic.com/library/new_pearl_harbour.pdf684k pdf
Synopsis
The attacks of September 11, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. 'Crossing the Rubicon' discovers and identifies key suspects -- finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government -- by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result. Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture -- an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism -- without which 9/11 cannot be understood. The US manufacturing sector has been mostly replaced by speculation on financial data whose underlying economic reality is a dark secret. Hundreds of billions of dollars in laundered drug money flow through Wall Street each year from opium and coca fields maintained by CIA-sponsored warlords and US-backed covert paramilitary violence. America's global dominance depends on a continually turning mill of guns, drugs, oil and money.
http://www.plectic.com/library/rubicon.pdf4.MB pdf
Synopsis
The thesis of this book has been enthusiastically received with its working model of the 9/11 plot: a covert network of moles, patsies, and a commando cell in the privatised intelligence services, backed by corrupt political and corporate media elites. Buttressed by historical examples like the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Gunpowder Plot, this model makes it clear how such a monstrous false-flag or self-terror exploit is possible even under a largely benign government. That paradox is the incredibility gap that has made most Americans reject the evidence about 9/11 as paranoid fantasy. Tarpley brings decades of expertise to the 9/11 issue. In 1978, he exposed the terrorist Red Brigades as patsies of Italy's fascist P2 shadow government, and 9/11 is on the same pattern. The forthright subtitle, "Made in USA", is backed up by an analysis of key figures who behave like moles working for the insidious network. "9/11 Synthetic Terror" highlights the salient points of sheer physical impossibility of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
http://www.plectic.com/library/Synthetic_Terror.pdf2.3MB pdf
Synopsis
A disturbing expose of the American government's hidden agenda, before and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A wide range of documents show US officials knew in advance of the 'Boeing bombing' plot, yet did nothing. Did the attacks fit in with plans for a more aggressive US foreign policy?
http://www.plectic.com/library/war_on_freedom.pdf1.1MB pdf
Grumpy
16th September 2007 - 08:53 AM
With apologies to Dr. Benson, but this needs to be said in black and white...
QUOTE
"Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naive," says Maher.
How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'Well, if you believe that was the cause...'
Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."
From HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, broadcast on September 14, 2007
Bill nailed it, as usual.
Grumpy
wcelliott
16th September 2007 - 04:55 PM
QUOTE
The CIA and the British secret service MI6, in collaboration with the military alliance NATO and European military secret services set up a network of clandestine anticommunist armies in Western Europe after World War II. The secret soldiers were trained on remote islands in the Mediterranean and in unorthodox warfare centers in England and in the United States by the Green Berets and...
Wow!!! I didn't know that!
Gee, you sound so much better-informed about history than I ever was, all those details that wouldn't be available to the public.
Like, the US had Green Berets right after WWII.
See, it was MY understanding that the Green Berets were formed in 1952.
Are all your facts so reliable?
rethinker
16th September 2007 - 05:12 PM
Just saw this, and thought it might be of interest.
This free standing structure looks like a monster around all other buildings.
Worlds tallest building
shagster
16th September 2007 - 05:25 PM
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 6 2007, 06:55 AM)
Yesterday I looked at a few wtc2 videos, but I was really too optimistic, visually that is near impossible.. The audio could indeed be useful, I have to say that a lot of the videos I downloaded have (over)dubbed audio, one needs original material of course.
btw as far as I understand the NIST only estimated the time when the first chunks reached the ground, Probably that has also to do with the chaos of the situation.
Which videos did you look at? I'm referring to the Fox 5 video from the SW side of WTC2 and the ground level. Also, the ABC ground level video from the east side of WTC2. Both give information on the front position vs. time after the first 4 seconds for WTC2. The Naudet brothers audio is not over-dubbed. It gives the length of the rumble for WTC2 and seems to agree with the length of rumble heard on the Fox 5 video. The audio on Heath's video is not over-dubbed.
zoktoberfest
17th September 2007 - 07:05 AM
"Incidentally, ever notice how some CDiots think it's one kind of explosives that make loud BANGS and other CDiots think it's Thermate and other CDiots think the explosives were in the basement and other CDiots think they're sprinkled throughout the towers and some say they're precision-timed and others say they went off at random... AND YET NONE OF THEM ARE DEBATING EACH OTHER!!!
That's because NONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. All they want is people thinking Bush did it, and they don't care how or even whether it's true or not. If they cared about the TRUTH, they'd be CRITICIZING EACH OTHERS' POSITIONS.
Has any Troother ever criticized another Troother's position in this thread? No.
That says it all."
All that it says
Your positions are all off the shelf and politically sanctioned, You've placed an action figure doll, broken in mind and spirit on a pedestal, before which you prostrate yourself in blind devotion. You come here less to participate in an extended and open investigation of the mechanisms and machinations that underpin the events on 9/11; and more to protect the object of your dedicated servitude from perceived blasphemy. It dumbfounds you, that some of us, (very few left here) behold a deep space reality far beyond your parochial perspectives. You and your senior associates, automatically defer to the various commissioned determinations, and thus allow exploratory reasoning to be remotely defined, and directed. Why exercise the greatest functions of the human mind: the power to envision, extrapolate, and acknowledge serendipity, when you can retire to a cramped cubicle in your mind and passively reference pre-determined reality. When astrophysicists explore the heavens, they are looking for celestial phenomena that exhibit behavior outside the nominal. The events surrounding 9/11 are ripe with anomalies, contradictions, and coincidences.
Truther's are inordinately handicapped when they post their speculations. The forum administration has installed antithetical policy designed to discourage, among other things, such speculation. The Bush Administration has defined a narrow friend or foe policy. Suggesting LIHOP, or god forbid MIHOP as being indicative of perceived circumstances could put the asserter directly in those cross hairs. We know that NSA's comparators continuously scan communications, including internet searches for target words and phrases related to destructive processes. So, every time I put forth a speculation about assisted collapse, I do so with apprehension and sometimes regret. My interests in these topics begin and end, with log in and log out, to and from this forum. How are "they" to know that? Since most "truthers" are not demolition experts by trade, their speculative methodologies evolve in concert with newly posted information, from outside research, or synthesized from both. That is why the theories modulate and appear to be out of phase, because new data is assimilated at different rates, and is applied in different ways. Fear and reservation reduces the efficacy of any argument. In case you haven't noticed, the number of truthers that pass through this thread is very low, (think neutrino) and below a quorum required to support an active interchange. Do you expect a truther to argue with himself, about the variants with in his own theories? It will only become more evenly matched if there is a change of administration. Since I've already acknowledged the first "Reichstag" on US soil; that desperately anticipated changing of the guard may be interrupted indefinitely by the second.
On the other-hand, your quorum meets in the fortress of the officialdom, fortified by stacks of thick volumes of reports commissioned and approved by the king himself. In eternal solidarity, you'll all agree, to agree on the agreement of what happened on 9/11. How nice.
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-Uncle AL-
BTW, either I need stronger glasses, or the video analysis attempting to indicate upward movement prior to the (downward) collapse needs more digital enhancement. Do you have to drink the "Cool-aid" to see it?
wcelliott
17th September 2007 - 07:39 AM
[/QUOTE]behold a deep space reality far beyond your parochial perspectives. You and your senior associates, automatically defer to the various commissioned determinations, and thus ...
blah, blah, blah[QUOTE]
No, actually, I took physics in high school and engineering school, and I use it daily as a Senior Engineer, and have done so for the past 27 years, so I have a pretty good feel for how things work in this universe.
I don't derive my physics from my politics, that's what you're doing.
There's nothing in the WTC collapse that supports any of your paranoid delusions.
Also, BTW, your naive rantings notwithstanding, I'm not a brainwashed supporter of The System nor am I an avid Bush fan. I just don't think any of your supposed "facts" are actually correct, much less complete. Like the BS posted above about the CIA having the Green Berets set up secret armies immediately following WWII. Neither were in existence immediately following WWII. Factually wrong. But so is everything else you've said, so I guess you won't be losing any sleep over your nonexistent credibility.
Trippy
17th September 2007 - 08:29 AM
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 17 2007, 07:05 PM)
Has any Troother ever criticized another Troother's position in this thread? No.
This is blatantly untrue.
frater plecticus
17th September 2007 - 12:54 PM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2007, 07:39 AM)
[/QUOTE]behold a deep space reality far beyond your parochial perspectives. You and your senior associates, automatically defer to the various commissioned determinations, and thus ...
blah, blah, blah[QUOTE]
No, actually, I took physics in high school and engineering school, and I use it daily as a Senior Engineer, and have done so for the past 27 years, so I have a pretty good feel for how things work in this universe.
I don't derive my physics from my politics, that's what you're doing.
There's nothing in the WTC collapse that supports any of your paranoid delusions.
Also, BTW, your naive rantings notwithstanding, I'm not a brainwashed supporter of The System nor am I an avid Bush fan. I just don't think any of your supposed "facts" are actually correct, much less complete. Like the BS posted above about the CIA having the Green Berets set up secret armies immediately following WWII. Neither were in existence immediately following WWII. Factually wrong. But so is everything else you've said, so I guess you won't be losing any sleep over your nonexistent credibility.
So where does it say
immediately following WWII, then?
As I have eloquently said before, the burden of proof is on you.. to prove bin laden was responsible for 9-11. I have seen no proof of CD (no evidence to prove/disprove).. so prove it and stop winging like a pubescent girl and show me the proof.
Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
lozenge124
17th September 2007 - 12:58 PM
Looks like Prof. Astaneh is releasing the results of his 5-year WTC study.
http://www.astaneh.net/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6864079QUOTE
Prof: Cost-cutting felled Twin Towers
BERKELEY - The civil-engineering industry's failure to admit that cost-saving design features led to the World Trade Center collapse amounts to "moral corruption," a UC Berkeley engineering professor said Tuesday.
Speaking on campus to memorialize the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Abolhassan Astaneh said his five-year study of the collapse of the twin towers revealed that a better design likely would have prevented many of the nearly 3,000 deaths that day.
Astaneh sharply criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers, which he said cared more about defending the industry than revealing the truth about the towers' design.
"It's just moral corruption," Astaneh said in response to a question from the audience. "I don't beat around the bushes."
Astaneh, who first researched the disaster in the days following Sept. 11, said he had access to well guarded architectural drawings of the 110-story towers for his study. The schematics showed that the buildings were supported almost completely by thin steel beams around the outside.
Thicker beams on the exterior and more concrete surrounding the stairwells would have added at least $30 million to the cost of the buildings, he said, but could have saved hundreds or thousands of lives after airliners hit both towers. Instead, the resulting 1,000-degree fire easily destroyed the structure, he said.
Most tall skyscrapers, including Chicago's Sears Tower, are sturdier and likely would survive such attacks, Astaneh said.
Because of the industry's defensiveness, "the public is left with the notion that these buildings were like any other buildings, he said.
"These buildings had no other option but to pulverize."
An Engineering Association member who studied the World Trade Center collapse said that he believes most skyscrapers would collapse quickly after being hit by jetliners. The Trade Center performed better than could be expected, said Jim Harris, a Denver engineer.
The industry has been cautious but not misleading, Harris said. "I think we're just trying to stick to the facts."
Another association member said there might be several reasons why the buildings collapsed.
"There's a lot of uncertainty in this business," said Benicia engineer and president of the group's Bay Area chapter Andrew Kinane. "We shouldn't be too quick to jump to conclusions."
Astaneh's presentation included computerized animations of planes hitting the towers. Using $270,000 software, each sequence showed a plane hitting first a realistic version of a tower and then the plane hitting a reinforced building.
With thicker beams, the animation showed the planes disintegrating almost immediately after hitting the tower. In contrast, the airliners punched through the unreinforced exterior with little resistance.
"Like a knife cutting through soft butter," Astaneh said. "Airplanes are not very strong, but this building was even weaker than an airplane."
New York building codes would have prevented the towers' flimsy design, he said, but federal laws allowed engineers to ignore those codes. The same exception has been granted to developers of New York's Freedom Tower, which will replace the World Trade Center.
Astaneh's study was completed on behalf of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, a group run by relatives of World Trade Center victims. The group hopes the results help its campaign to reform skyscraper-construction laws, said the campaign's president, Sally Regenhard, in a phone interview from New York.
"We need to change the system," said Regenhard, whose son, a New York firefighter, died in the collapse. "We could not save our loved ones, but perhaps we can save other people's loved ones."
This theory is in contrast to former NIST Chief of Fire Science Division Dr. Quintere, who proposed that the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the WTC truss rods was the cause of the collapses (http://www.911blogger.com/node/10779). But it would seem that both theories go back to the fact that the WTC towers were exempt from NY building codes because they were built by the Port Authority.
Anyway, good to finally see some debate in this area. I understand also that a powerpoint presentation and further reports and papers will be made available at
http://www.astaneh.net as soon as they are ready.
wcelliott
17th September 2007 - 02:24 PM
QUOTE
Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.
The "bold claim" in this instance isn't that the towers fell due to the aircraft impacts, that's obvious to anyone who's competent at physics, but that the government was behind the conspiracy. That, I believe, is YOUR theory, and that's pure anadulterated paranoid delusion.
So the burden of evidence is for you to come up with PROOF, not inuendo, not fake facts, **PROOF** to support your position.
I'd like to see PROOF that the CIA smuggled heroin in bodybags during Viet Nam, for instance. I've heard that RUMOR a long time, but I've never seen any PROOF.
As for the "Cost Cutting...", the towers stood without major problems for over 30 years, and it took two aircraft going 500mph carrying full loads of jet fuel to bring them down. Funny coincidence how the conclusions of that report would allow the survivors to sue somebody here in the US. The same "finding" can be said of anything ever built, "If they'd spent more, they could've made them better".
Stop the presses.
einsteen
17th September 2007 - 04:29 PM
I'm not foruming as long as some of you but to me it looks like these discussions are from the last times. I think the peak has not been reached.
frater plecticus
17th September 2007 - 05:04 PM
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 17 2007, 02:24 PM)
The "bold claim" in this instance isn't that the towers fell due to the aircraft impacts, that's obvious to anyone who's competent at physics, but that the government was behind the conspiracy. That, I believe, is YOUR theory, and that's pure anadulterated paranoid delusion.
So the burden of evidence is for you to come up with PROOF, not inuendo, not fake facts, **PROOF** to support your position.
I'd like to see PROOF that the CIA smuggled heroin in bodybags during Viet Nam, for instance. I've heard that RUMOR a long time, but I've never seen any PROOF.
As for the "Cost Cutting...", the towers stood without major problems for over 30 years, and it took two aircraft going 500mph carrying full loads of jet fuel to bring them down. Funny coincidence how the conclusions of that report would allow the survivors to sue somebody here in the US. The same "finding" can be said of anything ever built, "If they'd spent more, they could've made them better".
Stop the presses.
WantToKnow.info received the below email on April 20, 2004. It is written by a career military man who personally witnessed a very large-scale drug smuggling case with likely involvement by elements of the US government and military. At the end of this email, you can see how we are working to powerfully get this news out in the open.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/militarysmuggledheroinThe burden on proof is on YOU to prove that Bin Laden did 9-11. I have no theory about 9-11 because I don't have enough evidence. BTW Britain is pulling out of Iraq soon.
Daru
17th September 2007 - 05:13 PM
Astaneh:
"Thicker beams on the exterior and more concrete surrounding the stairwells..."
Hm. hmm.. concrete surrounding stairwells.
Astaneh:
"With thicker beams, the animation showed the planes disintegrating almost immediately after hitting the tower. In contrast, the airliners punched through the unreinforced exterior with little resistance.
"Like a knife cutting through soft butter," Astaneh said. "Airplanes are not very strong, but this building was even weaker than an airplane."
Hm...Hmmm... Hallo !! This is very suspicious thing to say. Something is clearly going on now.
carterelliott
17th September 2007 - 05:59 PM
QUOTE
The burden on proof is on YOU to prove that Bin Laden did 9-11.
This discussion is about the physics of 9/11, not the politics. The physics doesn't support any conspiracy theory other than the obvious one where planes did damage that caused the collapse.
Your political views are preventing you from seeing the obvious.
newton
17th September 2007 - 08:26 PM
QUOTE (carterelliott+Sep 17 2007, 05:59 PM)
The physics doesn't support any conspiracy theory other than the obvious one where planes did damage that caused the collapse.
just dropped in to say, 'WRONG!".
ciao 4 now.
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 08:43 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 17 2007, 10:13 AM)
Hm...Hmmm... Hallo !! This is very suspicious thing to say. Something is clearly going on now.
Suspicious?
What's going on is that Astaneh wants the design rules for large buildings changed. But they already have been, in large measure.
Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 08:51 PM
QUOTE (newton+Sep 17 2007, 01:26 PM)
just dropped in to say, 'WRONG!".
Hambone
17th September 2007 - 09:24 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 12:38 AM)
DBB/Hambone:
NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, page 43, gives 1.67 x 10^6 kg per floor = 183,700,000 kg for each tower.
And also see a value of 370 x 10^6 kg reported in a paper in J. Struct Eng.,
published in Jan 2005 by Y. Omika et al.
The value, 1.67 x 10^6 kg, given in NCSTAR1-5D is based on floor loads (live and dead loads) for a typical floor. This is most likely based on floor 96 since that floor was used everywhere else.
I don't think the above value includes the column and spandrel steel. I have not seen column and spandrel steel included in floor loads anywhere in the NIST documents. In fact, if you take floor 96 in my calculation and subtract the column and spandrel steel, you get 1.697 x 10^6kg.
It is important to note that floor 96 was not really typical as it had roughly 78% actual floor in the core. Some lower floors had as little as 36% actual floor in the core the remaining space being taken up mostly by elevator shafts. The variation of shaft space was roughly linear. Also, due to heavier column and spandrel steel lower in the building the heaviest normal floor is 2.30 x 10^6 kg.
Then there are the mechanical floors and sublevels which were, on average, more than twice as heavy as NIST's typical floor.
Okima only cites Tsuruta (1970). I can't find that article available anywhere. Nonetheless, I would find it hard to believe that Tsuruta would have access to better design data than NIST had.
Daru
17th September 2007 - 09:26 PM
Yes, it is very suspicious imo. He "...said he had access to well guarded architectural drawings of the 110-story towers for his study. The schematics showed that the buildings were supported almost completely by thin steel beams around the outside."
What do he mean. Do he have "drawings" no one else have etc. But the key point is that it is obviously getting more attention how the plane enter the building in the impact videos "Like a knife cutting through soft butter," (physically impossible, a missing crash etc)
But ok. It is forbidden to talk about it.
But what about this then:
"more concrete surrounding the stairwells"
Eh...what concrete ? Was concrete surrounding stairwells ? Was maybe huge concrete in the core. What is going on.
And this is interesting part: "These buildings had no other option but to pulverize." What !!
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 09:38 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 17 2007, 02:26 PM)
It is forbidden to talk about it.
Was concrete surrounding stairwells ?
Certainly it is possible to talk about it. And in any case the architectural drawings are now available on the web.
There was no concrete surrounding stairwells in the towers.
Daru
17th September 2007 - 09:51 PM
Why do he say then "...and more concrete surrounding the stairwells"
Then it must have been some concrete, if not, he would say "and concrete surrounding the stairwells"
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 09:51 PM
QUOTE (Hambone+Sep 17 2007, 02:24 PM)
...
I don't think the above value includes the column and spandrel steel.
I have not seen column and spandrel steel included in floor loads anywhere in the NIST documents.
In fact, if you take floor 96 in my calculation and subtract the column and spandrel steel, you get 1.697 x 10^6kg.
I believe it does.
The loads in various tables in NCSTAR1--6 and NCSTAR1--6D give the entire loads on walls and core. Their FAE runs would be meaningless without estimates of the complete loads.
Then your estimates are significantly heavier than NIST's SAP2000 model, which I find rather surprising. It is surprising since shagster used NIST's database and SAP2000 FAE engine to determine a total mass about the same as yours.
Finally, from Table 4--7 of NCSTAR1--6D for floors 93--98 by taking first differences of the loading data, the average is 1534.6 tonnes and floor 96 is not significantly different from the others.
adoucette
17th September 2007 - 09:55 PM
QUOTE (lozenge124+Sep 17 2007, 08:58 AM)
Looks like Prof. Astaneh is releasing the results of his 5-year WTC study.
http://www.astaneh.net/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6864079This theory is in contrast to former NIST Chief of Fire Science Division Dr. Quintere, who proposed that the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the WTC truss rods was the cause of the collapses (http://www.911blogger.com/node/10779). But it would seem that both theories go back to the fact that the WTC towers were exempt from NY building codes because they were built by the Port Authority.
Anyway, good to finally see some debate in this area. I understand also that a powerpoint presentation and further reports and papers will be made available at
http://www.astaneh.net as soon as they are ready.
Both Quintere and Astaneh are working for the Skyscraper Safety Committee, as such they have focused on design changes that, had they been done, might have changed the outcome and/or allowed more people to escape.
But that is 20/20 hindsight.
The buildings weren't required by ANY building codes in existance to withstand the damage they did.
I also challenge ANYONE to produce a NYC building code that the WTC towers didn't pass as regards the strength of the EXTERNAL STEEL frame.
Similarly, while they were allowed to use the proposed NYC building codes as far as the number of stairwells needed, and clearly the building code requirement to separate the stairwells as far as REASONABLE, leaves a LOT to be desired, there was NO building code requirement that the stairways be made of concrete.
Stairways had to have a certain level of fire resistance and the ones used PASSED that test. The building code did not require that the Stairways have BLAST resistance however.
Finally, what is CLEAR from BOTH Astenah's work and Quinteres, is that NEITHER of them found any evidence of CD or in any way suggest that anything other than the impact damage and fires resulted in their demise.
Arthur
Hambone
17th September 2007 - 10:00 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 10 2007, 07:33 PM)
Your paper is quite good. Some suggestions.
I am fairly sure that normal weight concrete was used in all core areas, with a fixed thickness, except possibly on the mechanical floors. It may make little difference, but the normal weight concrete was most likely 4.5" thick, due to the traffic live loads.
15 psf for floor loadings is quite minimal. (2.3.6.1)
2.3.7.1 seems, in part, to repeat what was said before. I suggest reorganizing so it is not necessary to repeat. (Also 2.3.7.2 and 2.37.3)
From floor 1 down, the extra steel was there as protection against earthquakes, although little was understood that long ago about how to design to withstand these shocks.
LLA and LLW are to different ways of estimating the in-service live loads. It is a mistake to add them. LLW appears to be the original design estimates, while LLA uses the later ASCE7-02 standard. See NCSTAR1-2A, page 72 (106 ordinal). Using the latter as more realistic, you and
shagster agree quite well. I'm impressed.
Poster
einsteen makes the important point that only the mass specific energy matters during crush-down. So knowing the actual mass at each elevation then enables one to determine the energy consumed at that level, due to crushing the materials. This is separate from the energy for comminution and pushing the air out of the way.
(I didn't understand your calculation of the BLGB preprint mass, but I'll have to get back to it later...)
Thanks for your comments.
As I point out in the core CDL section, NIST does give 4.5" normal concrete for the core but doesn't explain where they get the number. It could be from the more detailed drawing books to which we don't have access. The original design documents give 4.35" so I'll stick with that number. It's not really significant anyway (+0.4%).
I assume the 15 psf you are referring to is the beam weights. NIST gives 6 and 7 psf in the core for normal and mechanical floors respectively. I think this makes sense considering the spans are much shorter in the core.
It would be better not to repeat, but I think it would be harder to follow for readers without your detailed knowledge of the structure.
Do you have a reference regarding earthquake protection? I would like to include that.
Are LLA and LLW common abbreviations in structural design? I can't get those to make any sense unless they are added. LLW by itself (27 psf) is too low to be the original design case (even with live load reduction) and too high to be 25%. The same goes for LLA (22 psf) with respect to code. Any ideas?
Thanks again for your comments!
Hambone
17th September 2007 - 10:15 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 11 2007, 12:38 AM)
DBB/Hambone:
NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, page 43, gives 1.67 x 10^6 kg per floor = 183,700,000 kg for each tower.
And also see a value of 370 x 10^6 kg reported in a paper in J. Struct Eng.,
published in Jan 2005 by Y. Omika et al.
In NCSTAR1-5D pg 43 and the following pages NIST assumes that 66% of the KE of the airplane was transferred to the KE of the building. This doesn't seem to fit in with damage estimates elsewhere!
Hambone
17th September 2007 - 10:22 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 17 2007, 09:51 PM)
I believe it does.
The loads in various tables in NCSTAR1--6 and NCSTAR1--6D give the entire loads on walls and core. Their FAE runs would be meaningless without estimates of the complete loads.
Then your estimates are significantly heavier than NIST's SAP2000 model, which I find rather surprising. It is surprising since
shagster used NIST's database and SAP2000 FAE engine to determine a total mass about the same as yours.
Finally, from Table 4--7 of NCSTAR1--6D for floors 93--98 by taking first differences of the loading data, the average is 1534.6 tonnes and floor 96 is not significantly different from the others.
I was commenting the value in NCSTAR1-5D p 43, which would make the floors lighter than mine.
I'm not questioning the values in NCSTAR1-6(D)...yet.
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 10:39 PM
QUOTE (Hambone+Sep 17 2007, 03:00 PM)
Do you have a reference regarding earthquake protection?
Are LLA and LLW common abbreviations in structural design? I can't get those to make any sense unless they are added. LLW by itself (27 psf) is too low to be the original design case (even with live load reduction) and too high to be 25%. The same goes for LLA (22 psf) with respect to code. Any ideas?
Thanks again for your comments!
There is a bit in the Engineering Record pages pasted on some website or other. As I recall, the entire bathtub was filled with a standard, but heavy, column-n-beam structure, this to withstand earthquakes. By checking, say, the LDEO site you can discover than NYC has only a risk of magnitude 4.0--4.8 earthquakes, it is now thought. But at the time of the original design, this may well not have been known.
No, LLA and LLW appear only in NCSTAR1-2A. The LERA associates who prepared that part of the report make clear that they used both codes, stating that the original design load case was larger than the more modern way of doing things. And 22 psf for office space seems about right to me. Anyway, by reading enough of NCSTAR1--2A you will surely agree that adding the two makes no sense.
You are certainly welcome. Thank you for putting so much effort into this!
David B. Benson
17th September 2007 - 10:51 PM
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 17 2007, 02:51 PM)
Why do he say then "...and more concrete surrounding the stairwells"
Then it must have been some concrete, if not, he would say "and concrete surrounding the stairwells"
Because, I believe, he is (or at least was) misinformed about this aspect of the construction.
NEU-FONZE
17th September 2007 - 11:39 PM
I e-mailed this to Prof. Astaneh this afternoon:
Dear Professor Astaneh,
I was very pleased to read about your new findings on the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 as recently reported on the internet.
I am not a civil engineer - I am a retired scientist - but I have researched the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, in some detail and I have come to the conclusion that the Twin Towers were doomed from the moment that they were struck by the aircraft.
I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny. Professor Astaneh, if you are now saying that the Twin Towers could not have survived such impacts, why would any qualified engineer ever claim that they could?
I also believe that the NIST and FEMA Reports were mainly intended to protect the American construction industry and the designers of the WTC from any criticism and culpability for the catastrophic failures of WTC 1 & 2. Therefore I am not surprised that a proper scientific investigation, such as the one you have been undertaking for the past 5 years, would contradict the NIST and FEMA Reports and reveal the true cause(s) of the tragedy that unfolded in New York City on 9/11.
It is most regrettable that no legal actions or lawsuits associated with 9/11 have been able to make any headway in the face of the government’s position that 19 Arab jihadists were solely responsible for all the death and destruction of 9/11. That an extreme act of terror occurred in New York City on 9/11 is not in doubt. But the fact that the target buildings should have totally succumbed as they did with the loss of almost 3000 lives, needs to be investigated. If the towers were not “up to code”, and a well-designed structure could have survived the aircraft strikes, the American public has a right to know and steps should be taken to ensure that skyscrapers are better designed in the future.
In conclusion, Professor Astaneh, let me add that regardless of how the great 9/11 debate plays-out in the months ahead, I salute your tenacity and courage in speaking out at this time on this very important issue and I hope that your work leads to a reappraisal of the 9/11 tragedy.
Sincerely.....
adoucette
18th September 2007 - 02:44 AM
Total horse pucky.
Like Neu's AP hypothesis.
There was NO REQUIREMENT that the building withstand a fully loaded 767 at over 500 mph.
Because the TRUTH of that day is that the buildings DID withstand the impact of those fully loaded jets at over 500 mph.
The buildings stood long enough for MOST of the occupants to escape.
The unfortunate fact that one of the planes crashed on one of the FEW floors where the stairways were all fairly close was the single fact that doomed the majority of the people who died that day.
It WAS a design flaw: One that NIST pointed out, but it was within CODE: One which NIST seeks to change.
Oh, and Neu, the collapse of the buildings WAS investigated.
And YES, it was the Al Queda funded Arab jihadists who were solely responsible for all the death and destruction of 9/11.
There is NO CULPABILITY among the builders/desigers/architects.
To imply that they share the responsibility is deplorable.
Now since you claim that you have studied this:
PLEASE TELL US WHERE THE BUILDINGS WEREN'T UP TO CODE.
Arthur
wcelliott
18th September 2007 - 04:41 AM
QUOTE
And YES, it was the Al Queda funded Arab jihadists who were solely responsible for all the death and destruction of 9/11.
There is NO CULPABILITY among the builders/desigers/architects.
To imply that they share the responsibility is deplorable.
BRAVO!!!
einsteen
18th September 2007 - 05:24 AM
OneWhiteEye,
Do you mind to summarize your video findings one time... as far as I can understand you talk about a window washing part that moves up a little bit, I assume that is the part connected at that hat truss. The animated .gif file is a part of the antenna and that seems also to move up a little bit before the move down starts, can I conclude that the whole upper part goes up a little bit if I understand that right ? But what is the object falling away at the left of that .gif, is that smoke ?
einsteen
18th September 2007 - 06:18 AM
Horsepuke ? but Arthur don't you realize that if Astaneh's theory is right it sweeps all the conspiracy theories, Cdiots, involvement of other parties etc. away. If I remember it well then NEU-FONZE already had such an idea already before this news item appeared. Of course it is still input -> output, but then it is not needed that fireproofing is stripped, sufficient fuel is dumped etc. It is still no-plane no crash.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
