To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108

frater plecticus
28th September 2007 - 01:38 PM
Arthurian Legend
QUOTE
There were NO people KILLED in WTC 7 but now you are saying that they were blown up inside prior to people being evacuated.


I thought we had already discussed this Arthur?



The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center, which, along with Towers 1 and 2, collapsed following the terrorist attacks. One employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts. Miller was temporarily assigned to New York in preparation for the United Nations General Assembly. Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers.

http://www.secretservice.gov/press/pub1202.pdf

The resolution honoring the Secret Service notes the “extraordinary performance and commitment to service during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001" of the men and women of that agency. It notes that “the United States Secret Service New York field office located in 7 World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, as a result of terrorist attacks”; agents “throughout the day of the attacks and subsequent days...continually and knowingly placed themselves in exceptional danger in their efforts to save life”; and “in selfless dedication to others, Master Special Officer Craig Miller was lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center.”

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ok05_...oms_honors.html

The Secret Service maintained a large field office inside the World Trade Centre, and initially many agents were thought to have been killed.



Image: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller-photo-01.jpg

Arlington Cemetary Website: Craig Miller
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller.htm
adoucette
28th September 2007 - 01:53 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 28 2007, 04:16 AM)
Here is an example from your favorite kind of authority:

[quote]James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. [quote]

What's that?
You say you don't like argument from authority?

Quintere asks for an independent REVIEW of the NIST report because in his writings Quintere makes it clear that his issue is with the fire temps that NIST models. Quintere believes the fires were HOTTER than NIST's analysis showed (mainly because he assumes a much larger fire load).

Quintere also believes they should build a FULL SCALE replica of a WTC floor and set it on fire instead of using the extrapolated results from the NIST workstation models.

But THAT is not likely to happen.

Of course his views dovetail with the Skyscraper Safety Committee that he advises, that the buildings were unsafe because of the use of trusses with SFRM.

Arthur
adoucette
28th September 2007 - 02:03 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Sep 28 2007, 09:38 AM)
I thought we had already discussed this Arthur?



All reports I have seen is that Miller was killed while attempting to rescue the victims trapped in the World Trade Center.

He WASN'T killed in WTC 7.

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15843

The best description I could find of his death was:

QUOTE
Officer Miller was on a temporary assignment in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and was nearby at the Marriott Hotel when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Although the hotel was evacuated, it appears that Officer Miller stayed behind to help.

Because of his military background and extensive emergency medical training, those who knew Officer Miller believe his life was taken while trying to assist the wounded. In fact, some of the medical equipment was later found in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel that that particular officer had in his possession.


Arthur
adoucette
28th September 2007 - 02:32 PM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 28 2007, 01:17 AM)
Read and listen closely.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

They experienced the explosions when the building was practically deserted, so how can you write of "Thousands of tennents[sic]" who should have backed up their statements...when these people were not even in the building?

Maybe these new testimonies are true, for why would they lie?


Because after the first buildings were hit, there were thousands of people (and first responders and news crews) IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

There would be PLENTY of corroborating reports of EXPLOSIONS in WTC 7 prior to either tower collapsing.

Particularly ones that "DESTROYED THE LOBBY" so as to make it unrecognizable.

But there are not.

Nor do I necessarily think they are lying.

But in situations like this, people DO get confused.

Which is why you look for CORROBORATING evidence.

In this case there should be PLENTY.

Arthur
wcelliott
28th September 2007 - 03:36 PM
Guys - Here's a thought.

We should be able to estimate the volume of the smoke/dust cloud being emitted from the WTC towers from the video footage.

My assertion is that the volume of the smoke/dust cloud should be approximately equal to the air that was displaced as the tower(s) fell.

We shouldn't expect there to be much clear air coming from the towers, as the collapse mechanisms would be generating lots of gypsum dust from the drywall and concrete dust from the floors warping as they collapsed, so I think it'd be safe to assume that the air would be visible, and the volume should be something that'd succumb to reasonable analysis.

The nifty thing about this data is that it would end forever any notion that the CDiots have about that smoke/dust cloud being generated by explosives. If they want to assert that it resulted from explosives, they'll have to show how the plumes have greater volume than the air inside the structure prior to collapse.

Anybody feel up to doing the video analysis?

I'd do it, but I'm too lazy.

Oh, and Al Zawarhi, when those expensive speakers you use reproduce the sound of an explosion, how do they do that? Do you have to load them up with C-4 before-hand, or do they just move a diaphragm suddenly in one direction, kinda like what would happen if, say, a floor got struck by something heavy falling from above?

My apologies if I sound sarcastic, sometimes it's hard not to sound sarcastic when I'm explaining a simple concept to someone who should already know better.
atmosphere
28th September 2007 - 04:45 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 27 2007, 11:53 PM)
I recommend going to

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories

to obtain the correct story about WTC 7, which is that damage plus fire eventually caused the building to collapse.

I'm familiar with that information .

Jowenko is probably the only independent experienced demolition expert that commented on WTC 7 . I believe opinions of independent demolition experts are the most relevant when we want to find out if the WTC 7 collapse was a controlled demolition, agree?

"when FEMA reports says something you can not start claiming something else as a Demolition company in the US, because then your out of business pretty soon. "

Jowenko says. He also works with American Demolition company's ,so he can know what he is talking about .

For those who didn't see to complete video of Jowenkos comments :
He explains how the job could be done the same day, and more. He's still convinced today WTC 7 was a CD ,after analyzing all the available facts .

Just type Jowenko in you tube's search engine and you will find the videos. I'm interested in your comments on that video's
adoucette
28th September 2007 - 05:23 PM
But Jowenko is ONLY offering an OPINION based on distant videos of the collapse.

Its NOT based on ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE of CD.

In essence he is asserting that it LOOKS like a CD.

BIG DEAL.

Has he offered ANY EXPLANATION as to how the WIRING and EXPLOSIVES survived for HOURS ON END inside that building?

How they were secretly installed in a public building?

What about the relativley SILENT way it went when it ultimately collapsed?

Nope.

Then his claim:

QUOTE
when FEMA reports says something you can not start claiming something else as a Demolition company in the US, because then your out of business pretty soon. "


Is total horse pucky.

Getting a permit for a demolition is a STATE/LOCAL affair which FEMA, the FEDERAL Emergancy Managment Authority has NOTHING TO DO WITH.

Which makes me wonder, do you actually understand the BS you post?

Arthur
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 05:38 PM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 27 2007, 10:17 PM)
... dead people in WTC7's lobby ...

Brought there by first responders as a morgue collection point before the collapse of WTC 1.

You ought to read the interviews on Firehouse.com... dry.gif
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 05:56 PM
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 28 2007, 09:45 AM)
... I'm interested in your comments on that video's[sic]

Once again, I have no way to view videos (nor the inclination of doing so).

If demolition experts are of interest to you, you ought to read the Blanchard Report, available from the Demolition World site...
GeneSplicer
28th September 2007 - 06:09 PM
It appears that the Loose Change truthers have given up on some of their claims. My apologies if this has been mentioned before.

No longer will they be talking about or claiming that the cell phone calls were faked and that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Gee, no more “squib” claims.

So after being thoroughly proven wrong on their claims, they plan on retreating to the topic of Building Seven, until, hopefully, they admit to be proven wrong on that as well.

Here is a link to a video about their back peddle and a few comments about it from the HotAir Blog.

HotAir Link

YouTube Video


QUOTE
By way of Daimnation, here’s now ex-Truther Mike Metzger explaining why he has left the 9-11 Truther brigades.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
By way of Daimnation, here’s now ex-Truther Mike Metzger explaining why he has left the 9-11 Truther brigades.

I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time. I never cared about the physics or the claims of pseudo-”experts.” What always did it for me was the fact that there was never a decent response to any of these questions by the government. Even the hit pieces you’d see on 9/11 were always personal attacks. The mainstream never contested the actual “facts” movies like Loose Change presented.

Or so it seemed. After watching Screw Loose Change, I delved into the world of 9/11 Truth debunking. Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and9/11 Myths Finally, someone was answered all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me… facts agreed upon by the experts.

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to “hey, we’re just asking questions” if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone’s supposed to take their word over an expert’s?

Read the whole, destructive, brilliant thing. He slams the Truther notion that FDNY firefighters could be involved and pretty much makes hash of the whole movement. Facts can reach even the most ardent Truthers, if those Truthers have any honesty about them at all (so no, there’s really no hope for Rosie O or Alex Jones). It’s clear that Mike Metzger in an honest man who has realized he made an error and wants to correct it.

Now, I happen to think that there are signs here and there that others within the core of the Truth movement are having second thoughts. Or, at the very least, that they realize that they’re losing ground on the factual arguments.
I’ve been saving this clip for a while now. It’s from the History Channel’s 9-11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction documentary that aired a while back. In this clip, pay attention to what the Loose Change producers are really saying about two of their core Truther theories.

The Loose Change boys have given up on the faked cell phone calls theory and the controlled demolition of the WTC 1 & 2 theory. Those are two rather significant theories to just quietly give up on. They’re tacitly acknowledging that they have lost the debate on those two points and that the experts have won, so they are now switching to theories that haven’t been debunked as thoroughly. How long before division over interpretation or how much to emphasize one theory over another splits these boys up like the Palestinian factions in The Life of Brian?

adoucette
28th September 2007 - 07:31 PM
What's REALLY funny are those videos.

I got news for the Albany Truth "movement".

Four people on a street corner with a sign and a bull horn is NOT a MOVEMENT.

ROTFLMAO

Arthur
newton
28th September 2007 - 08:12 PM
the loose change guys haven't admitted they were wrong. they merely shifted the focus to things that you don't have to be an expert to realise.


OCTs are so anxious to get out of protecting the lie. it must be hard to live with yourselves(the ones that know the building were demolished, not the ones who are fooled by the man behind the curtain).
i'm sure it's nothing a bottle of whiskey a day can't erase temporarily, though.
sleep well, doc oct.

and your, 'truther' who reneged? just another rovian shill.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 08:33 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 27 2007, 10:46 PM)
... Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. ...

I was wondering if anyone knew answers to any of the following questions:

Who ordered the transit be placed?

When was the order given?

Where was the transit placed?

Who was responsible for checking the transit?

How frequently was it checked?

What were the results?

From where was the transit procured? Is this standard firefighter equipment?

I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.
Trippy
28th September 2007 - 08:41 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 28 2007, 08:16 PM)
Trippy:
I am a qualified audio engineer, and I don't use headphones.
I use Active Servo processed speakers with a flat frequency response from 20Hz - 20 kHz.

What you are asserting, irrrationaly, is this:

Any evidence of explosions that can be found---audio recordings and/or concordant witness reports---can be safely categorized by defenders of the official dogma as "catastrophic brittle failure."

Trippy logic begins with the premise that
(1) no explosives were used,
therefore,
(2) explosive sounds are "catastrophic brittle failure" accompanied by widespread misinterpretation and misreporting by those who were actually present.

First off. the headphones I use for things such as this have a flat frequency response over a similar range. No, I don't care to go into details.

Your assumptions about my thought proceesses are precisely that, assumptions.

Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.

I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so, but events where you have a sudden release of energy tend to sound like an explosion.

As Grumpy rightly pointed out, by your logic (or lack there of) we should expect to find railway tracks where ever we find tornadoes.

Describing the catastrophic brittle failure of steel as a gunshot, or an explosion is not a misinterpitation, nore is it misreporting, it's a valid description of the sound. People use things that are easy to remember as adjectives, and explosions and gunshots, thanks to hollywood and the news, are an easy way that most people are familiar with to describe the sound made by any event which creates a sudden, sharp, pressure wave traveling through the air.

Trippy logic says that:
People describing noises that were LIKE an explosion is insufficent evidence for the presence of explosives, because within the mechanism being proposed by the officials, there are (multiple) mechanisms for generating such noises. The fact that there are two ways of generating sounds LIKE explosions, one within each theory, means that eye witness accounts talking about noises like bombs going off is insufficient evidence for the presence of bombs.

Claiming that an observation which supports two explanations is evidence of one over the other is bad logic.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 08:59 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 01:41 PM)
Claiming that an observation which supports two explanations is evidence of one over the other is bad logic.

That's putting it mildly. rolleyes.gif

AK: experto crede.
Trippy
28th September 2007 - 09:07 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 29 2007, 08:33 AM)
I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.

What, precisely is a transit in this context?

Is it something to help hold the building up?

If it is, then right there we have a simple explanation for the oct'ers about silverstein and his comments about pulling, and why the fire fighters were telling people to get away from the building because it was coming down moments before it came down.

They recognized it was going to come down because they recognized the damage was terminal.
They recognized it was coming down, because they new they were pulling away the transit.
adoucette
28th September 2007 - 09:14 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 05:07 PM)
What, precisely is a transit in this context?


They are referring to a surveyor's tool like this:

User posted image


But for a building it could tell you if its leaning.

Arthur
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 09:27 PM
AK: improbus concludo
Trippy
28th September 2007 - 09:44 PM
http://911debates.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7

also, thought this may have been of interest.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 10:35 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 08:33 PM)
I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.

Thank you.

I get the implication from Hayden's remarks that the bulge was visible to the naked eye and that's why the transit was used - to determine if the condition was degenerating. As stated, I've found many references to the Hayden account, often elaborating on the details somewhat but only citing the link I did. One of the elaborations I ran across was that the transit readings demonstrated a degradation over time, resulting in clearing of the area by 3PM.

A transit can't be placed indiscriminately; the debris would have restricted placement to certain areas. It's possible photographs were taken from street level from a similar perspective, though perhaps further back (due to cordoning or plain common sense). The photos I've seen don't show floors 10-13 that I'm aware, but street level photos might contain the same region as was sighted.

If the transit was set up at 11AM with an already visible bulge, especially if there was further degradation for many hours after, it is reasonable to expect the bulge to be glaringly obvious in any suitably-framed high quality still picture from that time forward to collapse. Knowing the location of the transit would assist judging the applicability of a given photograph's perspective. Hey, maybe the transit itself would show up in a photo!
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 10:43 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 08:33 PM)
Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

A name might lead to more specific testimony available online than Hayden's.
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 10:46 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 09:44 PM)
http://911debates.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7

also, thought this may have been of interest.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

Nice. Thanks.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 10:52 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 03:35 PM)
Thank you.

I get the implication from Hayden's remarks that the bulge was visible to the naked eye and that's why the transit was used - to determine if the condition was degenerating. ...

One of the elaborations I ran across was that the transit readings demonstrated a degradation over time, resulting in clearing of the area by 3PM.

A transit can't be placed indiscriminately; the debris would have restricted placement to certain areas.

It's possible photographs were taken from street level from a similar perspective, though perhaps further back (due to cordoning or plain common sense).

The photos I've seen don't show floors 10-13 that I'm aware, but street level photos might contain the same region as was sighted.

You are welcome, but do recall this is simply my reconstruction of events, based on the interviews I have read.

Yes.

The area was cleared (mostly) by 3:30 pm. It took about 1.5--2 hours to get (most of) the first responders out of the area. However to NYPD responders didn't get the word and had to run for it when collapse commenced. The ran around the corner of another building and survived.

Less so than you might think. Anywhere along the street to the west of WTC 7 would suffice, and possibly some locations further to the north.

I know of no photos taken low down along the west side of the building, only the right side. The reason is clear: the east and north sides had flames pouring out windows at the 7th floor. The amateur photographers thought that more important than the bulge in the southwest corner, the existence of which they may have been unaware.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 10:58 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 03:43 PM)
A name might lead to more specific testimony available online than Hayden's.

I have never seen any of the interviews on Firehouse.com in which this specific task was mentioned. There would be little reason to do so as it is simply too routine a detail.
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 10:59 PM
A picture from another page at the second Trippy link shows why I wouldn't try to do 'lean' from a photo:

User posted image

http://i21.tinypic.com/27zgk7s.jpg

Note the corners of the buildings. Those are supposed to be straight, vertical lines. At least on Bldg 7.

A bulge would be obvious despite the curvilinear distortion of imaging. A view like this from the other side, looking up a little higher, and of larger size and quality could suffice for detecting the bulge.
Trippy
28th September 2007 - 11:03 PM
These may be of interest:
http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/WTC7.html
http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/WTC7Page2.html
newton
28th September 2007 - 11:06 PM
new testimony on youtube

courtesy of ALEX JONES

yes, the much besmeared OCT nemesis.

the man continues to prove that not only can one person make a difference, but that it's the only thing that ever has.
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 11:08 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 10:52 PM)
Anywhere along the street to the west of WTC 7 would suffice, and possibly some locations further to the north.

It's a bulge on the SW corner of a trapezoidal building, isn't it? If you look at the layout below (from the same page Trippy linked) you see that the arrangement, including debris, makes viewing of the SW corner floors 10-13 only possible from certain places, unless you want to climb a pile.

User posted image

http://i22.tinypic.com/104lyra.gif

That's if I'm putting all of this together right.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 11:15 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 04:03 PM)
These may be of interest:

Thanks. These recollections suggest that the transit might not have been used under the early afternoon...
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 11:18 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:08 PM)
... unless you want to climb a pile.

Barclay Street. No pile to climb.
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 11:31 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 11:18 PM)
Barclay Street. No pile to climb.

Yes. But only at the intersection of Barclay and the side street bordering WTC7 on the west is there line of sight. That is, if the transit is on the bulge, and I'm gathering that's the case. In fact, as best as I can tell from my armchair, that's the only place I would set up a transit to look at a bulge on SW 10-13. You could go closer on the side street but then you start angling up pretty hard, I'd think. Also would be unecessarily dangerous for such a mundane task.

I suppose it could have been up in a building.
Trippy
28th September 2007 - 11:40 PM
I thought this was interesting:

QUOTE

The highest level reached by a firefighter in the North Tower is believed to have been the 65th floor. The firefighter, believed to be a member of Ladder Company 3, radioed, at an unspecified time, that a partial collapse had occurred on one of the floors in the 60s. Eyewitness accounts place multiple firefighters between the 40th and 50th floors, but the bulk of the firefighting contingent never made it past the 35th floor. About 45 minutes into the operation, several firefighters on the 20th floor, carrying standpipe packs up the stairs, reported chest pains.


Emphasis mine.
From here:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar....html?id=158382

edit

From the same article:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The highest level reached by a firefighter in the North Tower is believed to have been the 65th floor. The firefighter, believed to be a member of Ladder Company 3, radioed, at an unspecified time, that a partial collapse had occurred on one of the floors in the 60s. Eyewitness accounts place multiple firefighters between the 40th and 50th floors, but the bulk of the firefighting contingent never made it past the 35th floor. About 45 minutes into the operation, several firefighters on the 20th floor, carrying standpipe packs up the stairs, reported chest pains.


Emphasis mine.
From here:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar....html?id=158382

edit

From the same article:


Early on, the city's Office of Emergency Management, housed in 7 World Trade Center (which collapsed later in the day), was evacuated, crippling the city's interagency system. There was no backup location for OEM. Although OEM representatives at the North Tower lobby command post were in direct contact with FDNY commanders, OEM could not relay critical information from other agencies. That information included reports from police helicopters predicting the imminent collapse of the South Tower 10 minutes before it occurred and the imminent collapse of the North Tower 21 minutes before it occurred. Police heard the transmission; the fire department did not. There were no police representatives at the FDNY command post


Again, emphasis mine.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 11:43 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:31 PM)
I suppose it could have been up in a building.

Not likely.

Nor, from what I have read, was the west side street particularly dangerous, at least at the north end.

And angling up just means the surveyor has to crouch down in a somewhat uncomfortable position for a short time. No big deal.
David B. Benson
28th September 2007 - 11:46 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 04:40 PM)
I thought this was interesting:

Yes!

I suspect this was the ceiling system that partially collapsed, not the trusses.
OneWhiteEye
28th September 2007 - 11:51 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 11:43 PM)
Not likely.

Nor, from what I have read, was the west side street particularly dangerous, at least at the north end.

And angling up just means the surveyor has to crouch down in a somewhat uncomfortable position for a short time. No big deal.

I wouldn't think it likely to be in a building, either, but I like to be open-minded.

Not particularly dangerous? I thought we'd established unequivocally that they suspected the building was in danger of collapse prior to that point. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there, as proven by what happened when it did go down.

Yes, I agree, angling is no problem. This is one of those rare cases, however, where I think it is appropriate to invoke Occam's Razor in this thread, curiously in relation to psychology rather than physical models. Why work any harder than you need to?

Thus, if the bulge was visible from the intersection, that's where I'd set up. Any suitable pictures from that intersection, therefore, have a good chance of showing the bulge, as well as the transit.
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 12:02 AM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:51 PM)
Not particularly dangerous?

I thought we'd established unequivocally that they suspected the building was in danger of collapse prior to that point.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there, as proven by what happened when it did go down.

Why work any harder than you need to?

Any suitable pictures from that intersection, therefore, have a good chance of showing the bulge, as well as the transit.

Actually no, but don't hang around too long.

Yes, they were attempting to assess the state of the structure from the standpoint of going inside to attempt to fight the fires. In reading the interviews I have any sense that anybody thought it was going to collapse immediately.

You are not a fireman.

I agree.

Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any. None of the amateur photographers in the vicinity did not seem to go that far west down Barclay Street. Possibly the NYPD in the area told them not to, but I doubt that, as everything was a bit confused. The policemen were probably trying to ascertain that the building had indeed been entirely evacuated.
newton
29th September 2007 - 12:22 AM
i will tell you what was in the video.

a security guy was in the WTC7. he arrived to find the lobby full of policemen. he told them he needed to get to the 23rd floor, and so they let him go. it was all locked up, and so he came back down, and they took him up on the freight elevator.

he was coming back down the stairs, before EITHER building collapsed, when he heard an explosion.
the stairwell was gone from the sixth floor down, BEFORE ANY BUILDINGS COLLAPSED.
he took a different stairwell( i guess), and, the lobby was gone. the floor of the ex-lobby was littered with bodies, and firemen guided him out, saying, "don't look down"(at the carnage). they had to take him out of a hole in the wall that they made, because the lobby was destroyed so completely.

i wouldn't be surprised if there was a "bulge" after such a destructive blast.

once again, ALL of this happened BEFORE either of the big twins collapsed.
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 12:36 AM
QUOTE (newton+Sep 28 2007, 05:22 PM)
once again, ALL of this happened BEFORE either of the big twins collapsed.

Amazing, is it not, that not a single interviewee at Firehouse.com mentions the slightest word about this.

Those so-called firemen must have been 9-foot tall space lizards in disguise? ohmy.gif
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 12:40 AM
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ign...gecomposite.jpg

no idea if it's useful...

Alrhough it was on a page talking about beam weapons, so...
NEU-FONZE
29th September 2007 - 01:31 AM
According to my calculations:

If a transit could read down to 1 minute of arc, and was set up ~ 1000 meters from a WTC tower, it could detect a 30 cm tilt of the top of the tower. That means if it was set up at the time of the aircraft impact on WTC 2 it could have detected the impact-induced oscillations of the tower.
OneWhiteEye
29th September 2007 - 02:39 AM
This purports to be a picture at the intersection in question; I think it is. That is 7 still standing on the left, correct? Looks like the side street to the west of 7 is filled with debris. Now it seems like the only possible place for that transit to be is the intersection, most of which is shown in this photo.

User posted image

Intersection of Barclay and whatever, after collapse of WTC1, prior to collapse of WTC7

If this were a large picture and pointing upward more, we might be able to see the bulge. One thing we don't see in this picture is a transit. Of course, maybe it wasn't set up yet, had already been removed, or is just out of the frame of this picture. But that's about where I'd expect it to be.

Since someone was over there taking pictures, it now seems much more likely that a picture of SW corner floors 10-13, with the bulge, has been captured in a photograph.
newton
29th September 2007 - 04:17 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 29 2007, 12:36 AM)
Amazing, is it not, that not a single interviewee at Firehouse.com mentions the slightest word about this.

Those so-called firemen must have been 9-foot tall space lizards in disguise?  ohmy.gif

you believe in space lizards?
colour me shocked.

more and more testimony is starting to eke out. i've heard no eyewitness accounts of reptillians.
but, if you believe in them, maybe i should reconsider the possibility.

anyway, space lizards aside, there are other things in the video, like one guy says, "keep your eye on that building, it's going to blow". and another guy saying, "it's going to blow up".

"blow" is not a word for something about to collapse. it is a word for something rigged with explosives.
adoucette
29th September 2007 - 05:34 AM
So what you are saying is these guys were "IN ON IT" as well.

laugh.gif

Now you know what newton considers as EVIDENCE.

Arthur
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
29th September 2007 - 08:49 AM
Trippy:
QUOTE
Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so


I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so


I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support.David B. Benson:
==============
And, for future reference, I have no means of watching videos on this computer and wouldn't bother even if I could. I can sorta sense when absolute trash is forthcoming...
==============

.... just a few days later....

==============
Thank you again! Quite interesting clips.
- David B. Benson
==============
!!!

Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):

QUOTE
September 12, 2001 [People]
New York City 
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers.
On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there was bombs set in the building.
-------------------------

"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street.
There were explosions going off everywhere.
I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place
and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.
I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it.
I ended up on Vesey Street.
There was another explosion.
And another.
I didn't know where to run."
[Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower, September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15]
-------------------------

"We just heard another explosion. There handing out gloves and masks.
The consensus is, it's too unsafe to go in there"
- CNN video, 911 live. (Mark Heath, Beth Israel Ambulance)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....mark.heath.wmv
-------------------------

At 10.30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside,
I heard a 2nd explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the buildings, the chandeliers shook, and again, black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a 3rd explosion, this building might not last.
MSNBC reporter (Ann Thompson?) live, 911
-------------------------

"It's now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating that some sort of fire or explosion there..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"They won't let me go any closer. No-one can go in and get the people out.
There's small explosions still going on."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._explosions.wmv
-------------------------

"We started walking down to the eighth floor.
Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....explosion..wmv
Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
September 12, 2001 [People]
New York City 
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers.
On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there was bombs set in the building.
-------------------------

"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street.
There were explosions going off everywhere.
I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place
and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.
I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it.
I ended up on Vesey Street.
There was another explosion.
And another.
I didn't know where to run."
[Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower, September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15]
-------------------------

"We just heard another explosion. There handing out gloves and masks.
The consensus is, it's too unsafe to go in there"
- CNN video, 911 live. (Mark Heath, Beth Israel Ambulance)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....mark.heath.wmv
-------------------------

At 10.30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside,
I heard a 2nd explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the buildings, the chandeliers shook, and again, black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a 3rd explosion, this building might not last.
MSNBC reporter (Ann Thompson?) live, 911
-------------------------

"It's now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating that some sort of fire or explosion there..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"They won't let me go any closer. No-one can go in and get the people out.
There's small explosions still going on."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._explosions.wmv
-------------------------

"We started walking down to the eighth floor.
Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....explosion..wmv
Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?"...but in the third blast I couldn't even breathe, so I had to get out..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_third_blast.wmv
-------------------------

"We made it all the way down the stairs [of WTC 1], and then when we were just about to come out of the building there was another blast ... I don't know what happened to the people behind me when the blast occurred."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/witness_blast.wmv
-------------------------

"It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs, and then when we finally got to the bottom we were coming out ... and another explosion came...sent everyone flying..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...r.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"We're stuck on the stairs for a while. We finally got down to the lobby, and then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...g.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.witness.2.wmv
-------------------------

"...the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ck.kelley_2.ram
-------------------------

"The streets of the financial district covered with debris, in some cases ankle deep. Cars on fire, cars just turned by the force of the explosions."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ompson.cars.wmv
One incendiary solution at center.
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 10:46 AM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 29 2007, 08:49 PM)
Trippy:

I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support. !!!

Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):

Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?One incendiary solution at center.

I'm not going to address the BS in the first part of your post, because it's pointless, inflamatory, and to be honest I have half a mind to report it as baiting.

The point is that any time you have a sudden release of energy it is associated with a shockwave of some kind, and shockwaves that pass through the air tend to sound like explosions, which are also characterized by the productions of a shockwave.

Second point is that if you had actually bothered to read any of the eyewitnesses reports, or for that matter any of the links that I had posted, you're know that eyewitnesses inside the tower that collapsed second talked about feeling a concussion when the first tower collapsed, in fact I'm pretty sure fire fighters dealing with WTC7 talk about something similar.

Wow, fancy that, something heavy hitting the ground at a reasonable velocity setting up a shockwave that propogated through the ground. Who would have anticipated that. It's not like the buildings were connected or anything.

Oh wait.

That's right, they were.

Let me see, you've got something that has a surface area of an acre falling what, 12 feet in abour a second, or less. Hmmm... So... That couldn't possibly be a source of pressure waves knocking people down stairs could it?

Oh wait... It could.
adoucette
29th September 2007 - 12:05 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 29 2007, 04:49 AM)
Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):


Well Al, so now we know you are a Desperate Truther since you have resorted to the old standby of Quote mining. It might have had a SLIGHT impact several years ago, you know, before we had time to find the WHOLE QUOTE and read it in context.

laugh.gif

Arthur
wcelliott
29th September 2007 - 01:08 PM
QUOTE

Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so

I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast,


I've already addressed this point.

You were the one who was bragging about how great your speakers were.

Do they recreate the sound of explosives accurately?

Do they use explosives to do so?

No.

They move a diaphragm suddenly in one direction, creating a pressure-wave that's similar in form to what you'd expect from an explosive going off.

And this sounds like an explosion when it comes from your speakers.

It also sounds like an explosion when something heavy falls and lands on a large flat floor. The floor acts like the diaphram in a speaker, the energy of that heavy object hitting the floor is many orders of magnitude more powerful than your speakers are. The same thing happens when a steel strut fails under load - the energy in the strut couples to the large diaphragm and suddenly moves a lot of air in one direction. "BANG!!!"

The speed of sound in steel is 20,000feet per second, so shockwaves traveling through the structure go about 20x as fast as they do through the air, so it's difficult for people standing there to identify where, exactly, a sound comes from. The failed steel might've been 80 floors up, but the sound from the basement arrives at street level before the direct-path sound from above.

There are no mysteries here, only the physics you don't know.
beijingyank
29th September 2007 - 01:40 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 28 2007, 03:09 AM)
Because that was a 47 story building that had many THOUSANDS of tennents.





"Because that was a 47 story building that had many THOUSANDS of tennents."

Ironic the fires started in the SEC section that housed all the criminal file investigations. Just a coincidence? I mean think about it Arthur.

There is plenty of physical/forensic evidence to back up a 911 inside job.

But you STILL keep doing the magic bullet shuffle.

Arthur, you're a shill.

.
adoucette
29th September 2007 - 02:10 PM
QUOTE (beijingyank+Sep 29 2007, 09:40 AM)
"Because that was a 47 story building that had many THOUSANDS of tennents."

Ironic the fires started in the SEC section that housed all the criminal file investigations. Just a coincidence? I mean think about it Arthur.

There is plenty of physical/forensic evidence to back up a 911 inside job.

But you STILL keep doing the magic bullet shuffle.

Arthur, you're a shill.

.

laugh.gif

Ever heard of OFF SITE BACKUPS?????

Don't think they exist?

Then simply name ONE SEC case that was dismissed because the records were destroyed on 9/11.

JUST ONE.

Arthur
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 04:22 PM
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 07:39 PM)
Intersection of Barclay and whatever, after collapse of WTC1, prior to collapse of WTC7

Thanks. I'd never seen that picture before.
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 04:40 PM
QUOTE (newton+Sep 28 2007, 09:17 PM)
... "blow" is not a word for something about to collapse. ...

blow1 (blō) pronunciation

v., blew (blū), blown (blōn), blow·ing, blows.

v.intr.

1. To be in a state of motion. Used of the air or of wind.
2. To move along or be carried by or as if by the wind: Her hat blew away.
3. To expel a current of air, as from the mouth or from a bellows.
4. To produce a sound by expelling a current of air, as in sounding a wind instrument or a whistle.
5. To breathe hard; pant.
6. To storm: It blew all night.
7. To release air or gas suddenly; burst or explode: The tire blew.
8.
1. To fail or break down, as from being operated under extreme or improper conditions: The furnace blew during the cold snap.
2. To melt or otherwise become disabled. Used of a fuse.

Note meanings 1 and 8a.
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 04:52 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 29 2007, 01:49 AM)
I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips ...

I can view quoted text. I can view clips taken from videos. I do so, no matter who posts such (most of the time. Long textual ones I sometimes just scan.)

Do you know why lawyers hate to have their case based solely on witness testimony? wink.gif
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 10:06 PM
I believe this is the xcouthern face of WTC 7, not sure which corner though.

User posted image

CLick da image for an enlargement.
David B. Benson
29th September 2007 - 10:15 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 29 2007, 03:06 PM)
User posted image

The view is from the west, so that is the southwesterly portion of the south wall of WTC 7.
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 10:22 PM
User posted image
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 10:39 PM
QUOTE

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the facade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. I felt the location we were at was too close to Seven World Trade Center.
So we advised citywide we were moving the staging area to North End and Greenwich Street...
...Approximately what time was this that you moved?
Probably around 11, 11:30.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110045.PDF

So here we have an interview with a member of the fire department that attended 9/11, giving an interview on October 11, saying that by 11 - 11.30 am, the building was seriously damaged, and they were worried about an imminent collapse.
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 10:55 PM
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

QUOTE
Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway


So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Trippy
29th September 2007 - 11:49 PM
Oh, and here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk
We have an unidentified fireman talking about how dangerously leaning WTC 7 is, and stating that its collpase is inevitable.

WTC 7 is in the background, but don't know how much use it would be.

Edit:

This video may be ofuse as well.
I'd love to be able to track down it's original source though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
NEU-FONZE
30th September 2007 - 12:17 AM
All of this stuff is very interesting; but still no official word on how WTC 7 failed.

Why not?

If the government experts can't figure it out, I am not impressed by all the self-proclaimed experts here.............
quicknthedead
30th September 2007 - 12:56 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 29 2007, 05:17 PM)
All of this stuff is very interesting; but still no official word on how WTC 7 failed.

Why not?

If the government experts can't figure it out, I am not impressed by all the self-proclaimed experts here.............

In addition, millions are unimpressed with the lack of response by those responsible for giving the "official word" on WTC7.

It has now been over six years and still no explanation for what resembles a classic controlled demolition.

It should have been the first thing that was investigated on 9/11.

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
A NEW REAL CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED NOW

...before the next "9/11 event" occurs...
Grumpy
30th September 2007 - 02:52 AM
quicknthedead

Will you just take your useless woo woo elsewhere??? You're nothing but a bad joke to everyone on this site(except newton).

And watch out for those firetrucks, they can jump out of the back windows of BMWS, those sneaky bastards!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 02:53 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 29 2007, 08:17 PM)
All of this stuff is very interesting; but still no official word on how WTC 7 failed.

Why not?


I don't think any of the OCTers here have claimed anything besides the fact that the NYFD believed, that due to the damage they could see, the deformations they could measure and the sounds they could hear, that WTC 7 was getting ever more structurally unsound.

OCTers have tended to do little more than agree with the GENERAL idea that the failure was a combination of structural damage from the falling WTC 1 and the ensuing unfought building fires.

But the majority of us appear to be waiting on the NIST SCIENTIFIC analysis to fill in the SPECIFICS.

Why is it not out yet?

A ) They decided to do the reports sequentially, which meant they didn't really start most of the WTC 7 work until after the WTC 1/2 report was done.

B ) Quality work takes time

Maybe you and Quick can go protest together if you think that will speed things up.

This time I hope you submit your questions during the PUBLIC comment period.

Arthur
NoCleverName
30th September 2007 - 03:15 AM
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 30 2007, 12:56 AM)

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
A NEW REAL CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED NOW

I think they have another Roswell coverup investigation to do first. Then, with the recent citing of BigFoot in New Mexico, plus the uncanny disappearance of Steve Fosset not unlike that of Amelia Earhart; well, you can see their plate is full right now.
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
30th September 2007 - 08:58 AM
Arturio:
Presenting a list of a dozen or so concordant reports recorded on the actual day of the internal attack on America is not "quote mining" - it is compiling evidence.

That evidence, because it is discordant with the official dogma, must be invalidated, denied, smeared, or trivialized, in much the same way that you misrepresented the quantity and temperature of the radiant molten metal that poured from the tower following (i) an explosive high-velocity ejection of a significant mass, (ii) pressure pulses, and (iii) a metal fire. (all incendiary phenomena, I might add.)

Hear, plainly, is the recorded sound of a detonated explosive.
QUOTE
"Do you wanna call your mother?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPXKpbdfLd4


I was living in close proximity to the Westgate bridge in Melbourne when it underwent "catastrophic failure" and partial collapse in the 1970s:
http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/exhibs/westgate/welcome.htm
The resultant crash, loud as it was, did not in any way resemble the sound of an explosion.


wcelliot: speaker diaphrams do not move "suddenly in one direction" - they are designed to move to and fro:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oscillate

Listen for the sequence of explosions embedded in this recording I engineered:
http://portland.indymedia.org/media/media/2005/09/324255.mp3
Let me know if they sound, to your enlightened ears, like "catastrophic brittle failure" or "something heavy falling on the floor from above."

Cheers.
beijingyank
30th September 2007 - 09:25 AM
[removed]
wcelliott
30th September 2007 - 09:26 AM
QUOTE
Let me know if they sound, to your enlightened ears,


I'd love to, but my speakers can't accurately recreate the sound of an explosion.

Mine don't run on C-4. Do yours?

When something heavy falls on a large diaphram, it suddenly moves in one direction. Your speaker diaphram moves back afterwards, but you still say that what comes out of your speaker sounds just like an explosion.

Funny, as that's just what a floor being struck by a heavy load does, but you say that that couldn't possibly sound like an explosion.

So, do your speakers *not* reproduce explosions accurately (and you misinterpret them as sounding like explosions) or do your speakers accurately recreate what explosions sound like, and so does a floor when struck by something heavy falling on it?

Either both sound like explosions (neither requiring explosives) or your recordings played back without explosives don't sound like explosions.

Pick one.
Capracus
30th September 2007 - 09:37 AM
QUOTE (newton+Sep 28 2007, 11:06 PM)
new testimony on youtube

courtesy of ALEX JONES

yes, the much besmeared OCT nemesis. 

the man continues to prove that not only can one person make a difference, but that it's the only thing that ever has.

What did Michael Hess, the guy being escorted by Barry Jennings, have to say about their experience in WTC 7?
atmosphere
30th September 2007 - 11:50 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 28 2007, 05:23 PM)
But Jowenko is ONLY offering an OPINION based on distant videos of the collapse.

Its NOT based on ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE of CD.
In essence he is asserting that it LOOKS like a CD.

Arthur

you are judging me way to fast. I'm not a pro-conspiracy guy

He is not offering an opinion based on just video's , as can be seen on you tube.

Its not about secretly installing explosives , He explains how the job could be done after the building was evacuated .
It is possible to bring it down with explosives installed on just the first floors or in the basement.

Nobody knew for sure that it was going to collapse,so the other option was that the fires would spread and lead to an enormous inferno , since the firemen stopped fighting the fires . Did they think "yea , just let it burn we do nothing "? The building must have been a pain in the *** with all the operations going on at ground zero.

The ones in charge must have considered that the building was going to burn for a long time , possibly even day's . Telling your firemen to stop doing their job also means the entire building is going to be on fire.
Bringing it down with explosives is a good option ,and possible because on the first floors there wasn't smoke or heat or fire yet.

Since it was a mess in the area anyway, explosives experts didn't need to prevent debris from flying around . In a conventional demolition this takes a lot of time. It also didn't matter that the remains of the building contained large pieces. All this makes it possible to do the job in just a few hours . Jowenko explains how this could be done ,and with how much people.
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 12:08 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 30 2007, 04:58 AM)
Arturio:
Presenting a list of a dozen or so  concordant reports recorded on the actual day of the internal attack on America is not "quote mining" - it is compiling evidence.

That evidence, because it is discordant with the official dogma, must be invalidated, denied, smeared, or trivialized, in much the same way that you misrepresented the quantity and temperature of the radiant molten metal that poured from the tower following (i) an explosive high-velocity ejection of a significant mass, (ii) pressure pulses, and (iii) a metal fire. (all incendiary phenomena, I might add.)


No, that is NOT evidence.

There were THOUSANDS of people interviewed about their recollections that day when two to the world's TALLEST buildings were hit by high speed JETS and then burned until they collapsed.

I'm surprised you can't find MORE quotes where people mention SOUNDS that APPEAR to them to be LIKE explosions.

What you have NO EVIDENCE for is the DAMAGE CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES.

Its actually quite unique.

So given that you have no evidence of ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES being used, then these quotes all amount to the same thing, people's descriptive way of describing the NORMAL sounds of a collapsing building.

Unless you want to assert that the engineers going over the steel pile were "IN ON IT" too.


Want to hear what a REAL demolition sounds like?

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

As for the molten metal See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=255319

Arthur
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 12:27 PM
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 30 2007, 07:50 AM)
you are judging me way to fast. I'm not a pro-conspiracy guy

He is not offering an opinion based on just video's , as can be seen on you tube.

Its not about secretly installing explosives , He explains how the job could be done after the building was evacuated .
It is possible to bring it down with explosives installed on just the first floors or in the basement.

Nobody knew for sure that it was going to collapse,so the other option was that the fires would spread and lead to an enormous inferno , since the firemen stopped fighting the fires . Did they think "yea , just let it burn we do nothing "? The building must have been a pain in the *** with all the operations going on at ground zero.

The ones in charge must have considered that the building was going to burn for a long time , possibly even day's . Telling your firemen to stop doing their job also means the entire building is going to be on fire.
Bringing it down with explosives is a good option ,and possible because on the first floors there wasn't smoke or heat or fire yet.

Since it was a mess in the area anyway, explosives experts didn't need to prevent debris from flying around . In a conventional demolition this takes a lot of time. It also didn't matter that the remains of the building contained large pieces. All this makes it possible to do the job in just a few hours . Jowenko explains how this could be done ,and with how much people.

Ok, so you are arguing that the Demolition company, the BATF, the NYPD and the NYFD were IN ON IT.

But ALSO that they are all COVERING IT UP.

Give me a break.

Arthur
atmosphere
30th September 2007 - 01:49 PM
No i'm not . I don't know who covered it up ,and how or why.
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 03:02 PM
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 30 2007, 09:49 AM)
No i'm not . I don't know who covered it up ,and how or why.

Well in essense you are, because you are claiming the explosives were planted after both towers came down so they could have safer access to the site for rescue operations.

But, after the towers came down the entire surrounding area was evacuated and access was controlled by the NYPD and FDNY.

Of course the Demolition company people would have had to be let in and they would have first had to pull strings with the BATF to get permission to obtain that much high explosives.

So, NO, they couldn't have gotten explosives to the building nor planted/wired them that morning without the NYPD and FDNY being aware of it.

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
30th September 2007 - 03:05 PM
Arthur:

Just for the record. I DID submit some comments about NIST's first report BEFORE the deadline.

But I have thought of more issues since then and I like to discuss them on this forum. Is that ok?

And on the topic of the NIST WTC 7 report or lack thereof, consider this:

I worked for the Canadian nuclear industry for over 20 years and when we had a serious accident at Pickering in 1983 we were called upon to figure out what had happened and why. Our group of about ten scientists and engineers submitted a research proposal and after a management review we were given a budget and a timeline for our study.

We were required to issue annual progress reports and stick to our committed budget and timeline. This we did ..... delivering our conclusions more or less on budget and on time.

Why are things apparently so different for NIST?

Is NIST above having a fixed budget and timeline for WTC 7?

If I was in charge I would have fired the project managers at NIST long ago and brought in people who could deliver on what was promised and what is required!
metamars
30th September 2007 - 03:29 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 30 2007, 03:05 PM)
I worked for the Canadian nuclear industry for over 20 years and when we had a serious accident at Pickering in 1983 we were called upon to figure out what had happened and why. Our group of about ten scientists and engineers submitted a research proposal and after a management review we were given a budget and a timeline for our study.

We were required to issue annual progress reports and stick to our committed budget and timeline. This we did ..... delivering our conclusions more or less on budget and on time.

Why are things apparently so different for NIST?

Maybe because NIST is a part of the US government? And many US regulatory agencies are more concerned about the industries they regulate, than they are about the public. (Of course, this is an argument suggesting NIST helped cover up incompetence and unsafe construction practices, not CD. However, it's also true that corruption begets corruption. I wonder what NIST's track record is ito regulatory corruption. I don't recall any complaints about it, excepting suggestions that it was a factor in their WTC work.)

Consider:

QUOTE

As a full professor at the University of California, Gofman's combined medical and nuclear credentials made him an obvious choice to manage health research for the Atomic Energy Commission, which both regulated and promoted the young nuclear power industry. When public questions were raised about the health impacts of radioactive reactor emissions, Gofman was dispatched to prove the industry safe.

But his findings showed that reactors are serious killers. So even Gofman's towering resume could not protect him from the wrath of an industry determined to build all the power plants it could. He and co-researcher Arthur Tamplin were driven from their jobs.

When their POISONED POWER detailed the killing potential of atomic energy, Gofman and Tamplin were attacked mercilessly by an industry with immense investments to protect. The experience showed that no matter how impeccable their credentials, and no matter how thorough their research, any scientists whose findings might indicate problems with atomic power would be automatically "discredited" by industry flacks to who did no comparable research.



From
http://smirkingchimp.com/node/9792
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 03:35 PM
You know the difference NEU.

Besides the SCOPE difference, to their credit Congress didn't impose an artificial deadline on NIST's UNPRECEDNENTED level of research into a building collapse under UNPRECEDENTED conditions.

Good science, particularly when it requires INNOVATION, takes time.

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned NIST did deliver on what was promised in regards to WTC 1 and 2.

My guess is they will do an equally great job on WTC 7.

But you know what, regardless of the high quality report that they are likely to deliver, I'm sure you will STILL be a bitter old man taking pot shots at them over minutia and claiming that the GREAT NEU could have done a better job.

Arthur
metamars
30th September 2007 - 03:37 PM
Ryan Mackey, who is a NASA scientist that often posts at JREF, has written an extensive paper (198 pages!) refuting David Ray Griffin's NIST chapter in "Debunking 911 Debunking", at http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

I've only read about 20 pages, so far, but I can see that this is a much more serious work than other "debunking" papers I've seen. Hopefully, it will prod engineers at ae911truth to respond.


Also, there is a discussion of the above paper at:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread305995/pg1
NEU-FONZE
30th September 2007 - 04:21 PM
Arthur:

Well thanks for the reply,

but I have never claimed that I could do a better job than NIST!

And as for being an old man, sorry, I have no control over that!

But Arthur, do you always have to roll out insults when you don't like a question...

What does that accomplish?

Now you claim that my comparison is not valid, but I beg to differ. What happened to Pickering Unit 2 in August 1983 was also unprecedented.

The type of failure, a major pressure tube rupture in the core of the reactor, was not in the least expected and HAD to be explained. Nevertheless, no one imposed artificial deadlines on the research needed to figure out what happened. But the need to find answers quickly was very pressing because we had 3 other identical reactors still running at the time.

I asked why NIST appear to have no time (and presumably cost) restraints on its WTC research. NIST can (and have) dragged the WTC 7 project out for a long, long time. I have a lot of problems with this..

So, Arthur, you really did not answer my question; in fact Metamars' comments appear to be more apropos.
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 04:43 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Sep 30 2007, 08:37 AM)
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Thank you! smile.gif
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 05:02 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 30 2007, 09:21 AM)
Now you claim that my comparison is not valid, but I beg to differ.

Sorry, but I don't find the comparison to be appropriate.

There are no buildings in the world with a design similar to that of the old WTC 7, cantilevered over the Con-Ed station, so there is no particular hurry.

The delay, as I understand it, is a result of the inability of modern FEA codes to handle what NIST is doing. So new analysis techniques appear to be required, which appears to be the major scientific interest.
NEU-FONZE
30th September 2007 - 05:32 PM
Yes, but everyone is missing my point!

In the REAL world of research, time and money ARE issues.

No one is given an open-ended budget and timeline to solve a problem!

Why should NIST be an exception?

If building 7 is a one-off, why bother to figure out why it collapsed at all?

If it's too complicated to calculate, why can't NIST just say so?

Why not pull a GRUMPY and say:

Debris hit building... building fell down!

David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 05:52 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 30 2007, 10:32 AM)
No one is given an open-ended budget and timeline to solve a problem!

If building 7 is a one-off, why bother to figure out why it collapsed at all?

If it's too complicated to calculate, why can't NIST just say so?

Some are. Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, for example, has no time constraints, just budgetary ones.

I don't know how or why the decision was made.

Too proud? Actually, given the interest in avoiding progressive collapse (from great earthquakes), the creation of new analysis tools is important. And WTC 7 provides some data for a collapse which is solely crush-up, a rather more probable mode of collapse (from fire or earthquake) than the crush-down of the towers.
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 05:55 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 29 2007, 05:17 PM)
... but still no official word on how WTC 7 failed.

NIST does not issue "the official word", whatever that means.

I treat the NIST reports the same way as any other scientific or technical report or paper: contingent.
Trippy
30th September 2007 - 06:26 PM
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 30 2007, 11:50 PM)
you are judging me way to fast. I'm not a pro-conspiracy guy

He is not offering an opinion based on just video's , as can be seen on you tube.

Its not about secretly installing explosives , He explains how the job could be done after the building was evacuated .
It is possible to bring it down with explosives installed on just the first floors or in the basement.

Nobody knew for sure that it was going to collapse,so the other option was that the fires would spread and lead to an enormous inferno , since the firemen stopped fighting the fires . Did they think "yea , just let it burn we do nothing "? The building must have been a pain in the *** with all the operations going on at ground zero.

The ones in charge must have considered that the building was going to burn for a long time , possibly even day's . Telling your firemen to stop doing their job also means the entire building is going to be on fire.
Bringing it down with explosives is a good option ,and possible because on the first floors there wasn't smoke or heat or fire yet.

Since it was a mess in the area anyway, explosives experts didn't need to prevent debris from flying around . In a conventional demolition this takes a lot of time. It also didn't matter that the remains of the building contained large pieces. All this makes it possible to do the job in just a few hours . Jowenko explains how this could be done ,and with how much people.

Actually, if you read the interviews I posted earlier, from firemen that were in the area, or actually inside WTC7, it should be apparent that it was clear from about 11-11.30am that the building was going to collapse, and going to collapse soon.

There were also indications that WTC1 and WTC2 would collapse as much as 20 minutes before hand, but the warnings didn't get to where they were needed quick enough.
adoucette
30th September 2007 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 30 2007, 12:21 PM)
Arthur:

Well thanks for the reply,

but I have never claimed that I could do a better job than NIST!

And as for being an old man, sorry, I have no control over that!

But Arthur, do you always have to roll out insults when you don't like a question...

What does that accomplish?


You DO claim that you could do a better job;

QUOTE
If I was in charge I would have fired the project managers at NIST long ago and brought in people who could deliver on what was promised and what is required


So why not quit YOUR insults, to people who CLEARLY don't deserve it?

As far as WTC 7 is concerned, I presume its a more complicated issue than either WTC 1 or 2.

The initial damage is probably much more speculative . While the crash of a 767 is a complicated problem, they could at least start from a set of knowns and come up with a good approximation of the end result. The range of possibilites with WTC 7 is likely to be larger, not smaller.

The construction of WTC 7, with its subsequent modifications and cantilever design, appears to be more complicated.

There is substantially less video coverage and eyewitness testimony to help build the timeline or substantiate any modeling.

Arthur
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 07:06 PM
This article actually contains some common sense sci-tech:

9/11 theories as factless as those of Bush
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 08:42 PM
The report by Ryan Mackey that poster metamars linked a page or two back has a section entitled

Legitimate Criticism of the NIST Report.

I found it quite well done and the chemists here might care to comment on the subsection regarding the role of chemical attack...
Trippy
30th September 2007 - 09:43 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 1 2007, 08:42 AM)
The report by Ryan Mackey that poster metamars linked a page or two back has a section entitled

Legitimate Criticism of the NIST Report.

I found it quite well done and the chemists here might care to comment on the subsection regarding the role of chemical attack...

Personally, I can't see anything wrong with it, there's nothing unreasonable in there (that I can see).

Although, I was interested to find out that the majority of the sulfidized steel came from WTC7 (it's the first time I've actually seen that stated, everybody just talks about it, but nobody has ever really said where it's from - that i've seen, until now).

I found it interesting that they would mention frictional heating (which I'm fairly sure I've mentioned as a mechanism, as opposed to novel chemistry causing hotter then expected fires).

I agree with what they say about the spherules, I can't see anything about them that neccessarily implies anything nefarious, even if we assume they (along with teh sulfidized steel) formed pre, rather then post collapse, and I had occasionaly wondered about that myself.
Capracus
30th September 2007 - 10:05 PM
Does anyone have a link to the full text of Abolhassan Astaneh's 2007 memorial lecture? All I can find is the abstract and some news article on the lecture.
David B. Benson
30th September 2007 - 10:11 PM
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 30 2007, 02:43 PM)
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with it, there's nothing unreasonable in there (that I can see).

Although, I was interested to find out that the majority of the sulfidized steel came from WTC7 (it's the first time I've actually seen that stated, everybody just talks about it, but nobody has ever really said where it's from - that i've seen, until now).

Thanks. I asked solely because Ryan Mackey is not a chemist.

I have some difficulty with such statements since the steels would be highly similar. I don't know how such a determination could be made.
Trippy
30th September 2007 - 10:17 PM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Oct 1 2007, 10:11 AM)
Thanks. I asked solely because Ryan Mackey is not a chemist.

I have some difficulty with such statements since the steels would be highly similar. I don't know how such a determination could be made.

I can logically think of at least one reason why this might be so.

Logically, there should be some degree of stratification present in the debris pile.
Trippy
30th September 2007 - 11:44 PM
Has anybody tried calculating the temperature of the flames from the video footage that's available? Sure, at best we'll get an estimate for the peripheral flames, but that alone sets a lower bound for the temperature of the core flames.

Same goes for the 'molten metal' sene prior to the collapse of whichever tower it was.
quicknthedead
1st October 2007 - 02:20 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 30 2007, 09:21 AM)


So, Arthur, you really did not answer my question; in fact Metamars' comments appear to be more apropos.

FYI
Not answering questions is fundamental to his modus operandi.
adoucette
1st October 2007 - 03:41 AM
laugh.gif

Seen any BMWs lately?

ROTFLMAO

Arthur
atmosphere
1st October 2007 - 12:40 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 30 2007, 03:02 PM)
Well in essense you are, because you are claiming the explosives were planted after both towers came down so they could have safer access to the site for rescue operations.

But, after the towers came down the entire surrounding area was evacuated and access was controlled by the NYPD and FDNY.

Of course the Demolition company people would have had to be let in and they would have first had to pull strings with the BATF to get permission to obtain that much high explosives.

So, NO, they couldn't have gotten explosives to the building nor planted/wired them that morning without the NYPD and FDNY being aware of it.

Arthur

It just makes no sense to me that they decided to just let it burn, and do nothing . There was a big chance that the building would become a large inferno,agree ?
This could meen the building pollutes the area for days and cause a serious threat to surrounding ,still in tact buildings , becuase there was the risk of an a-symetrical collapse ,that was even more likely then a collapse within its footprints, since the dammage was a-symetrical ( how do I put that in decent English?). There are examples of buildings that were leaning over and fell outside its own footprint.

When building 7 went down , they could carry on with resque (and other)operations. But they could have never expected that to happen that morning.

In the chaos of that day decisions were probably made a lot faster than usual . I can imagine that certain rules were broken ,because human lives were involved.

Nr 7 had a relatively small amount of collumns and there was no need place explosives on more than one floor.
adoucette
1st October 2007 - 01:44 PM
QUOTE
It just makes no sense to me that they decided to just let it burn, and do nothing


So what?

You need MORE than that to say it was a CD.

Got ANYTHING?

Arthur

NEU-FONZE
1st October 2007 - 05:37 PM
Arthur:

More reasons to doubt NISTIAN authority!

In NCSTAR 1-5D we read:

"Based on the airplane acceleration time history ... the peak force was determined to be 75 MN."

Please remember this is NIST's estimate for the maximum impact force for a Boeing 767 weighing 124 tonnes travelling at 250 m/s striking WTC 2.

However, we have a directly measured peak impact force for a F4 Phantom jet striking a rigid structure reported to be about 160 MN. (See T. Sugano et al. in Nuclear Engineering and Design Vol 140, 373, (1993))

The Phantom F4 as tested weighed 19 tonnes and was travelling at 215 m/s.

But it gets better!

P. Mendis et al., in a paper presented at an International Conference on Tall Buildings in 2003, estimate a peak impact load of 320 MN for a Boeing 767-300ER striking a building at 140 m/s.

Meanwhile Y. Omika et al. in an article in the Journal of Structural Engineering from 2005 calculate a peak impact load of about 380 MN for the Boeing 767 aircraft striking WTC 2.

Thus we see that NIST's estimate of the impact force on WTC 2 is probably about 5 times too low!

So, Arthur:

When NIST puts out BAD SCIENCE like this, why should I believe anything it has to say about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
Trippy
1st October 2007 - 05:49 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Oct 2 2007, 05:37 AM)
Arthur:

More reasons to doubt NISTIAN authority!

In NCSTAR 1-5D we read:

"Based on the airplane acceleration time history ... the peak force was determined to be 75 MN."

Please remember this is NIST's estimate for the maximum impact force for a Boeing 767 weighing 124 tonnes travelling at 250 m/s striking WTC 2.

However, we have a directly measured peak impact force for a F4 Phantom jet striking a rigid structure reported to be about 160 MN. (See T. Sugano et al. in Nuclear Engineering and Design Vol 140, 373, (1993))

The Phantom F4 as tested weighed 19 tonnes and was travelling at 215 m/s.

But it gets better!

P. Mendis et al., in a paper presented at an International Conference on Tall Buildings in 2003, estimate a peak impact load of 320 MN for a Boeing 767-300ER striking a building at 140 m/s.

Meanwhile Y. Omika et al. in an article in the Journal of Structural Engineering from 2005 calculate a peak impact load of about 380 MN for the Boeing 767 aircraft striking WTC 2.

Thus we see that NIST's estimate of the impact force on WTC 2 is probably about 5 times too low!

So, Arthur:

When NIST puts out BAD SCIENCE like this, why should I believe anything it has to say about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

What's your point?

An F-4 Phantom II (the original Phantom was carrier based and was commissioned shortly after WWII) colliding with a a solid concrete wall obviously has a different acceleration profile from a Boeing 767 colliding with a flexible and pliable structure. This much should be obvious from the fact that the Boeing 767 colliding with WTC 2 entered the building where as the Phantom II almost literaly evaporated on contact.

Likely Y Okima and NIST may have different opinions on the acceleration profle of the 767 as it entered the building. I'd like to see the justifiactions used by both parties for their figures before jumping to conclusions about what constitutes 'bad science'. Simply saying well "So and so says such and such" is insufficient.
David B. Benson
1st October 2007 - 06:03 PM
One thing about science in general, but especially forensic science such as we consider here, is that opinions do vary! It depends upon assumptions made.

In experimental science one can attempt to repeat the experiments in an attempt to determine the important factors.

Here, unfortunately, one has to rely solely on, at best, computer program approximations. sad.gif
Since standard FEAs are intended for structures which stand up, not for explicating damage, we will certainly see different results from different approximations. I consider that to be normal scientific progress (assuming nobody has actually blundered along the way).
adoucette
1st October 2007 - 06:14 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Oct 1 2007, 01:37 PM)
When NIST puts out BAD SCIENCE like this, why should I believe anything it has to say about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

Interesting,

YOU have ALREADY judged NIST to be WRONG.

laugh.gif

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
1st October 2007 - 06:15 PM
Trippy:

Sorry to tell you this, but one of the world's leading authorities on aircraft impacts, J. D. Riera, had this to say about the influence of the target on aircraft impacts:

"Several case studies indicate that the impact force is not significantly affected by the yielding of the target. Clearly, the effect is more pronounced for military fighter planes than for large commercial aircraft, in which case deformations do not affect the results whatsoever."

This is why Riera's formula, as modified by Kar: Fmax ~ 1.5 WV^2/gL, works. (W is the total weight of the aircraft, L is its length and V its velocity just before impact).

Please note that this formula is INDEPENDENT OF THE TARGET!
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.