QUOTE (hereward+Feb 10 2006, 07:28 AM)
It is curious that 911myths cites the Fire Engineering article in support of the governmet conspiracy theory.
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
Nice work on your aussie site, hereward !
I suppose the 'official CTs' will be disappointed...
Where is the 'plea for DONATIONS' !! ???? (which makes Schneibster & friends "sick")
Maybe it's hidden somewhere that ONLY a gov't CT could find it?
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
Nice work on your aussie site, hereward !
I suppose the 'official CTs' will be disappointed...
Where is the 'plea for DONATIONS' !! ???? (which makes Schneibster & friends "sick")
Maybe it's hidden somewhere that ONLY a gov't CT could find it?
QUOTE
Where is the 'plea for DONATIONS' !! ???? (which makes Schneibster & friends "sick")
Maybe it's hidden somewhere that ONLY a gov't CT could find it?
Maybe it's hidden somewhere that ONLY a gov't CT could find it?
Well, I'm open to any reasonable offer... Actually I've heard that government agents sometimes pay CT'ers to seed their conspiracy websites with special links ... nudge, wink...
Tannis, anyone? (that's an obscure joke)
How about Reptilians?
Bush Devil Hand?
Holocaust Denial?
Or the old favourite: Apollo Hoax.
Our lines are open... waiting for your best offer.
Do Americans know how Osama Bin Laden is viewed by one of their doyens of broadcasting?
I mean to say chaps, if an insider such as Walter Cronkite can make such a statement on national television what are we proles meant to think?
It sure seems old Walt would not have not have Osama in the frame for September 11.
Larry King Live -
KING: They'll all be here, Walter. Walter Cronkite, the legendary journalist and old friend, a great man in the history of broadcast journalists, and maybe the most revered person ever to go on camera. Let's first play a little bit of this tape, in which bin Laden, released today, directly addresses the American people. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSAMA BIN LADEN (through translator): Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?
CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...
KING: The warning.
CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.-
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/lkl.01.html
Here, maybe they official conspiracy theory pushers here are right enough about that Rove chap eh?
I mean to say chaps, if an insider such as Walter Cronkite can make such a statement on national television what are we proles meant to think?
It sure seems old Walt would not have not have Osama in the frame for September 11.
Larry King Live -
KING: They'll all be here, Walter. Walter Cronkite, the legendary journalist and old friend, a great man in the history of broadcast journalists, and maybe the most revered person ever to go on camera. Let's first play a little bit of this tape, in which bin Laden, released today, directly addresses the American people. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSAMA BIN LADEN (through translator): Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?
CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...
KING: The warning.
CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.-
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/lkl.01.html
Here, maybe they official conspiracy theory pushers here are right enough about that Rove chap eh?
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 10 2006, 03:28 AM)
This prototype may 'seem' to make no sense to you whatsoever, but I understand exactly HOW it makes perfect sense...
Looks like a slight variation on the twin Cat design used in high speed ferrys for YEARS. Well that is except that design looks less stable (not necessarily bad, Fighter jets aren't stable either) and not suitable for shallow water (again not necessarily bad, just a limiting factor that the actual size/weight of the craft does not dictate)
I use satellite, not cable and I use 3 Digital Video Recorders along with a DVD recorder. Thus I watch what I want, when I want and don't bother with commercials. Its true, that even with hundreds of channels there isn't that much on, but my LIBRARY of recorded material is greater than I'll ever watch. Which isn't bad, means instead of many who watch what I call "the least objectionable" show on, I watch the shows I want to see in the "most desireable" order.
Arthur
Yeah, Walter hasn't been broadcasting for HOW LONG?
Want to know why?
CRONKITE: Who's to blame for it really is the intensity of this campaign. Plus the fact that we have a preface to this in the last campaign. What year was that now?
KING: 2000.
...
CRONKITE: He certainly could be. He was very serious factor with 3 percent of the vote, not quite 3 percent of the vote in 19...
KING: 2000.
Walt's not a complete fool, though obviously a Democrat, which is why he was live on the Clinton News Network just before the election. You know, for these type comments:
Cronkite: I think partly because of the nature of the administration. It has offended a large number of people quite seriously, right down to their souls, apparently.
Arthur
Want to know why?
CRONKITE: Who's to blame for it really is the intensity of this campaign. Plus the fact that we have a preface to this in the last campaign. What year was that now?
KING: 2000.
...
CRONKITE: He certainly could be. He was very serious factor with 3 percent of the vote, not quite 3 percent of the vote in 19...
KING: 2000.
Walt's not a complete fool, though obviously a Democrat, which is why he was live on the Clinton News Network just before the election. You know, for these type comments:
Cronkite: I think partly because of the nature of the administration. It has offended a large number of people quite seriously, right down to their souls, apparently.
Arthur
Al Qaeda has a good friend in the White House
The great big mystery of the day is what caused the White House to decide yesterday to disclose the classified details of George Bush's heroic salvation of the City of Los Angeles four years ago? People everywhere are scratching their heads in bewilderment -- why yesterday? What could possibly have caused the President to pick yesterday as the time to suddenly reveal the specifics of the diabolic plot by the terrorists to hijack an airplane into the Liberty Tower by putting bombs into their shoes? Whatever his reasons were for disclosing this information, there is no need for us to know what it is. It goes without saying that the Commander-in-Chief decided to disclose this at this time because doing so was necessary for our protection, and by questioning his motives, all we do is embolden the enemy and make terrorists attacks more likely, something to which I, for one, have no desire to contribute. So I'll just celebrate the Great Rescue along with my fellow grateful citizens. Amidst the celebrations, though, one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be even when they are deliberately depicted so as to achieve the maximum possible scare value. Here is how the President described the plot:
We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.
The very notion that someone was going to breach the cockpit door of an airplane by detonating a shoe bomb is so absurd that even the journalists who cover The White House noticed it and objected:
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story? MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it. Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane. MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
And then there were the geniuses who planned to "blow up" the Brooklyn Bridge using blow torches (only to be miraculously thwarted by our warrantless eavesdropping program), a plot which Bob Barr described thusly: " this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches." The more we hear about these scary terrorist plots, the more Al Qaeda resembles The Three Stooges rather than, say, Lex Luthor. The reality is that the White House doesn't care how transparent their manipulation of terrorist threats is, because this manipulation is not aimed at our rational faculties. What they want is for there to be scary pictures constantly flashed on the television screen of Muslims wearing ski masks with ground-to-air missiles on their shoulders and prolonged shots of our tall buildings and hastily arranged news conferences by city officials talking about security measures and faux terrorism experts parading around on TV talk shows with gravely concerned expressions as they warn us, yet again, of all the different ways that we are at risk. Unleashing all of those images over and over triggers, as intended, fresh waves of fear that we are all about to be blown up or zapped with radiation. How absurd the underlying facts are is irrelevant; anything that serves as a pretext for new waves of frightening images does the trick just fine. This is really the aim and the work of the terrorists -- to keep the targeted population in the grip of fear. Here is how the Department of Defense describes the defining goal of terrorism:
"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Terrorists don't expect to achieve their goals through the physical destruction of a society using violence, the way a nation at war attempts with its military. The violence inflicted by terrorists is simply a tool for ratcheting up the fear level, and the fear of the violence, rather than the violence itself, is the primary tool of the terrorist. The greater the fear of the targeted population, the closer the terrorists are to achieving their goals. When it comes to Al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. in this manner, nobody helps the terrorists achieve those objectives more than the Bush Administration, which (like Al Qaeda) really does have as its principal goal -- particularly in an election year, and particularly when it faces all sorts of political difficulties on an array of fronts -- keeping the fear level as high as possible. The more frightened people are, they believe, the more likely they are to support the President and his party. And so fear-mongering becomes the first and really only political weapon they have. The orange alerts aren't really that effective any more. Orange is so un-scary. But tales of thwarted terrorist attacks on our cities always give rise to the same set of images and warnings which keeps the fear level nice and fresh and edgy. It's only February -- I have no doubt we will be treated to many, many more episodes like this. The question is, with 9/11 now more than 4 years away, is there some limit to the water in this well?
link
The great big mystery of the day is what caused the White House to decide yesterday to disclose the classified details of George Bush's heroic salvation of the City of Los Angeles four years ago? People everywhere are scratching their heads in bewilderment -- why yesterday? What could possibly have caused the President to pick yesterday as the time to suddenly reveal the specifics of the diabolic plot by the terrorists to hijack an airplane into the Liberty Tower by putting bombs into their shoes? Whatever his reasons were for disclosing this information, there is no need for us to know what it is. It goes without saying that the Commander-in-Chief decided to disclose this at this time because doing so was necessary for our protection, and by questioning his motives, all we do is embolden the enemy and make terrorists attacks more likely, something to which I, for one, have no desire to contribute. So I'll just celebrate the Great Rescue along with my fellow grateful citizens. Amidst the celebrations, though, one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be even when they are deliberately depicted so as to achieve the maximum possible scare value. Here is how the President described the plot:
We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.
The very notion that someone was going to breach the cockpit door of an airplane by detonating a shoe bomb is so absurd that even the journalists who cover The White House noticed it and objected:
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story? MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it. Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane. MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
And then there were the geniuses who planned to "blow up" the Brooklyn Bridge using blow torches (only to be miraculously thwarted by our warrantless eavesdropping program), a plot which Bob Barr described thusly: " this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches." The more we hear about these scary terrorist plots, the more Al Qaeda resembles The Three Stooges rather than, say, Lex Luthor. The reality is that the White House doesn't care how transparent their manipulation of terrorist threats is, because this manipulation is not aimed at our rational faculties. What they want is for there to be scary pictures constantly flashed on the television screen of Muslims wearing ski masks with ground-to-air missiles on their shoulders and prolonged shots of our tall buildings and hastily arranged news conferences by city officials talking about security measures and faux terrorism experts parading around on TV talk shows with gravely concerned expressions as they warn us, yet again, of all the different ways that we are at risk. Unleashing all of those images over and over triggers, as intended, fresh waves of fear that we are all about to be blown up or zapped with radiation. How absurd the underlying facts are is irrelevant; anything that serves as a pretext for new waves of frightening images does the trick just fine. This is really the aim and the work of the terrorists -- to keep the targeted population in the grip of fear. Here is how the Department of Defense describes the defining goal of terrorism:
"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Terrorists don't expect to achieve their goals through the physical destruction of a society using violence, the way a nation at war attempts with its military. The violence inflicted by terrorists is simply a tool for ratcheting up the fear level, and the fear of the violence, rather than the violence itself, is the primary tool of the terrorist. The greater the fear of the targeted population, the closer the terrorists are to achieving their goals. When it comes to Al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. in this manner, nobody helps the terrorists achieve those objectives more than the Bush Administration, which (like Al Qaeda) really does have as its principal goal -- particularly in an election year, and particularly when it faces all sorts of political difficulties on an array of fronts -- keeping the fear level as high as possible. The more frightened people are, they believe, the more likely they are to support the President and his party. And so fear-mongering becomes the first and really only political weapon they have. The orange alerts aren't really that effective any more. Orange is so un-scary. But tales of thwarted terrorist attacks on our cities always give rise to the same set of images and warnings which keeps the fear level nice and fresh and edgy. It's only February -- I have no doubt we will be treated to many, many more episodes like this. The question is, with 9/11 now more than 4 years away, is there some limit to the water in this well?
link
Just saw 911witness by Rick siegle. Its a must see, definately answers many question on the huge thunderous explosions heard from Hoboken.
There were some odd light show above the south tower connected to the last helocopter just before the south tower collapsed.
It show aproximately 9 huge explosions before the sout towe and a few before the north tower. Oh, before the north tower collapse there was a very huge explosion.
You got to see it.
P.s. Thank you Shadow for sending me the LC2E video, Its comfirmed Dylan is a lier and thief RE: the posting of my reaseach of the Keyspan Maspeth Holder Tank Demolition of 15 July 2001. This had to been going on since I brought to his attention just after his request for an interview. Then he made the promise to send the 3 videos to prove and exonerate me from the false wingtv article now they're in cohoots with each other over a putout by Daryl Smith on LooseChanges handlers and Dylan Alch/Drug Abuse.
GOD Don't like ugly Dylan. See how fast Valis ran to Dylan to cry like a little girl that his box got over filled. Now wingtv is questioning on behalf of dylan as to the Daryl Smith article. Why would wingtv be in cohoots with Dylan Avery on the heals of the Loosechange Blog stating that wingtv had questionable behavior? Why are they running with each other after that little comment?
Hmmmm...
Be safe out there
Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs@yahoo.com
There were some odd light show above the south tower connected to the last helocopter just before the south tower collapsed.
It show aproximately 9 huge explosions before the sout towe and a few before the north tower. Oh, before the north tower collapse there was a very huge explosion.
You got to see it.
P.s. Thank you Shadow for sending me the LC2E video, Its comfirmed Dylan is a lier and thief RE: the posting of my reaseach of the Keyspan Maspeth Holder Tank Demolition of 15 July 2001. This had to been going on since I brought to his attention just after his request for an interview. Then he made the promise to send the 3 videos to prove and exonerate me from the false wingtv article now they're in cohoots with each other over a putout by Daryl Smith on LooseChanges handlers and Dylan Alch/Drug Abuse.
GOD Don't like ugly Dylan. See how fast Valis ran to Dylan to cry like a little girl that his box got over filled. Now wingtv is questioning on behalf of dylan as to the Daryl Smith article. Why would wingtv be in cohoots with Dylan Avery on the heals of the Loosechange Blog stating that wingtv had questionable behavior? Why are they running with each other after that little comment?
Hmmmm...
Be safe out there
Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs@yahoo.com
Quote;Patt Morrison feb. 09 2006
George Bush revealed in a speech today that a building in downtown Los Angeles was evidently the target of an Al Qaeda plot hatched in 2001. The building he named, "the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles,'' does not exist.
There is, however, a building which matches Bush's description of the "the tallest building on the West Coast.'' It is the Library Tower, not the Liberty Tower.
The 73-story Library Tower was built after the devastating 1986 arson fire at the downtown Central Library. Its name has changed a couple of times. Right now it's the U.S. Bank building, but that too will probably change one day. So almost everyone just calls it the Library Tower.
The White House issued a correction about the ''Liberty Tower.'' But we in Los Angeles are left to wonder. Was this a simple slip of the tongue? In this White House, is there any such thing? Bush has been using the word ''liberty'' a great deal about other countries, but not so much about this one lately, given that it's usually been coupled with the word ''civil.''
Maybe the president figures Los Angeles needs liberating -- from what, I'm not sure. Gas prices? The Hollywood Foreign Press Association? Maybe the White House thinks a presidential re-christening will make us decide to change the building's name to Liberty Tower, the way the House changed the name of its cafeteria spuds to Freedom Fries. Or does Bush -- even though he's married to a former librarian -- have some aversion to libraries, and the word just couldn't come out?
George Bush revealed in a speech today that a building in downtown Los Angeles was evidently the target of an Al Qaeda plot hatched in 2001. The building he named, "the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles,'' does not exist.
There is, however, a building which matches Bush's description of the "the tallest building on the West Coast.'' It is the Library Tower, not the Liberty Tower.
The 73-story Library Tower was built after the devastating 1986 arson fire at the downtown Central Library. Its name has changed a couple of times. Right now it's the U.S. Bank building, but that too will probably change one day. So almost everyone just calls it the Library Tower.
The White House issued a correction about the ''Liberty Tower.'' But we in Los Angeles are left to wonder. Was this a simple slip of the tongue? In this White House, is there any such thing? Bush has been using the word ''liberty'' a great deal about other countries, but not so much about this one lately, given that it's usually been coupled with the word ''civil.''
Maybe the president figures Los Angeles needs liberating -- from what, I'm not sure. Gas prices? The Hollywood Foreign Press Association? Maybe the White House thinks a presidential re-christening will make us decide to change the building's name to Liberty Tower, the way the House changed the name of its cafeteria spuds to Freedom Fries. Or does Bush -- even though he's married to a former librarian -- have some aversion to libraries, and the word just couldn't come out?
LooseChange Blog
Fri Oct 21 2005
Posted by Enigs aka Renigs Dylan Avery
Reposted by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
OK, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag.
I'm leaving for NYC in a couple of hours to interview none other than Paul Isaac Jr.
He want to clear the air about a couple things,on the records and give us some things off the record. But i'd like to speak for him ahead of time and say that this article right here, Yeah, total bullsh*t " I know that 911 was an inside job,the police know its an inside job and the firemen know it too"
He never said anything of the sort, I've got three different videos of him it out with lisa and nothing close to that is ever said.
Somebodys stretching the truth here and I don't think its paul.
Couple that with the complete lack of compliance on the part of Chris Petherick of AFP who refuses pauls request to remove the wingtv article from thrie website, and every other website on the inter-net touting that article as gospel,and,well, you could say that pauls a little upset. Rightfully so, But I'l let him tell the story. I just wanted to vent a little , 'Cause wingtv has not exactly been on the "movements" good side for some now, and this incident further throws their character into question."
End quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question : If he knows that Wingtv has questionable behavior, why are they in cohoots with one another now?
If he knew then that they were full of Sh*t about this article and he as he stated "was venting about the false write up" why are they speaking for him in response to the Daryl Smith article?
Heres another oldie but goodie
Thank to Jeff Rense on this one:
Lisa Guliani <wingedpiper@yahoo.com> Wrote:
"Isaac is going to be on Rense tonight. He says he going to trash my ***,or something like that. the guy is lying. He told me hes been questioned by the NYPD and theres an inquirey going on about the article we ran on him. He says I am going to be called "shortly". I said I welcome and inquiey becuase then I can tell everybody how he has tried to intimidate me into retracting a "truthfull" article. I welcome the inquiry, I said. I told him I hope they call tomorrow...:-)"
Lisa
Tim White <Phantom469366@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lisa,
I have friends in New York City who know lots of FDNY and NYpd personel and I will put out the word to them Clay and Shawn Pickering-both are very close with Ted Gunderson,Col Donn de Grand Pre and cathie Bell-she is one of the founders(Nico Haupt the other)
Of the 911 movement in NYC-that is really f&ucked now and this Isaac Puke is obviouslr just one of the perps. Clay used to play pro football so maybe a "visit" to Paul Isaac Jr might be in order if he insist on threatening you like he is"
End quote
Sentinel
Fri Oct 21 2005
Posted by Enigs aka Renigs Dylan Avery
Reposted by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
OK, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag.
I'm leaving for NYC in a couple of hours to interview none other than Paul Isaac Jr.
He want to clear the air about a couple things,on the records and give us some things off the record. But i'd like to speak for him ahead of time and say that this article right here, Yeah, total bullsh*t " I know that 911 was an inside job,the police know its an inside job and the firemen know it too"
He never said anything of the sort, I've got three different videos of him it out with lisa and nothing close to that is ever said.
Somebodys stretching the truth here and I don't think its paul.
Couple that with the complete lack of compliance on the part of Chris Petherick of AFP who refuses pauls request to remove the wingtv article from thrie website, and every other website on the inter-net touting that article as gospel,and,well, you could say that pauls a little upset. Rightfully so, But I'l let him tell the story. I just wanted to vent a little , 'Cause wingtv has not exactly been on the "movements" good side for some now, and this incident further throws their character into question."
End quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question : If he knows that Wingtv has questionable behavior, why are they in cohoots with one another now?
If he knew then that they were full of Sh*t about this article and he as he stated "was venting about the false write up" why are they speaking for him in response to the Daryl Smith article?
Heres another oldie but goodie
Thank to Jeff Rense on this one:
Lisa Guliani <wingedpiper@yahoo.com> Wrote:
"Isaac is going to be on Rense tonight. He says he going to trash my ***,or something like that. the guy is lying. He told me hes been questioned by the NYPD and theres an inquirey going on about the article we ran on him. He says I am going to be called "shortly". I said I welcome and inquiey becuase then I can tell everybody how he has tried to intimidate me into retracting a "truthfull" article. I welcome the inquiry, I said. I told him I hope they call tomorrow...:-)"
Lisa
Tim White <Phantom469366@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lisa,
I have friends in New York City who know lots of FDNY and NYpd personel and I will put out the word to them Clay and Shawn Pickering-both are very close with Ted Gunderson,Col Donn de Grand Pre and cathie Bell-she is one of the founders(Nico Haupt the other)
Of the 911 movement in NYC-that is really f&ucked now and this Isaac Puke is obviouslr just one of the perps. Clay used to play pro football so maybe a "visit" to Paul Isaac Jr might be in order if he insist on threatening you like he is"
End quote
Sentinel
Next I'll prove radiotion from an official publication
Sentinel
Sentinel
The question is. Who is gonna spill the beans, and where ?
http://harvey.nu/beans_on_toast/IMG_7240_heinz_beans.jpg
http://harvey.nu/beans_on_toast/IMG_7240_heinz_beans.jpg
QUOTE (adouchebag Feb 10 2006+ 06:06 AM)
Its pretty lame when you have to reply to yourself
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 10 2006, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 10 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE
The basic components of Gypsum "drywall" sheets are SULPHURIC ACID (H2SO4) with the usual Hydrogen replaced by Calcium (Ca)...with a PAPER outer surface!
Wow, what a brew that would make with any steel or other Sulphuric-acid-corrodable metals over long periods of time and humidity near the saltwater environment and after years of SALTY-rain and ACID-rain AND THEN the hot fires on 9/11)!
Wow, what a brew that would make with any steel or other Sulphuric-acid-corrodable metals over long periods of time and humidity near the saltwater environment and after years of SALTY-rain and ACID-rain AND THEN the hot fires on 9/11)!
Quick !!! Evacuate ALL highrise steel-framing buildings in every city in the atlantic north-east. Sept 11, 2001 was a turning point. Soon, All steel-framed buildings which utilize Gyprock will be disintegrating in any kind of fire environment.
I think we certainly NEED to protect innocent people from being victims of this new relevation. Steel...combined with Gypsum wall-board will Kill-Ya !
On the other hand 'concrete' has been proven to be so much safer...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The basic components of Gypsum "drywall" sheets are SULPHURIC ACID (H2SO4) with the usual Hydrogen replaced by Calcium (Ca)...with a PAPER outer surface! Wow, what a brew that would make with any steel or other Sulphuric-acid-corrodable metals over long periods of time and humidity near the saltwater environment and after years of SALTY-rain and ACID-rain AND THEN the hot fires on 9/11)! |
Quick !!! Evacuate ALL highrise steel-framing buildings in every city in the atlantic north-east. Sept 11, 2001 was a turning point. Soon, All steel-framed buildings which utilize Gyprock will be disintegrating in any kind of fire environment.
I think we certainly NEED to protect innocent people from being victims of this new relevation. Steel...combined with Gypsum wall-board will Kill-Ya !
On the other hand 'concrete' has been proven to be so much safer...
We've never known elements of the New York City construction industry to be profiteers. Heaven forbid! But now, McGraw Hill Construction reports, structural engineers and, of course, steel manufacturers are crying foul over the mounting campaign by makers of structural concrete to paint steel as a dangerous building material--using the fall of the World Trade Center and the fire at the Windsor Tower in Madrid as their examples.
http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/02/...ty-to-come.html
QUOTE
Post 9/11 Steel-Bashing Called Unfounded and Unfair
Steel-bashing, after jarring 9/11 experience, called unfounded and unfair
(enr.construction.com - 02/06/06)
Steel-bashing, after jarring 9/11 experience, called unfounded and unfair
(enr.construction.com - 02/06/06)
http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite...ticle=20060206i
http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/02/060206-30A.jpg
If we believe the CT'ers here... does it not seem logical to evacuate ALL steel-framed highrises (which utilize gyprock in their structure)... Until such time as we prove the above sulphur-initiated 'possibilities' to be excluded as 'causes' ???
IF there is a chemical / materials flaw or weakness that we have hitherto NOT SEEN, does it NOT behoove us to investigate such 'plausibilities' ???
There seems to be a 'lot' of idiot parrots here all of a sudden. Seems they have brought 're-inforcements' in from the idiot brigade.
Either we evacuate ALL buildings until such time as we determine the cause, or we don't really care.
Ask your favourite materials engineer.
As the above issue 'heats-up' between "structural engineers"...
expect to see a division between 'engineers' over this issue.
Of course the Gov't CT'ers would have you believe that there is NO disagreement amongst 'engineers' as to WHAT precipitated this "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" ... (a previously unheard-of engineering phenomenom)... which just-so-happened to rear it's ugly head 3 times in one day within a confined geographical setting.
Nothing to see here, folks... move along now... Jerry Springer is on... forget this bs, and rush home to view 'reality'. Check out Oprah... I hear she has some really relevant issues to discuss.
Who is this Foxx fool????? If the Sulphur-steel and other fire driven steel eating reactions occurred in the rubble piles AFTER the collapse, what is all this idiot blather about evacuating buildings which are being maintained properly?????
ALL steel buildings should be inspected regularly every 5 years or so to detect such weakening/reactions IN SITU. It is standard practice on ALL steel structures exposed to moist saline environments and acid rain ingress to have an ongoing 'painting' and rust-coverter/neutalisation program to prevent any rust/acid corrosion from getting a foothold. That's why all steel bridges and structures in marine/acid rain zones are costly to maintain compared to reinforced concrete. Although improperly poured/formulated 'rebar' concrete can get 'cancer' if the metal is exposed for long periods by spalling and or shoddy forming which leaves rebar ends less than two inches from any surface in corrosive environments promoting accelerated rusting processes.
But all this is already known and only unscrupulous and/or criminal companies/authorities do not adhere to and enforce the necessary maintenance programs.
This Foxx fool should be campaigning for aggressive oversight and prosecutions to ensure such programs are in place and carried out.
Then there would be no need to worry about collapse (unless of course a huge planeload of fuel enters through the windows and walls uninvited, and starts unchecked fires; then all bets are off).
So why his feigned concern about 'evacuation' of all steel buildings? Since the SEVERE and catastrophic sulphur/steel/aluminum etc 'thermite like' reactions will occur in long duration fire situations like in 9/11 after plane impact; and like occurred later in the rubble fires, what's this Foxx fool wittering on about? Can anyone enlighten me, then, what he's gibbering about? Why should he worry about 'mass evacuations' NOW just because sulphur/fire might eat away steel in a rubble pile AFTER a collapse due to catastrophes like 9/11 plane ingress, explosion and fires?
Does this Foxx fool have advance warning that all steel skyscrapers are going to be similarly impacted by huge planes and set on fire? Is he clairvoyant, maybe? Perhaps he should warn everyone of THAT premonition instead?
If a plane demolishes part of your building and settles down to burn out most of that part so that it eventually causes catastrophic failure of that part, THEN it's a bit late and ineffectual to do any ''rust management' maintenance, isn't it?
And so, if you do the required rust/corrosion prevention maintenance now, and if no huge plane decides to come calling and start raging fires, then I think perhaps you are reasonably SAFE in such buildings.
Gerrorrf, Foxx fool!
?????
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 10 2006, 09:38 PM)
QUOTE (adouchebag Feb 10 2006+ 06:06 AM)
Its pretty lame when you have to reply to yourself
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
......and "James Dweeb" posts again! Hahahahaha! What happened, 'da Dweeb'? Is Schneibster still ignoring your advances? Trying to get someone else's attentions 'on the rebound'? What's wrong? Why all this looking to others for attentions? Is Foxx not 'havin anythin' to do with you, girlie? A rift in Foxx's idiot-clown harem? The lovefest over? Are you being displaced by the latest addition to the harem, newton? Poor schnookums. Have you been supplanted by an even more effeminate dweeb like newton, Foxx's latest 'girlie-clown flavor of the month'? Sad.
JamesDweeb: yesterday's Foxx Favorite. Too pissweak. Too damaged. Too bad. Good luck on your rebound attentions search, 'da Dweeb'! Hahahahahaha!
physorgforum observers.
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
Would you mind showing where you get this quote from. It does not resemble what I said.
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
......and "James Dweeb" posts again! Hahahahaha! What happened, 'da Dweeb'? Is Schneibster still ignoring your advances? Trying to get someone else's attentions 'on the rebound'? What's wrong? Why all this looking to others for attentions? Is Foxx not 'havin anythin' to do with you, girlie? A rift in Foxx's idiot-clown harem? The lovefest over? Are you being displaced by the latest addition to the harem, newton? Poor schnookums. Have you been supplanted by an even more effeminate dweeb like newton, Foxx's latest 'girlie-clown flavor of the month'? Sad.
JamesDweeb: yesterday's Foxx Favorite. Too pissweak. Too damaged. Too bad. Good luck on your rebound attentions search, 'da Dweeb'! Hahahahahaha!
physorgforum observers.
The following contribution comes from a NY Civil service paper called the Chief Leader Dated 29 July 2005 Titled "Serious Illnesses Multiply at EMS" By Ginger Otis.
(Writers Note) I'll need to abreviate a little because it is extensive. I would like to note that the workmans compansation rules are negligable. They need to change the rules for claiming. The rules state 2 years from incident rather than two years from doctors diagnosis. This is the reason so many first responders are sick and dying because they can't get help from the city for their bills for medical needs.
GOD Bless the first responders who the city,state and feds turns their backs on them.
Page fourteen.
Third collum from left.
" In January doctors fournd Synovial Sarcoma, a rare form of cancer in the soft tissue of the throat. They operated a week later and it was successfully removed. Its a type of cancer Mr William Dahl was imformed mostly seen in clusters among residence of Heroshima and Nagasaki"
End Quote.
Strength and Honor
Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs@yahoo.com
(Writers Note) I'll need to abreviate a little because it is extensive. I would like to note that the workmans compansation rules are negligable. They need to change the rules for claiming. The rules state 2 years from incident rather than two years from doctors diagnosis. This is the reason so many first responders are sick and dying because they can't get help from the city for their bills for medical needs.
GOD Bless the first responders who the city,state and feds turns their backs on them.
Page fourteen.
Third collum from left.
" In January doctors fournd Synovial Sarcoma, a rare form of cancer in the soft tissue of the throat. They operated a week later and it was successfully removed. Its a type of cancer Mr William Dahl was imformed mostly seen in clusters among residence of Heroshima and Nagasaki"
End Quote.
Strength and Honor
Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs@yahoo.com
Sorry I forgot to put the year of diagnosis (Jan 2003)
Sentinel
Sentinel
BS, 90% of the people who get it are genetically pre-disposed
Synovial sarcoma comprises 8-10% of all sarcomas and most commonly affects adults in the third-to-fifth decades of life.
Specific cytogenetic abnormalities have been identified. More than 90% of patients have a t(X;18) translocation mutation, which is not associated with other sarcomas. The translocation involves the SYT gene on chromosome 18 (at 18q11) and the SSX1 or SSX2 gene on the X chromosome (at Xp11).
Arthur
Synovial sarcoma comprises 8-10% of all sarcomas and most commonly affects adults in the third-to-fifth decades of life.
Specific cytogenetic abnormalities have been identified. More than 90% of patients have a t(X;18) translocation mutation, which is not associated with other sarcomas. The translocation involves the SYT gene on chromosome 18 (at 18q11) and the SSX1 or SSX2 gene on the X chromosome (at Xp11).
Arthur
BS,
Yeah, tell that to the victims,BS
(Sentinel)
Yeah, tell that to the victims,BS
(Sentinel)
You say its rare but there are many hundreds of cases each year, and 90+% are genetic.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 10 2006, 10:38 PM)
You say its rare but there are many hundreds of cases each year, and 90+% are genetic.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
Quote Arthur
Wow, you really are an encyclopedia of information, Arthur.
QUOTE
More than 90% of patients have a t(X;18) translocation mutation, which is not associated with other sarcomas.
Wow, you really are an encyclopedia of information, Arthur.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 10 2006, 05:09 AM)
BTW ... I still haven't seen anyone attempt to address the following...
You will first have to explain why you find the term "Disproportionate Progressive" an oxymoron.
QUOTE
by Foxx
Please try to explain the oxymoron... "Disproportionate Progressive" in the term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
The 'NEW' engineering term to describe the 'unexplainable' which has ONLY occured 3 times in engineering history (ALL on the same day within a few city blocks) ???
Please try to explain the oxymoron... "Disproportionate Progressive" in the term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
The 'NEW' engineering term to describe the 'unexplainable' which has ONLY occured 3 times in engineering history (ALL on the same day within a few city blocks) ???
You will first have to explain why you find the term "Disproportionate Progressive" an oxymoron.
Here's the link to the video of Professor Jones' seminar on february 1st.
Jones Video
(works best by right clicking/save file)
Jones Video
(works best by right clicking/save file)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 05:49 AM)
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
Would you mind showing where you get this quote from. It does not resemble what I said.
QUOTE (Asbestos Victim+Feb 10 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 10 2006, 10:38 PM)
You say its rare but there are many hundreds of cases each year, and 90+% are genetic.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
In the 4.5 years since 9-11 I doubt you would see that many medical cases.
Also, from what I recall a single exposure is not likely to have that much impact (statistically) as opposed to an occupational exposure, but for those who were there that day because they LIVED in the area, they might be in actually worse shape (again, over time).
Arthur
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
Would you mind showing where you get this quote from. It does not resemble what I said.
I believe this is where he gets "disproportionate collapse" from.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf
The rest he pulls out his .....
Previous Analyses
Previous analyses were conducted by NIST as part of the WTC Investigation. The work will be
made available to the Contractor as background information. The work of the Contractor shall
not be limited by these models, hypothesis, or analysis results. A working collapse hypothesis is
described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, pg 17), as follows:
• An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire
and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study.
Arthur
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
In the 4.5 years since 9-11 I doubt you would see that many medical cases.
Also, from what I recall a single exposure is not likely to have that much impact (statistically) as opposed to an occupational exposure, but for those who were there that day because they LIVED in the area, they might be in actually worse shape (again, over time).
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 10 2006, 08:14 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 9 2006, 05:49 AM)
The Yid claims 'analogy' is 'lost' on Foxx.
Right...
The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy is valid ?...
Yid & Coastal propose.... The Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy
"Drop a weight from a height of twice the height of the towers on those... and SEE if the tower DOESN'T collapse through "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" on 'itself'."
Would you mind showing where you get this quote from. It does not resemble what I said.
I believe this is where he gets "disproportionate collapse" from.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Draft_SOW_WTC7jan06.pdf
The rest he pulls out his .....
Previous Analyses
Previous analyses were conducted by NIST as part of the WTC Investigation. The work will be
made available to the Contractor as background information. The work of the Contractor shall
not be limited by these models, hypothesis, or analysis results. A working collapse hypothesis is
described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, pg 17), as follows:
• An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire
and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed through the course of this study.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 11 2006, 12:16 AM)
QUOTE (Asbestos Victim+Feb 10 2006, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 10 2006, 10:38 PM)
You say its rare but there are many hundreds of cases each year, and 90+% are genetic.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
In the 4.5 years since 9-11 I doubt you would see that many medical cases.
Also, from what I recall a single exposure is not likely to have that much impact (statistically) as opposed to an occupational exposure, but for those who were there that day because they LIVED in the area, they might be in actually worse shape (again, over time).
Arthur
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply the USUAL long term gestation asbestosis/silicosis type disease being 'started'. I meant that IF certain genetic dispositions/diseases are ALREADY present/incipient, then any 'irritant', be it chemicals, asbestos fibres, industrial isotopes etc so widespread and concentrated in that area and its surrounds MIGHT be a 'contributory trigger' factor in any number of such genetic dispositions/diseases which may or may not have 'transpired to fruition' otherwise.
Sorry about my previous unclear post, adoucette. And thanks for the heads up and info.
Great post! I downloaded the video to my desktop, it was about 253 Mg's and about 2 hours and 13 minutes.
Jones lays it out very well, and no legitimate physicist or structural engineer can dispute the undeniable fact that explosives were planted in all three towers, in fact you have to be a complete brain dead, moronic liar to think explosives weren't used.
But I doubt if most of the jerk-offs on this board will watch the video, because that requires brains and intelligence, whereas most of these people don't have the ability to think and reason, all they do is PARROT their other idiot leaders and simply imitate their mantra that a magician in a cave brought down the towers.
Jones pretty much puts them all to shame and disgrace by exposing their willingness to lie and deny in OBVIOUS ATTEMPT to protect their criminal friends.
Did you show this person didn't have the genetic trait?
NO
Did you show that an unusual number of people who were at GZ came down with this form of cancer?
No
Arthur
I would have thought that MANY types of cancers/diseases would have been triggered by the ASBESTOS FIBRES released into New York and surrounds because of 9/11.
The above would just be one more type which may or may not have been 'triggered' if it had not been for exposure to Asbestos or other irritant chemical/fibre 'triggers' on and subsequent to 9/11....including any radioactive isotopes from medical/industrial/equipment sources during the collapse of the towers and collateral damage to nearby businesses/infrastructure.
Thanks.
In the 4.5 years since 9-11 I doubt you would see that many medical cases.
Also, from what I recall a single exposure is not likely to have that much impact (statistically) as opposed to an occupational exposure, but for those who were there that day because they LIVED in the area, they might be in actually worse shape (again, over time).
Arthur
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply the USUAL long term gestation asbestosis/silicosis type disease being 'started'. I meant that IF certain genetic dispositions/diseases are ALREADY present/incipient, then any 'irritant', be it chemicals, asbestos fibres, industrial isotopes etc so widespread and concentrated in that area and its surrounds MIGHT be a 'contributory trigger' factor in any number of such genetic dispositions/diseases which may or may not have 'transpired to fruition' otherwise.
Sorry about my previous unclear post, adoucette. And thanks for the heads up and info.
Sometimes you need a good laugh, to keep from crying.
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?sf=y&id=3198
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?sf=y&id=3198
QUOTE
Guest_JEFF
Here's the link to the video of Professor Jones' seminar on february 1st.
Jones Video
(works best by right clicking/save file)
Here's the link to the video of Professor Jones' seminar on february 1st.
Jones Video
(works best by right clicking/save file)
Great post! I downloaded the video to my desktop, it was about 253 Mg's and about 2 hours and 13 minutes.
Jones lays it out very well, and no legitimate physicist or structural engineer can dispute the undeniable fact that explosives were planted in all three towers, in fact you have to be a complete brain dead, moronic liar to think explosives weren't used.
But I doubt if most of the jerk-offs on this board will watch the video, because that requires brains and intelligence, whereas most of these people don't have the ability to think and reason, all they do is PARROT their other idiot leaders and simply imitate their mantra that a magician in a cave brought down the towers.
Jones pretty much puts them all to shame and disgrace by exposing their willingness to lie and deny in OBVIOUS ATTEMPT to protect their criminal friends.
My claim that Disproportionate Progressive is an oxymoron when used in conjunction with 'normal' building collapses is because...
A proportionate 'event' signifies a satisfactory relationship between things as regarding size, symmetry, and balance.
A progressive 'event' signifies moving forward in intensity or severity. (A progressive event depends upon cause & effect to move towards increasing intensity or severity).
A good example of a true 'disproportiate progressive' event is the chain reaction caused in nuclear fission. (An initial small collision 'progresses' exponentially into greater & greater collisions which completely destroys the 'whole').
Relative to building collapses, a 'disproportionate progressive' event is demonstrated in every controlled demolition event.
Small failures of critical structural components are timed in succession and at key locations within the building which completely overwhelm the structural integrity of the building (at which point gravity takes over) and pulls the entire building to the ground.
Through the careful & intelligent placement of structurally compromising events throughout the entire building, the building has no way to readjust loads to alternate paths.
As one path of redistribution is followed, it is interrupted by a compromise along that path which removes the ability to redistribute the loads through that path, and 'Bingo'... the whole building 'Just Falls Down' at NEAR the rate of free-fall.
The MultiHazard Mitigation Council (MMC) began to look into 'Progressive Collapse' as an outcome of several terrorist attack building failures (Beirut, Murrah, etc, etc - all the result of bombings which caused 'progressive collapses' of the buildings).
The MMC was a joint council composed of NIST, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).
Coincidentally...
(page 1 / adobe 7)
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...FinalReport.pdf
Hmmmm.
So on Sept 10, 2001... FEMA is assembling emergency response teams for a planned 'terrorist attack EXERCISE' in New York...
while across the continent NIST is convening a council to study 'progressive collapse' - a relatively unheard of, and rarely discussed engineering term (prior to Sept 11, 2001).
Coincidental or not... the convening of a council to look into an 'obscure', RARE, and generally not understood engineering event... was fortuitous for NIST given its subsequent responsibilities & 'explaination' for events of the following day. (insert music from the 'Twilight Zone' here).
In Section 3.2 "Breakout Session Summaries" of the above report the following statements are presented...
(page 1 / adobe 7)
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...FinalReport.pdf
Hmmmm.
So on Sept 10, 2001... FEMA is assembling emergency response teams for a planned 'terrorist attack EXERCISE' in New York...
while across the continent NIST is convening a council to study 'progressive collapse' - a relatively unheard of, and rarely discussed engineering term (prior to Sept 11, 2001).
Coincidental or not... the convening of a council to look into an 'obscure', RARE, and generally not understood engineering event... was fortuitous for NIST given its subsequent responsibilities & 'explaination' for events of the following day. (insert music from the 'Twilight Zone' here).
In Section 3.2 "Breakout Session Summaries" of the above report the following statements are presented...
"Progressive collapse NEEDS a consistent definition... universal agreement does NOT exist on the definition of 'progressive collapse'... several reference standards are so vague that they simply include general statements that buildings should possess 'structural integrity'.
(page 11 / adobe 17)
In the "Conclusions", we find NIST determining the costs related to study 'progressive collapse' was estimated to be in the range of $9,300,000.
Seems like a lot (to me) to study a relatively un-heard of engineering phenomena associated with terrorist bombings. In essence they were asking for ~ 10 million to study HOW to make buildings more resistant to the effects of terrorist bombs.
{APART from the events of the following day}... had I been on some committee to hear arguments of whether we should spend 10 million on such a fishing expedition, I would have turned it down under the following argument...
"What are we going to do?... spend 10 million on studying a rare event (terrorist bombings) and try to apply such 'bomb-proofing' to building codes, so that we can make ALL buildings more bomb-proof? Get serious. The money will be better spent on intelligence to STOP terrorist bombings in the first place".
Of course, I surely would have changed my mind, given the psyopts ('Shock & Awe') of the following day.
(that is... until I realized the utter foolishness of such studies and that buildings cannot be made bomb-proof outside of implementing building codes to make ALL buildings 'bunkers', and even then... 'terrorists' will find ways to get around such revisions.)
An interesting outcome of the "Breakout Session" is the further analyses by the MMC in their - July 10-12, 2002 invitation-only 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' in Rosemont, Illinois.
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
Comment from the papers presented gives some insight into how structural engineers view 'progressive collapse' and that... "universal agreement does NOT exist on the definition of 'progressive collapse"...
Also many of these engineers call for 'de-mystifying' blast technology (of which they had no experience or expertise in), in order to clarify effects and better understand... 'progressive collapse'.
As just one example...
(page 2 - http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ley%20paper.pdf )
But, Hey... don't just take my word for it... study the following papers yourself.
Joseph G. Burns, - Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...rns%20paper.pdf
James R. Cagley, - Cagley & Associates
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ley%20paper.pdf
W. Gene Corley, - Construction Technology Laboratories
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
John Crawford, - Karagozian & Case Structural Engineers
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...fords_paper.pdf
Donald O. Dusenberry, - Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
Bruce R. Ellingwood, - Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ood%20paper.pdf
Frank Tyboroski, - DTRA, presented a paper by Young Sohn and Robert Hall
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ohn%20Paper.pdf
David Brian Moore, - Centre for Structural Engineering
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ore%20paper.pdf
David M. Scott, - Arup
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
Robert Smilowitz, - Weidlinger Associates
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...itz%20paper.pdf
A proportionate 'event' signifies a satisfactory relationship between things as regarding size, symmetry, and balance.
A progressive 'event' signifies moving forward in intensity or severity. (A progressive event depends upon cause & effect to move towards increasing intensity or severity).
A good example of a true 'disproportiate progressive' event is the chain reaction caused in nuclear fission. (An initial small collision 'progresses' exponentially into greater & greater collisions which completely destroys the 'whole').
Relative to building collapses, a 'disproportionate progressive' event is demonstrated in every controlled demolition event.
Small failures of critical structural components are timed in succession and at key locations within the building which completely overwhelm the structural integrity of the building (at which point gravity takes over) and pulls the entire building to the ground.
Through the careful & intelligent placement of structurally compromising events throughout the entire building, the building has no way to readjust loads to alternate paths.
As one path of redistribution is followed, it is interrupted by a compromise along that path which removes the ability to redistribute the loads through that path, and 'Bingo'... the whole building 'Just Falls Down' at NEAR the rate of free-fall.
The MultiHazard Mitigation Council (MMC) began to look into 'Progressive Collapse' as an outcome of several terrorist attack building failures (Beirut, Murrah, etc, etc - all the result of bombings which caused 'progressive collapses' of the buildings).
The MMC was a joint council composed of NIST, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).
Coincidentally...
QUOTE
"Realizing there is a NEED to highlight this subject, collect the existing research and identify future efforts to mitigate the impacts of progressive collapse, led the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the General Services Administration (GSA) to conduct a workshop in Oakland, California, on September 10, 2001.
(page 1 / adobe 7)
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...FinalReport.pdf
Hmmmm.
So on Sept 10, 2001... FEMA is assembling emergency response teams for a planned 'terrorist attack EXERCISE' in New York...
while across the continent NIST is convening a council to study 'progressive collapse' - a relatively unheard of, and rarely discussed engineering term (prior to Sept 11, 2001).
Coincidental or not... the convening of a council to look into an 'obscure', RARE, and generally not understood engineering event... was fortuitous for NIST given its subsequent responsibilities & 'explaination' for events of the following day. (insert music from the 'Twilight Zone' here).
In Section 3.2 "Breakout Session Summaries" of the above report the following statements are presented...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Realizing there is a NEED to highlight this subject, collect the existing research and identify future efforts to mitigate the impacts of progressive collapse, led the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the General Services Administration (GSA) to conduct a workshop in Oakland, California, on September 10, 2001. |
(page 1 / adobe 7)
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...FinalReport.pdf
Hmmmm.
So on Sept 10, 2001... FEMA is assembling emergency response teams for a planned 'terrorist attack EXERCISE' in New York...
while across the continent NIST is convening a council to study 'progressive collapse' - a relatively unheard of, and rarely discussed engineering term (prior to Sept 11, 2001).
Coincidental or not... the convening of a council to look into an 'obscure', RARE, and generally not understood engineering event... was fortuitous for NIST given its subsequent responsibilities & 'explaination' for events of the following day. (insert music from the 'Twilight Zone' here).
In Section 3.2 "Breakout Session Summaries" of the above report the following statements are presented...
"Progressive collapse NEEDS a consistent definition... universal agreement does NOT exist on the definition of 'progressive collapse'... several reference standards are so vague that they simply include general statements that buildings should possess 'structural integrity'.
(page 11 / adobe 17)
In the "Conclusions", we find NIST determining the costs related to study 'progressive collapse' was estimated to be in the range of $9,300,000.
Seems like a lot (to me) to study a relatively un-heard of engineering phenomena associated with terrorist bombings. In essence they were asking for ~ 10 million to study HOW to make buildings more resistant to the effects of terrorist bombs.
{APART from the events of the following day}... had I been on some committee to hear arguments of whether we should spend 10 million on such a fishing expedition, I would have turned it down under the following argument...
"What are we going to do?... spend 10 million on studying a rare event (terrorist bombings) and try to apply such 'bomb-proofing' to building codes, so that we can make ALL buildings more bomb-proof? Get serious. The money will be better spent on intelligence to STOP terrorist bombings in the first place".
Of course, I surely would have changed my mind, given the psyopts ('Shock & Awe') of the following day.
(that is... until I realized the utter foolishness of such studies and that buildings cannot be made bomb-proof outside of implementing building codes to make ALL buildings 'bunkers', and even then... 'terrorists' will find ways to get around such revisions.)
An interesting outcome of the "Breakout Session" is the further analyses by the MMC in their - July 10-12, 2002 invitation-only 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' in Rosemont, Illinois.
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
Comment from the papers presented gives some insight into how structural engineers view 'progressive collapse' and that... "universal agreement does NOT exist on the definition of 'progressive collapse"...
Also many of these engineers call for 'de-mystifying' blast technology (of which they had no experience or expertise in), in order to clarify effects and better understand... 'progressive collapse'.
As just one example...
QUOTE
In the Cagley report
Within the Federal Government, there are many different interpretations of the same requirements. Many government contracting personnel lack the knowledge to know what they are asking for. Most assume that the potential Progressive Collapse is caused by a blast of some type. "Blast" information is closely held by an "elite" few.
Within the Federal Government, there are many different interpretations of the same requirements. Many government contracting personnel lack the knowledge to know what they are asking for. Most assume that the potential Progressive Collapse is caused by a blast of some type. "Blast" information is closely held by an "elite" few.
(page 2 - http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ley%20paper.pdf )
But, Hey... don't just take my word for it... study the following papers yourself.
Joseph G. Burns, - Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...rns%20paper.pdf
James R. Cagley, - Cagley & Associates
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ley%20paper.pdf
W. Gene Corley, - Construction Technology Laboratories
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
John Crawford, - Karagozian & Case Structural Engineers
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...fords_paper.pdf
Donald O. Dusenberry, - Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
Bruce R. Ellingwood, - Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ood%20paper.pdf
Frank Tyboroski, - DTRA, presented a paper by Young Sohn and Robert Hall
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ohn%20Paper.pdf
David Brian Moore, - Centre for Structural Engineering
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...ore%20paper.pdf
David M. Scott, - Arup
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...sed%20paper.pdf
Robert Smilowitz, - Weidlinger Associates
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20pre...itz%20paper.pdf
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 10 2006, 02:20 PM)
Sorry I forgot to put the year of diagnosis (Jan 2003)
Sentinel
Thanks Sentinel, I would rather read the article then have it summarized. Otherwise Arthur will make it appear they are sick because of genetic’s.
Claim Link to 9/11 Serious Illnesses Multiply at EMS
By Ginger Adams Otis
The Chief-Leader
July 29, 2005
Three weeks after Emergency Medical Technician Tim Keller passed away from an illness his family and friends believe to be related to his work at Ground Zero, a 39-year-old female EMT underwent lung surgery for mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure.
Like Mr. Keller, her Workers' Compensation claim was denied by the city. The EMT, who asked that her name be withheld while she recuperated, was also denied the line-of-duty pension that would have given her a paycheck until she recovered.
Wrenching Choices
Thomas Eppinger, president of District Council 37 Emergency Medical Service Officers' Local 3621, called the city's handling of medical claims a train wreck.
"It puts people between a rock and a hard place. They've got to make difficult choices - Do I pay my rent, or buy medicine? Feed my family, or get that x-ray?" he said. "Who ever thought four years ago when we were heroes that we'd be reduced to this?"
Marianne Pizzitola, pension coordinator for DC 37 Local 2507, which represents EMTs and Paramedics, and Local 3621, said 25 to 35 EMS workers were in similar situations.
Unlike firefighters, whose claims for pension, disability and work-related injuries are handled by the Fire Department and the Fire Pension Fund, EMS workers must go through the Law Department for Workers' Compensation and the New York City Employees' Retirement System for pension and disability awards.
City: Most Approved
John Sweeney, Chief of the Law Department's Workers' Compensation division, said that post-9/11, the unit received approximately 150 claims from the FDNY, and almost all of them were from EMS workers. About 96 percent of them were accepted, he said.
"After 9/11, we went out of our way to accept those claims and get people what they needed. The overwhelming majority of the cases related to Sept. 11 were accepted immediately," he stressed. "A small number were contested for legitimate reasons, such as lack of medical evidence, no description of injury, or filing too late."
Mr. Eppinger said he believes different standards are being applied to Workers' Compensation claims filed by EMS workers than to those of other uniformed employees, although in many cases the pathologies presented are the same.
"All these cases are fully documented by Workers' Compensation physicians, because state law says you have to go to specific doctors if you're going to file a claim," he said. "But when it comes to NYCERS and the Law Department, for some reason, even when they approve a claim, they seem to withhold paperwork on medication and treatment."
Flawed Comparison?
The Law Department, noting that firefighters follow their own system, said comparing the FDNY responses to those given to EMS workers by the city was like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Sweeney said the department handles more than 17,000 claims a year and strives for timely assistance on them all.
New York's Workers' Compensation law mandates that claims must be filed within a two-year time-frame. In many cases where 9/11-related claims weren't accepted, Mr. Sweeney noted, the time limit was to blame.
"If you've passed the two-year-limit, even if you have a meritorious case, we don't have a choice - we can't accept the claim," he said. "The original 9/11 cases that were filed within the correct time-frame were almost universally accepted."
Ms. Pizzitola said the Law Department's interpretation was a little vague. "It's two years from the date of diagnosis," she insisted. "Who knew that we were going to see clusters of breathing problems, cancers and other strange illnesses? We had doctors in New Jersey, Long Island, upstate who were unfamiliar with what they saw. It took a long time for people to start comparing information notes and finding that the common factor was World Trade Center exposure."
'Must Update System'
Ms. Pizzitola credited the Mt. Sinai Screening Program for WTC Responders with being among the first medical groups to document and publish what was occurring among uniformed workers and others.
"To prove a Workers' Compensation claim, we have to have a link to 9/11," she acknowledged. "So did it take the medical community some time to really understand the scope of what we're dealing with now? Yes, it did. Does that mean these people's claims should be denied? I don't think so, and I think it's time to update the system."
William Dahl, 41, a senior Paramedic, is among the four percent of claimants who got rejected. He was one of many off-duty uniformed workers who showed up on 9/11 to search for survivors, and was assigned to the World Trade Center ruins known as "The Pit" for three months straight.
He quickly developed the trademark WTC cough, a persistent affliction that brought up phlegmy gray matter from his lungs.
Breathing Compromised
Mr. Dahl, like many other EMS members, firefighters, sanitation workers, transit workers, and volunteers, has since been diagnosed with RADS - Reactive Airway Disease Syndrome - and esophageal reflux. His breathing capacity is severely limited. His personal pulmonologist said it's indisputably related to 9/11. FDNY doctors, after seeing him for a year, eventually admitted he was "permanently partially disabled due to work-related illness."
Mr. Dahl is on medical leave and has applied for a disability pension worth three-quarters of his final average salary, tax-free. His Workers' Compensation claim wasn't accepted by the city, however, and he's currently arguing his case in front of an Administrative Law Judge.
"I've learned to keep a log of all the details," he said. "I'm on a dozen medications, but I can't get prescriptions filled because the bills don't get paid. I'm waiting for authorization on a CAT Scan and everything takes forever."
In January 2003, doctors found Synovial Sarcoma, a rare form of soft tissue cancer, in his throat. They operated a week later and successfully removed the growth. It's a type of cancer, Mr. Dahl was informed, mostly seen in clusters among residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It wasn't part of his claim to the city because his physician told him that unless other workers contracted the cancer, it couldn't be linked to 9/11 exposure. Mr. Dahl used his private insurance to pay for the surgery.
'Thinking of My Family'
"For a long time I didn't want to leave the job, because I love it. But I'm a trained medic, and I know what my chances are. I have to start thinking about my family," he said, referring to his wife and two daughters, ages 10 and 8. "All these nodules I have on my lungs that weren't there before, you think I don't know that in four or five years they'll turn cancerous? And you know what the city's going to tell me? 'Oh, you had throat cancer, so that's a pre-existing condition.' It's time to start looking out for myself."
John Vinciguerra, a Lieutenant EMT who was recently denied Workers' Compensation, is taking the same approach. He and his wife, currently pregnant with their fourth child, just put their home up for sale.
"We decided to move to a smaller place and try to cut expenses, because I'm out on medical leave while I appeal the compensation decision," he said. "But if the situation isn't resolved by December, I'll have to go off payroll. Once I'm off payroll 30 days, I lose my health benefits because I'm out of the system. And then I don't know what we'll do."
Mr. Vinciguerra was diagnosed with light asthma as a child, but had no serious respiratory problems until April this year. On 9/11 he was assigned to a Brooklyn firehouse, where he cleaned out the various first responder rigs that came in with windows blown out, full of ash.
Familiar Symptoms
Later he was assigned to search and rescue work and occasionally sent to the Staten Island landfill. He developed the signature cough, started spitting up material at night, and then in April was hospitalized with a serious lung infection. Since then he's been unable to work, and has between one-quarter and one-half of his previous lung capacity.
He's also been diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, another common side-effect among 9/11 workers. His heart has to work so hard to get oxygen from the lungs that it's given him high blood pressure, his pulmonologist told him.
"I never had high blood pressure before, but the FDNY doctors say they aren't sure it's from 9/11," he said. "I take seven different medications a day, including steroids, to help me breathe. I'll never be able to work again, and at least all the doctors agree about that. I was told that this will only get worse - and maybe if I'm lucky stay about the same."
Lobby Congress
Mr. Vinciguerra was one of several first responders who traveled to Washington July 21 to press Congress to restore $125 million in Federal aid to the city. The workers said it could be used to help 9/11 responders like Mr. Vinciguerra who have been denied Workers' Compensation and potentially have no source of income.
The list of ill workers grows every day, said Ms. Pizzitola, and union officials fear there's more to come. But under existing Workers' Compensation law, there's no way to circumvent the two-year statute of limitations on claims. For EMS workers who develop diseases with long latency periods - mesothelioma, for example, usually takes anywhere from six to 20 years to manifest - Workers' Compensation probably won't be an option.
The illnesses appearing range from the diagnosable - sarcoidosis, various types of cancer - to the unidentifiable, many of which are simply labeled Reactive Airway Disease Syndrome by doctors.
Due to legal privacy constraints, Mr. Sweeney and fellow Law Department staff members are prohibited from discussing individual cases with the media. But they noted that every worker gets a chance to argue his or her case in front of an Administrative Law Judge, and then a Workers' Compensation panel comprised of members appointed by Governor Pataki. Ultimately, cases can be taken to the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Albany.
New Pension Help
Under the recently created 9/11 Disability Pension program, administered by NYCERS, EMS members denied Workers' Compensation could receive a tax-free pension, said Peter D. Meringolo, chair of the Public Employee Conference that gained passage of the legislation. He encouraged them to start applying for aid as soon as the program is up and running, which he expected would be in a few months.
But at least one sick EMT worker would be ineligible for that pension because she didn't accrue the requisite 40 hours at Ground Zero. Lynette Colbert, 48, diagnosed with sarcoidosis, has already been denied an FDNY line-of-duty pension and Workers' Compensation. She's living off her personal disability insurance while on medical leave.
When her medical leave runs out, she'll either have to go back to work or risk going without pay, which could drop her out of the health care system after 30 days.
"It's hard, you know, because I have seven grandchildren and the medications and the disease, they change you a lot. I get real scatterbrained and short-tempered, and that's not really who I am," she said. "All those years that I cared for people with no strings attached, because I loved this job, and now I can't get help from the city. I'm on the outside looking in. Why can't those people who have the power just check 'Yes' on their forms and let me go see the doctor?"
http://www.wgenblaw.com/article41.jsp
Sentinel
Thanks Sentinel, I would rather read the article then have it summarized. Otherwise Arthur will make it appear they are sick because of genetic’s.
Claim Link to 9/11 Serious Illnesses Multiply at EMS
By Ginger Adams Otis
The Chief-Leader
July 29, 2005
Three weeks after Emergency Medical Technician Tim Keller passed away from an illness his family and friends believe to be related to his work at Ground Zero, a 39-year-old female EMT underwent lung surgery for mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure.
Like Mr. Keller, her Workers' Compensation claim was denied by the city. The EMT, who asked that her name be withheld while she recuperated, was also denied the line-of-duty pension that would have given her a paycheck until she recovered.
Wrenching Choices
Thomas Eppinger, president of District Council 37 Emergency Medical Service Officers' Local 3621, called the city's handling of medical claims a train wreck.
"It puts people between a rock and a hard place. They've got to make difficult choices - Do I pay my rent, or buy medicine? Feed my family, or get that x-ray?" he said. "Who ever thought four years ago when we were heroes that we'd be reduced to this?"
Marianne Pizzitola, pension coordinator for DC 37 Local 2507, which represents EMTs and Paramedics, and Local 3621, said 25 to 35 EMS workers were in similar situations.
Unlike firefighters, whose claims for pension, disability and work-related injuries are handled by the Fire Department and the Fire Pension Fund, EMS workers must go through the Law Department for Workers' Compensation and the New York City Employees' Retirement System for pension and disability awards.
City: Most Approved
John Sweeney, Chief of the Law Department's Workers' Compensation division, said that post-9/11, the unit received approximately 150 claims from the FDNY, and almost all of them were from EMS workers. About 96 percent of them were accepted, he said.
"After 9/11, we went out of our way to accept those claims and get people what they needed. The overwhelming majority of the cases related to Sept. 11 were accepted immediately," he stressed. "A small number were contested for legitimate reasons, such as lack of medical evidence, no description of injury, or filing too late."
Mr. Eppinger said he believes different standards are being applied to Workers' Compensation claims filed by EMS workers than to those of other uniformed employees, although in many cases the pathologies presented are the same.
"All these cases are fully documented by Workers' Compensation physicians, because state law says you have to go to specific doctors if you're going to file a claim," he said. "But when it comes to NYCERS and the Law Department, for some reason, even when they approve a claim, they seem to withhold paperwork on medication and treatment."
Flawed Comparison?
The Law Department, noting that firefighters follow their own system, said comparing the FDNY responses to those given to EMS workers by the city was like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Sweeney said the department handles more than 17,000 claims a year and strives for timely assistance on them all.
New York's Workers' Compensation law mandates that claims must be filed within a two-year time-frame. In many cases where 9/11-related claims weren't accepted, Mr. Sweeney noted, the time limit was to blame.
"If you've passed the two-year-limit, even if you have a meritorious case, we don't have a choice - we can't accept the claim," he said. "The original 9/11 cases that were filed within the correct time-frame were almost universally accepted."
Ms. Pizzitola said the Law Department's interpretation was a little vague. "It's two years from the date of diagnosis," she insisted. "Who knew that we were going to see clusters of breathing problems, cancers and other strange illnesses? We had doctors in New Jersey, Long Island, upstate who were unfamiliar with what they saw. It took a long time for people to start comparing information notes and finding that the common factor was World Trade Center exposure."
'Must Update System'
Ms. Pizzitola credited the Mt. Sinai Screening Program for WTC Responders with being among the first medical groups to document and publish what was occurring among uniformed workers and others.
"To prove a Workers' Compensation claim, we have to have a link to 9/11," she acknowledged. "So did it take the medical community some time to really understand the scope of what we're dealing with now? Yes, it did. Does that mean these people's claims should be denied? I don't think so, and I think it's time to update the system."
William Dahl, 41, a senior Paramedic, is among the four percent of claimants who got rejected. He was one of many off-duty uniformed workers who showed up on 9/11 to search for survivors, and was assigned to the World Trade Center ruins known as "The Pit" for three months straight.
He quickly developed the trademark WTC cough, a persistent affliction that brought up phlegmy gray matter from his lungs.
Breathing Compromised
Mr. Dahl, like many other EMS members, firefighters, sanitation workers, transit workers, and volunteers, has since been diagnosed with RADS - Reactive Airway Disease Syndrome - and esophageal reflux. His breathing capacity is severely limited. His personal pulmonologist said it's indisputably related to 9/11. FDNY doctors, after seeing him for a year, eventually admitted he was "permanently partially disabled due to work-related illness."
Mr. Dahl is on medical leave and has applied for a disability pension worth three-quarters of his final average salary, tax-free. His Workers' Compensation claim wasn't accepted by the city, however, and he's currently arguing his case in front of an Administrative Law Judge.
"I've learned to keep a log of all the details," he said. "I'm on a dozen medications, but I can't get prescriptions filled because the bills don't get paid. I'm waiting for authorization on a CAT Scan and everything takes forever."
In January 2003, doctors found Synovial Sarcoma, a rare form of soft tissue cancer, in his throat. They operated a week later and successfully removed the growth. It's a type of cancer, Mr. Dahl was informed, mostly seen in clusters among residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It wasn't part of his claim to the city because his physician told him that unless other workers contracted the cancer, it couldn't be linked to 9/11 exposure. Mr. Dahl used his private insurance to pay for the surgery.
'Thinking of My Family'
"For a long time I didn't want to leave the job, because I love it. But I'm a trained medic, and I know what my chances are. I have to start thinking about my family," he said, referring to his wife and two daughters, ages 10 and 8. "All these nodules I have on my lungs that weren't there before, you think I don't know that in four or five years they'll turn cancerous? And you know what the city's going to tell me? 'Oh, you had throat cancer, so that's a pre-existing condition.' It's time to start looking out for myself."
John Vinciguerra, a Lieutenant EMT who was recently denied Workers' Compensation, is taking the same approach. He and his wife, currently pregnant with their fourth child, just put their home up for sale.
"We decided to move to a smaller place and try to cut expenses, because I'm out on medical leave while I appeal the compensation decision," he said. "But if the situation isn't resolved by December, I'll have to go off payroll. Once I'm off payroll 30 days, I lose my health benefits because I'm out of the system. And then I don't know what we'll do."
Mr. Vinciguerra was diagnosed with light asthma as a child, but had no serious respiratory problems until April this year. On 9/11 he was assigned to a Brooklyn firehouse, where he cleaned out the various first responder rigs that came in with windows blown out, full of ash.
Familiar Symptoms
Later he was assigned to search and rescue work and occasionally sent to the Staten Island landfill. He developed the signature cough, started spitting up material at night, and then in April was hospitalized with a serious lung infection. Since then he's been unable to work, and has between one-quarter and one-half of his previous lung capacity.
He's also been diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, another common side-effect among 9/11 workers. His heart has to work so hard to get oxygen from the lungs that it's given him high blood pressure, his pulmonologist told him.
"I never had high blood pressure before, but the FDNY doctors say they aren't sure it's from 9/11," he said. "I take seven different medications a day, including steroids, to help me breathe. I'll never be able to work again, and at least all the doctors agree about that. I was told that this will only get worse - and maybe if I'm lucky stay about the same."
Lobby Congress
Mr. Vinciguerra was one of several first responders who traveled to Washington July 21 to press Congress to restore $125 million in Federal aid to the city. The workers said it could be used to help 9/11 responders like Mr. Vinciguerra who have been denied Workers' Compensation and potentially have no source of income.
The list of ill workers grows every day, said Ms. Pizzitola, and union officials fear there's more to come. But under existing Workers' Compensation law, there's no way to circumvent the two-year statute of limitations on claims. For EMS workers who develop diseases with long latency periods - mesothelioma, for example, usually takes anywhere from six to 20 years to manifest - Workers' Compensation probably won't be an option.
The illnesses appearing range from the diagnosable - sarcoidosis, various types of cancer - to the unidentifiable, many of which are simply labeled Reactive Airway Disease Syndrome by doctors.
Due to legal privacy constraints, Mr. Sweeney and fellow Law Department staff members are prohibited from discussing individual cases with the media. But they noted that every worker gets a chance to argue his or her case in front of an Administrative Law Judge, and then a Workers' Compensation panel comprised of members appointed by Governor Pataki. Ultimately, cases can be taken to the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Albany.
New Pension Help
Under the recently created 9/11 Disability Pension program, administered by NYCERS, EMS members denied Workers' Compensation could receive a tax-free pension, said Peter D. Meringolo, chair of the Public Employee Conference that gained passage of the legislation. He encouraged them to start applying for aid as soon as the program is up and running, which he expected would be in a few months.
But at least one sick EMT worker would be ineligible for that pension because she didn't accrue the requisite 40 hours at Ground Zero. Lynette Colbert, 48, diagnosed with sarcoidosis, has already been denied an FDNY line-of-duty pension and Workers' Compensation. She's living off her personal disability insurance while on medical leave.
When her medical leave runs out, she'll either have to go back to work or risk going without pay, which could drop her out of the health care system after 30 days.
"It's hard, you know, because I have seven grandchildren and the medications and the disease, they change you a lot. I get real scatterbrained and short-tempered, and that's not really who I am," she said. "All those years that I cared for people with no strings attached, because I loved this job, and now I can't get help from the city. I'm on the outside looking in. Why can't those people who have the power just check 'Yes' on their forms and let me go see the doctor?"
http://www.wgenblaw.com/article41.jsp
QUOTE (physorgforum observers+Feb 10 2006, 10:05 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 10 2006, 09:38 PM)
QUOTE (adouchebag Feb 10 2006+ 06:06 AM)
Its pretty lame when you have to reply to yourself
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
......and "James Dweeb" posts again! Hahahahaha! What happened, 'da Dweeb'? Is Schneibster still ignoring your advances? Trying to get someone else's attentions 'on the rebound'? What's wrong? Why all this looking to others for attentions? Is Foxx not 'havin anythin' to do with you, girlie? A rift in Foxx's idiot-clown harem? The lovefest over? Are you being displaced by the latest addition to the harem, newton? Poor schnookums. Have you been supplanted by an even more effeminate dweeb like newton, Foxx's latest 'girlie-clown flavor of the month'? Sad.
JamesDweeb: yesterday's Foxx Favorite. Too pissweak. Too damaged. Too bad. Good luck on your rebound attentions search, 'da Dweeb'! Hahahahahaha!
physorgforum observers.
nice post, common sense/shniebster/arthur.
it should be 'physorg observer', though. you mistakenly put an 's' on the end.
LMAO That's fu<king rich...
......and "James Dweeb" posts again! Hahahahaha! What happened, 'da Dweeb'? Is Schneibster still ignoring your advances? Trying to get someone else's attentions 'on the rebound'? What's wrong? Why all this looking to others for attentions? Is Foxx not 'havin anythin' to do with you, girlie? A rift in Foxx's idiot-clown harem? The lovefest over? Are you being displaced by the latest addition to the harem, newton? Poor schnookums. Have you been supplanted by an even more effeminate dweeb like newton, Foxx's latest 'girlie-clown flavor of the month'? Sad.
JamesDweeb: yesterday's Foxx Favorite. Too pissweak. Too damaged. Too bad. Good luck on your rebound attentions search, 'da Dweeb'! Hahahahahaha!
physorgforum observers.
nice post, common sense/shniebster/arthur.
it should be 'physorg observer', though. you mistakenly put an 's' on the end.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 11 2006, 01:34 PM)
I would rather read the article then have it summarized. Otherwise Arthur will make it appear they are sick because of genetic’s.
So would I, but there was no link.
Notice the guy's doctor said
Which is pretty much what I was asking, where is the proof that it is linked to 9-11.
It also pointed out that the person that was singled out by Sentinal:
Which is pretty much what I was asking, where is the proof that it is linked to 9-11.
It also pointed out that the person that was singled out by Sentinal:
William Dahl, 41, a senior Paramedic, is among the four percent of claimants who got rejected.
The article also contains this:
The program required only 40 hours time at ground zero to qualify.
Arthur
Example of an oxymoron.
The expression "War on Terror"
The very phrase "War on Terrorism" is the subject of some debate and disagreement. First, there has always been considerable debate as to what constitutes terrorism. Under some definitions, all military action is terrorism, and thus some contend that it is impossible to wage a "War on Terror". In addition, the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war to end all wars, war on drugs, war on poverty, and the war on crime).
Jacob Levenson wrote, "Three years after the United States attacked Afghanistan, it is extremely difficult for the press to gauge where the United States stands in the war on terror because the term itself obscures distinction".
Some have referred to the war as a Christian crusade versus an Islamic jihad, even though both Jesus and Muhammad preached peace, nonviolence and nonresistance.
Pejorative terms
Critics have replaced "war on terrorism" or related phrases with pejorative terms:
* "War on Terra", an ad hominem attack on the accent of U.S. President Bush and an allusion to a concept of Pax Americana as worldwide U.S. dominance advocated by the Project for the New American Century.
* Britons and Australians may call it "TWAT" (The War Against Terrorism)
* Justin Butcher has parodied it as a "War against tourism," partly a reference to the accent of President Bush.20
* "War OF Terror"
* "Operation Iraqi Liberation" — abbreviated as "O.I.L" — is often used to criticise both the euphoric terminology used by the government for the Iraqi invasion and the impoundment of Iraq's oil resources which is very often considered the real purpose of the invasion.
* "War on Errorism" is an album by NOFX.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,901104,00.html
Completely within the character of a sophist we find the 'Appeal to the Oxford Concise Dictionary'.
I knew you would revert to this response, YID... once again demonstrating your slant towards semantics, whilst completely disregarding the meat of the post which had to do with the history and development of the NEW engineering term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse', (which NIST attempts to sell to the gullible as a definition of what happened at WTC).
Ignoring the development of the mystical 'progressive collapse' is WHY you find the post 'long' and 'off the mark'.
Not one word or reference to the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) nor the papers presented to the 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' by representatives (by Invitation Only).
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
I expected as much from you.
Through an unbiased analysis and reading between the lines of these papers --- in conjunction with the New Civil Engineer article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization"...
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article...vil_engineering
Completely within the character of a sophist we find the 'Appeal to the Oxford Concise Dictionary'.
I knew you would revert to this response, YID... once again demonstrating your slant towards semantics, whilst completely disregarding the meat of the post which had to do with the history and development of the NEW engineering term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse', (which NIST attempts to sell to the gullible as a definition of what happened at WTC).
Ignoring the development of the mystical 'progressive collapse' is WHY you find the post 'long' and 'off the mark'.
Not one word or reference to the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) nor the papers presented to the 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' by representatives (by Invitation Only).
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
I expected as much from you.
Through an unbiased analysis and reading between the lines of these papers --- in conjunction with the New Civil Engineer article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization"...
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article...vil_engineering
WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. ...
University of Manchester professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. ...
“NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said. ...
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
Further to the above... I (once again) tell the 'pancakers' to go home.
Those who have fallen behind in their research (and ob-fu-sk8tors such as the Schneiby crew) need to do some catching up with regards to the old Eagar / NOVA Pancaking Floors collapse theory.
It's Dead & Gone.
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Soooo ... go home 'pancakers'. Your disinformation is finished.
As for the fire-inferno supporters, you are dismissed also...
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Soooo ... go home 'pancakers'. Your disinformation is finished.
As for the fire-inferno supporters, you are dismissed also...
The Silverstein report also concludes that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. The fires were fueled by office furniture and floor contents initially ignited by the jet fuel, which burned out quickly. Dust and debris distributed by the crashes inhibited the fires, which at the impact floors were between 750°F and 1,300°F.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Well, that's 750 - 1350 F (according to the Weidlinger speculations).
NIST has provided NO forensic evidence of fire temps greater than 600 C.
I am not supporting the Weidlinger report in numerous other areas. for example here is a misleading schematic diagram of the impact damage of tower 1 which shows (scale-wise) damage greater than was actually observed...
The towers were brought down through the disproportionate progressive collapse caused by explosions.
The more you dig and investigate, the more this becomes irrefutable. Of course your eyes should have told you this right from the moment of the event, but the fact that you have been duped by the Shock & Awe Northwoods 2001 Psyopts is forgiveable (IF you abandon that delusion, once having the further forensic evidence put before you).
Maintaining that delusion, through fear of the realization of WHAT those Facts mean, is not forgiveable.
Delusion cannot be avoided by simply sticking your head in the sand like some ostrich, or depending upon sophistry to 'justify' delusions.
For someone who admits...
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
For someone who admits...
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
I'm still alive, but rather tired. 20+ hours commuting per week, still run down from the results of not taking care of myself...
I need to study non 911 stuff on weekends, and will focus on some 911 stuff after a few weeks, hopefully. My priority will almost certainly be talking to construction engineers, though I'm not sure how that can work as I now have a mostly fixed work schedule.
The one immediate exception is to try and contact Fetzer and give him the lowdown on the "free fall speed" controversy. I already sent him an email, but it bounced back. (I also requested associate membership, and still don't see my name listed....)
I will try to call him, tomorrow.
BTW, yesterday (Fri.) night I went to the WTC area. It was a nice night, and the area was sort of beautiful, but I still felt a strong sense of melancholy.
Basically nobody else was "taking in" the site - New Yorkers tend to hurry about their business, and apparently most everybody has put it behind them. There was one exception - a youngish man who was peering through the fence (which also obstructs the view with translucent plastic).
He looked a bit sad, and I wanted to ask him "what do you think happened here?"
However, he seemed immersed in a private reverie, perhaps remembering a lost loved one, and I didn't feel it was right to intrude.
Also, I haven't even managed to skim through the latest postings, but if there's not any mention of Karl Schwarz' people's latest findings, there probably should be (though a brief one, as this forum should be physics-oriented.)
Also her descriptions of the 'brisant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers bs explaination' that the Schneiby crew has been promoting.
Just a prediction, Arthur will argue against using the term “brisant flashes” and ignore the witness’s claims. Then common Sence or Yesitdid will state that Foxx is trying to mislead people. Then a guest will appear and state that a brisant flash is not a term associated with explosives.
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
Arthur
Can you tell me were NIST states this? How much does it cost to release the computer data?
Metamars, hi again
Regarding your comment on Karl Schwarz' recent 'findings'.
I am not sure whether the Schwarz you are referring to; and the one I am aware of, are the same person.
A lot of controversy has swirled about this 'activist'.
I was once fully convinced that he was 'reputable', (but since a couple of years ago)... I'm not so sure.
I try to avoid 'catfights' within the 9/11 independant investigators realms, but these inevitably come up.
Given the amount of psyopts being presented since 2001, it is really difficult to determine whose 'side' some 'posters / posers' are on.
Some disinformationists are purposeful deceivers, while others are not culpable in their actions, and are more guided by mis-placed zeal.
A couple of years ago a 'Karl W. B. Schwarz' was promoting an Online Journal series regarding the 'Pentagon Plane' thingie.
At first, he had me convinced that the motor part (sitting outside of the Pentagon) was a P&W JT8D engine (from an A-3 Skywarrior).
The Yid & Coastal will well remember this debate on Pravda.ru. After some heated exchanges, and fine examination of the points brought forward by Schwarz, (amidst some excellent debunkings from 'Tinfoilhatman' who works in the aviation field), I was forced to concede that Schwarz was mistaken (whether purposely or not).
I put these 'findings' on a page, and challenged 'Rense' & 'Online Journal' (as well as Schwarz) for a rebuttal... (which never came).
I also sent a copy of this research to Jim Hoffman.
The page can be seen here...
http://www.foxxaero.com/zyxpent.html
What is the 'moral' of this story?
...Examine all details of a story... independantly & objectively IF you really want to find the 'Truth'.
As has already been mentioned previously on this thread...
those really interested in truth will have no problem in admitting 'errors' (as Hoffman is well known for)... whereas 'ob-fu-sk8tors' and 'gravity-driven collapse supporters' seem incapable of doing such to modify their 'theories'...('they' are NEVER wrong !).
Anyway, in view of your statement related to a 'Karl Schwarz' new findings... I just thought I would mention the above info.
As you say the 'article(s) from him which you refer to his authorship are NOT related to the physics questions... and so may not be appropriate here anyway, but I am interested in WHAT you are referring to.
Let me know by PM (or other private message) what you are referring to.
Thanks --- Foxx
So would I, but there was no link.
Notice the guy's doctor said
QUOTE
It wasn't part of his claim to the city because his physician told him that unless other workers contracted the cancer, it couldn't be linked to 9/11 exposure.
Which is pretty much what I was asking, where is the proof that it is linked to 9-11.
It also pointed out that the person that was singled out by Sentinal:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It wasn't part of his claim to the city because his physician told him that unless other workers contracted the cancer, it couldn't be linked to 9/11 exposure. |
Which is pretty much what I was asking, where is the proof that it is linked to 9-11.
It also pointed out that the person that was singled out by Sentinal:
William Dahl, 41, a senior Paramedic, is among the four percent of claimants who got rejected.
The article also contains this:
QUOTE
the recently created 9/11 Disability Pension program, administered by NYCERS, EMS members denied Workers' Compensation could receive a tax-free pension, said Peter D. Meringolo, chair of the Public Employee Conference that gained passage of the legislation. He encouraged them to start applying for aid as soon as the program is up and running, which he expected would be in a few months.
The program required only 40 hours time at ground zero to qualify.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 11 2006, 04:47 PM)
My claim that Disproportionate Progressive is an oxymoron when used in conjunction with 'normal' building collapses is because...
A proportionate 'event' signifies a satisfactory relationship between things as regarding size, symmetry, and balance.
A progressive 'event' signifies moving forward in intensity or severity. (A progressive event depends upon cause & effect to move towards increasing intensity or severity).
A good example of a true 'disproportiate progressive' event is the chain reaction caused in nuclear fission. (An initial small collision 'progresses' exponentially into greater & greater collisions which completely destroys the 'whole').
...........................
oxymoron. ... Definition: A figure of speech
combining incongrous or contradictory words
Nice long post Foxx and it is completely off the mark.
The two terms in 'Disproportionate Progressive' are not incongruous or contradictory.
What you desribe is a disagreement as to what it really means.
That is not an oxymoron.
A proportionate 'event' signifies a satisfactory relationship between things as regarding size, symmetry, and balance.
A progressive 'event' signifies moving forward in intensity or severity. (A progressive event depends upon cause & effect to move towards increasing intensity or severity).
A good example of a true 'disproportiate progressive' event is the chain reaction caused in nuclear fission. (An initial small collision 'progresses' exponentially into greater & greater collisions which completely destroys the 'whole').
...........................
oxymoron. ... Definition: A figure of speech
combining incongrous or contradictory words
Nice long post Foxx and it is completely off the mark.
The two terms in 'Disproportionate Progressive' are not incongruous or contradictory.
What you desribe is a disagreement as to what it really means.
That is not an oxymoron.
For instance:
SMART as a FOXX
Would be an oxyMORON
(Note emphasis on MORON)
Arthur
SMART as a FOXX
Would be an oxyMORON
(Note emphasis on MORON)
Arthur
Example of an oxymoron.
The expression "War on Terror"
The very phrase "War on Terrorism" is the subject of some debate and disagreement. First, there has always been considerable debate as to what constitutes terrorism. Under some definitions, all military action is terrorism, and thus some contend that it is impossible to wage a "War on Terror". In addition, the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war to end all wars, war on drugs, war on poverty, and the war on crime).
Jacob Levenson wrote, "Three years after the United States attacked Afghanistan, it is extremely difficult for the press to gauge where the United States stands in the war on terror because the term itself obscures distinction".
Some have referred to the war as a Christian crusade versus an Islamic jihad, even though both Jesus and Muhammad preached peace, nonviolence and nonresistance.
Pejorative terms
Critics have replaced "war on terrorism" or related phrases with pejorative terms:
* "War on Terra", an ad hominem attack on the accent of U.S. President Bush and an allusion to a concept of Pax Americana as worldwide U.S. dominance advocated by the Project for the New American Century.
* Britons and Australians may call it "TWAT" (The War Against Terrorism)
* Justin Butcher has parodied it as a "War against tourism," partly a reference to the accent of President Bush.20
* "War OF Terror"
* "Operation Iraqi Liberation" — abbreviated as "O.I.L" — is often used to criticise both the euphoric terminology used by the government for the Iraqi invasion and the impoundment of Iraq's oil resources which is very often considered the real purpose of the invasion.
* "War on Errorism" is an album by NOFX.
QUOTE
But then the violence being done to the English language is probably the price we have to pay for cheap petrol.
Language is supposed to make ideas clearer so that we can understand them. But when politicians such as Colin Powell, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair get hold of language, their aim is usually the opposite. That's how they persuade us to take ludicrous concepts seriously.
Like the whole idea of a 'war on terrorism'. You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?
When you've got it removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?
When men in power propose doing something that is shameful, wrong and destructive, the first casualty is the English language. It would matter less if it were the only casualty. But if they carry on perverting our vocabulary and twisting our grammar, the result will spell death for many who are now alive.
Language is supposed to make ideas clearer so that we can understand them. But when politicians such as Colin Powell, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair get hold of language, their aim is usually the opposite. That's how they persuade us to take ludicrous concepts seriously.
Like the whole idea of a 'war on terrorism'. You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?
When you've got it removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?
When men in power propose doing something that is shameful, wrong and destructive, the first casualty is the English language. It would matter less if it were the only casualty. But if they carry on perverting our vocabulary and twisting our grammar, the result will spell death for many who are now alive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,901104,00.html
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Feb 11 2006, 08:09 PM)
Muhammad preached peace, nonviolence and nonresistance.
Frater,
Are you misinformed or are being intentionally misleading? Muhammad was a military leader for the last 10 years of his life.
Also I asked you a few days ago why you and the other civil engineers you know who believe the towers were demo'd are afraid to come forward and you have replied yet.
Len
Frater,
Are you misinformed or are being intentionally misleading? Muhammad was a military leader for the last 10 years of his life.
Also I asked you a few days ago why you and the other civil engineers you know who believe the towers were demo'd are afraid to come forward and you have replied yet.
Len
QUOTE
oxymoron. ... Definition: A figure of speech
combining incongrous or contradictory words
Nice long post Foxx and it is completely off the mark.
The two terms in 'Disproportionate Progressive' are not incongruous or contradictory.
What you desribe is a disagreement as to what it really means.
That is not an oxymoron.
combining incongrous or contradictory words
Nice long post Foxx and it is completely off the mark.
The two terms in 'Disproportionate Progressive' are not incongruous or contradictory.
What you desribe is a disagreement as to what it really means.
That is not an oxymoron.
Completely within the character of a sophist we find the 'Appeal to the Oxford Concise Dictionary'.
I knew you would revert to this response, YID... once again demonstrating your slant towards semantics, whilst completely disregarding the meat of the post which had to do with the history and development of the NEW engineering term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse', (which NIST attempts to sell to the gullible as a definition of what happened at WTC).
Ignoring the development of the mystical 'progressive collapse' is WHY you find the post 'long' and 'off the mark'.
Not one word or reference to the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) nor the papers presented to the 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' by representatives (by Invitation Only).
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
I expected as much from you.
Through an unbiased analysis and reading between the lines of these papers --- in conjunction with the New Civil Engineer article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization"...
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article...vil_engineering
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| oxymoron. ... Definition: A figure of speech combining incongrous or contradictory words Nice long post Foxx and it is completely off the mark. The two terms in 'Disproportionate Progressive' are not incongruous or contradictory. What you desribe is a disagreement as to what it really means. That is not an oxymoron. |
Completely within the character of a sophist we find the 'Appeal to the Oxford Concise Dictionary'.
I knew you would revert to this response, YID... once again demonstrating your slant towards semantics, whilst completely disregarding the meat of the post which had to do with the history and development of the NEW engineering term 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse', (which NIST attempts to sell to the gullible as a definition of what happened at WTC).
Ignoring the development of the mystical 'progressive collapse' is WHY you find the post 'long' and 'off the mark'.
Not one word or reference to the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) nor the papers presented to the 'National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse' by representatives (by Invitation Only).
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/mmcactiv9.html
I expected as much from you.
Through an unbiased analysis and reading between the lines of these papers --- in conjunction with the New Civil Engineer article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization"...
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/news/news_article...vil_engineering
WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. ...
University of Manchester professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. ...
“NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said. ...
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
Further to the above... I (once again) tell the 'pancakers' to go home.
Those who have fallen behind in their research (and ob-fu-sk8tors such as the Schneiby crew) need to do some catching up with regards to the old Eagar / NOVA Pancaking Floors collapse theory.
It's Dead & Gone.
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
QUOTE
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown NOT to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Soooo ... go home 'pancakers'. Your disinformation is finished.
As for the fire-inferno supporters, you are dismissed also...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown NOT to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. |
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Soooo ... go home 'pancakers'. Your disinformation is finished.
As for the fire-inferno supporters, you are dismissed also...
The Silverstein report also concludes that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. The fires were fueled by office furniture and floor contents initially ignited by the jet fuel, which burned out quickly. Dust and debris distributed by the crashes inhibited the fires, which at the impact floors were between 750°F and 1,300°F.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Well, that's 750 - 1350 F (according to the Weidlinger speculations).
NIST has provided NO forensic evidence of fire temps greater than 600 C.
I am not supporting the Weidlinger report in numerous other areas. for example here is a misleading schematic diagram of the impact damage of tower 1 which shows (scale-wise) damage greater than was actually observed...
The towers were brought down through the disproportionate progressive collapse caused by explosions.
The more you dig and investigate, the more this becomes irrefutable. Of course your eyes should have told you this right from the moment of the event, but the fact that you have been duped by the Shock & Awe Northwoods 2001 Psyopts is forgiveable (IF you abandon that delusion, once having the further forensic evidence put before you).
Maintaining that delusion, through fear of the realization of WHAT those Facts mean, is not forgiveable.
Delusion cannot be avoided by simply sticking your head in the sand like some ostrich, or depending upon sophistry to 'justify' delusions.
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com
Arriving at the Scene
Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?
Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.
KT: What was your position and who did you work for?
PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.
KT: How did your day start off on Sept. 11 and when did you get called to the scene at the WTC?
PO: It started off like any other. I had dropped a patient off at Bellevue and one of the Doc's asked if I was going to respond to the WTC. I told him it was out of my area. I asked "why, what's going on?" He told me they were getting reports that "a helicopter" had crashed into one of the towers. I responded after both planes had hit. I was on scene approx 45 min before the first tower fell.
[The 2nd crash happened at approx 9:03 a.m. and the South tower fell at approx 9:59 a.m.]
KT: Was the WTC area part of your regular route?
PO: No, I worked in the Times Square area. The WTC was far downtown from where I was.
KT: What did you immediately do once you arrived at the scene and do you remember where exactly you arrived at?
PO: I reported to a staging officer who told me to park the ambulance along Vesey Street. I ended up parking along the street in front of the 6 World Trade with several other ambulances. We were going to get any injured people who were brought out of the burning buildings to transport to the hospital. I don't remember where we entered from as I was not so familiar with the area.
Another Airplane Warning
KT: Did you basically stay around that area before the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am?
PO: Yes, we were staged waiting for the triage teams to bring us patients when an officer in a white shirt and blue pants (don't know from what agency) said that there was a radio transmission that stated, "Another plane was headed towards us!" We were told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move fast, but it wasn't fast enough. All of a sudden there was a lot of activity within the several agencies there and everyone started to scramble to ready their respective vehicles.
KT: When you were told another aircraft was approaching, was this right before the South Tower collapsed?
PO: Maybe 3 to 5 minutes prior. I don't know if that estimation is correct, but I remember we all had time to take a minute and look into the skies all around to see if we could see anything.
KT: Did you see any planes in the sky?
PO: No, there was nothing in the skies at that time.
KT: Did you happen to see any helicopters, military or non-military, flying around?
PO: I didn't see any helicopters at the time either.
KT: Where did they want you to move your vehicles too, any particular spot, or just "away" from the WTC?
PO: "Just get ready to move fast" is the phrase I remember.
KT: Did they want you to move away from the area right away, or just get ready to move if another plane was coming in?
PO: I don't know, they just told us to get our equipment, put it back in the vehicles and "get ready to move...fast". At that point, they seemed to realize it just wasn't a safe place to be.
KT: In retrospect, did it seem a little too coincidental that they told all of the rescuers to get ready to move out of the area minutes before the Tower collapsed?
PO: It was a bit eerie at the time as well. In that job, when someone tells you to "just move fast" there's nothing to question, you just move. We had been on scene for a while before just setting up and waiting for patients and all of a sudden there was so much activity. It did seem odd that after being there for some time all of a sudden everyone had to get ready to get out. I personally never expected the buildings to come down.
KT: Did you receive any direct warnings or hear any rumors that any of the towers might be coming down?
PO: We were not told the building was possibly going to collapse. I did not hear any rumors about a building collapse. I never heard anyone say anything to the effect that any of the buildings in the area were not stable at the time. We were simply told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move.
KT: Was Vesey Street blocked off between Church St and West St?
PO: Yes, I think all that were there were fire, police, EMS, and OEM [Office Emergency Management].
KT: Did you ever see any videos or cameras being confiscated from anyone that day?
PO: No.
KT: Did you see any newscasters or any other media people on or near Vesey taking any footage?
PO: No, none that I could see.
Cars Blowing Up
KT: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?
PO: I didn't know what was happening, but there was a loud "roar" -- lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I'd be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn't see around me anymore.
KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?
PO: No.
KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?
PO: Yes.
KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?
PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.
KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?
PO: Up the sidewalk.
KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?
PO: I remember parts flying off -- I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don't specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.
KT: Do you have any idea what was causing these vehicles to catch on fire and/or explode? Was the air temperature really hot as you were running by these cars?
PO: I don't know what was causing them to blow up. I didn't know at the time that I was trying to outrun a skyscraper falling on me, but after I found out what I ran from. I figured it was the impact of the building falling and residual effect. I am not an engineer, so I can only guess at a probable cause. I don't remember feeling any extreme heat.
KT: Could you tell if the vehicles blowing up on the street were only parked next to the WTC 6?
PO: I was only paying attention to my immediate surroundings, if there were any vehicles not near me blowing up, I wasn't aware of them, just the ones closest to me.
KT: What type of vehicles were they (cars, SUVs, trucks -- civilian, non-civilian) that were on fire or had blown up?
PO: They were unmarked cars, most likely privately owned. I didn't see any SUVs, trucks or any "official" vehicles on fire.
KT: Were these cars all parked next to each other?
PO: They were parallel parked. There was no discernable order to what was on fire. It was all very chaotic.
Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?
PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.
KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?
PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.
KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?
PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.
KT: Could you still hear any of these explosions when you turned to run back out, or was the noise outside too loud?
PO: I don't recall hearing any more when I resumed running. It was very chaotic.
KT: Now to be clear, were you inside the Lobby of the WTC 6, or were you outside the building when you witnessed these what appeared to be explosions?
PO: I was in the doorway, but not inside the lobby. I remember being able to breathe the somewhat cleaner air coming from inside the building. They stopped me as I was trying to get past the threshold.
KT: Were the explosions going off as you were entering the lobby area, or did they seem to start going off after the police tried to turn you away?
PO: It all happened at the same time. As I got to the doorway, I was told not to come in. As the officer was telling me I couldn't get in the building the flashes starting going off.
KT: Where the police just right at the lobby door, or were some also way inside the building?
PO: There were probably 4-5 officers in the doorway. I could see a few others back in the lobby area.
KT: You said you saw "federal police." What exactly do you mean and did you find it strange they were in there and that they wouldn't let you in?
PO: Well, they were in light brown uniforms and "Smokey the bear" hats. I assumed they were federal police because NYC police don't look like that and I knew there was a lot of federal offices in the WTC as well as the surrounding area, so it wasn't strange to me to see them there, but I did find it very odd that they wouldn't let me in to get cover. But like I say, in that profession, someone tells you to go an opposite way you are going, you don't ask, you just go. I remember hoping they got out as I was watching whatever the small explosions were, because they stayed in the building. They weren't locking it up after evacuating or anything like that.
KT: Did you know which government agencies were in the WTC?
PO: I knew there were a lot of federal agencies in the WTC complex, but I don't know which ones specifically.
KT: Did these policemen run out of the WTC 6 lobby after these explosions occurred, or could you tell?
PO: It didn't look like they did. It looked like they were there making sure no one ran in like I tried to do. I remember seeing them in the doorway, but don't know what happened to them after that.
KT: Did you happen to notice if they were wearing any earplugs or any other uncommon protective gear?
PO: There was nothing that I could see. They appeared to be dressed to simply do lobby detail. No flack wear, no overcoats, no helmets. To this day, I still wonder if they got out.
KT: Did you think these explosions in the lobby were maybe lights popping out as in an electrical surge, or did they seem more like explosives going off in a timed manner?
PO: I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.
KT: Have you ever seen a building being demolished with explosives on TV and was the flashes and pops similar to that?
PO: It did remind me of just that. I had seen something on a Las Vegas casino being demolished and that's what it reminded me of.
KT: Can you try to describe what these "pops" you heard sounded like?
PO: They sounded like light bulbs popping, but there were no light fixtures where the explosions were coming from. The sound was not all that loud.
KT: Do you think these explosions you witnessed were loud enough to be heard on the street?
PO: Because of everything going on, I don't think these "pops" could have been heard from the street. It was definitely louder outside as a whole.
KT: At the time, who did you think planted these explosives in there?
PO: I didn't have any notions of where to put blame per se, but I remember thinking that it was possibly the same organization who tried to blow up the building back in 1993. I figured they came back to finish the job. At the time I was running, I remember thinking that "they" wired the whole area. At the time I wasn't aware that what made the towers catch fire were passenger jets crashing. I thought the buildings had bombs planted to go off that day. The idea of not only one passenger jet, but two took me a while to comprehend -- not to mention the pentagon as well.
KT: Can you estimate how long after you heard the load rumbling, which was the South Tower coming down, to when you witnessed these explosives going off in the WTC 6?
PO: Well, remember this was all on the same street I was parked. It is very difficult for me to estimate time with so much happening at once, but I want to say maybe 2 to 3 minutes from the rumbling and the ground, and the cars, and the fires, that I tried to run into 6 WTC for cover, which is when I saw those explosions.
KT: Did anybody else besides you and the police witness these explosions in the WTC 6 lobby?
PO: I imagine there must have been others to see, I wasn't the only one running up the street. I can't imagine being the only person to try to run for cover. I didn't see any "civilians" in the lobby of the 6, just the brown uniformed officers.
Motorola Radio Troubles
KT: After you witnessed the explosions in the lobby of the WTC 6, you started running in which direction and then what happened?
PO: I kept running west on Vesey. I got hit with the cloud shortly after being turned away from 6 WTC. I was probably at the corner of Vesey/West Street at that point running. I ran towards the West Side Highway -- there is a park area there. I remember running across grass and there was now lots of grey and black smoke. I was just trying to get to the water because nothing was exploding, or on fire from what I could see. There were lots and lots of people also running that way at this point.
KT: When were you able to escape the dust cloud and what happened after that?
PO: I was now at the water's edge. There were no boats I could see, so I started to run north along the side of the West Side Highway. I was about 9 or 10 blocks north of Vesey on the West Side Highway. I found the first FDNY EMS vehicle and knew the crew as they were also from my station. I remember not being able to breathe so well -- felt like someone was standing on my chest. When I looked back, I could see people coming out of the black cloud and continuing to run and walk north on the West Side Highway as well.
KT: Did you notice any firefighters or other rescuers having technical problems with their Motorola radios or any other equipment?
PO: Oh yeah, at one point there was a loud "buzzing" sound and none of the EMS radios worked for maybe 30 seconds? We all used Motorola radios and I believe our repeaters were on top of the towers, so when the tower came down our radios failed. I tried to use my cellphone, but that too did not work.
KT: Do you know if anybody's cellphone worked and were able to get through to anybody?
PO: A few of my co workers had Nextel phones. Theirs worked, but they couldn't talk to anyone who didn't have a Nextel because all the other services were out at the time.
KT: When did you get to leave the area to go home?
PO: I left by ambulance. A FDNY EMS supervisor came up to myself and my colleagues and told us to "go back in." I still wasn't aware of what I had come out of and I told him anyone who didn't get out isn't getting out and it's not safe to go back in. He yelled at me, demanding all 3 of us "go back in." I told him I was having chest pain and trouble breathing and my colleagues took me to St. Vincent's Hospital. I was on the stretcher with an oxygen mask on looking out the back windows as we were driving off and saw the other tower collapse. It didn't occur to me at the time that the other one was already gone and that's what I came out of. I don't remember when I got home. I had to walk over the Queensboro Bridge and it was dark out. I walked home from my station at Bellevue. I lived in Astoria, Queens at the time. All I wanted to do was get home and see my cats.
Bag & Tag at Ground Zero
KT: In the days after, did you have to go back at Ground Zero?
PO: Yes, I think my first day back was maybe 3 days later.
KT: What were your duties when you had to go back?
PO: We all took turns doing morgue detail, standby for anyone who got hurt going through the rubble. I did morgue detail a few times.
KT: Is this what is referred to as "bag & tag"?
PO: Yes, when you have to log any body parts, or personal effects in morgue work. It was important to try to document any remains we found.
KT: Now despite this being probably the most chaotic incident you had to work at, did you find any strange things when you're recovering evidence there?
PO: Well, I remember cataloging findings in the morgue log -- a tooth, an arm and such. Never catalogued watches, wallets or jewelry.
KT: You never found any jewelry on any of the victim's parts?
PO: I didn't, no. But I do recall at some point either in Brooklyn or Staten Island they had a facility where debris was trucked to and the contents sifted by hand for any evidence. That was some time after 9/11, maybe a few weeks after they started that.
KT: Did you find any personal belongings on the ground or buried under any debris?
PO: I didn't.
KT: What about things like office furniture, computers, and pictures -- things that would be in a normal office building?
PO: Everything was this sort of grey/black debris. I personally never saw anything definable like a chair, desk, or phone, but I never went into what was the base of the building itself, there could have been there. I remember everything being layered in grey soot and ashes everywhere and just debris. One thing I remember distinctly was on a corner adjacent to the towers a bike messenger's bicycle still chained to the lamppost covered in soot.
KT: Have you ever worked a recover detail where you didn't find any recognizable personal belongings or objects like interior furniture, say from the aftermath of a fire?
PO: I never worked a recovery detail before that. It wasn't customary for EMS to work recovery. From time to time we would have to transport a body to the morgue after an investigation was completed if the deceased was in public view. I worked in midtown. In the 12 years I was with EMS, I never responded to anything like that.
KT: A year after the attacks, a victim's family received an ATM card that belonged to their son who was supposedly on Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower and was supposedly found in relative pristine condition by rescue crews at Ground Zero. Did you ever come across anything even remotely close to someone's personal item like this in any condition?
PO: I never came across any personal effects. The things I did find were charred, burnt, rubble covered in soot. I guess that's the needle in the haystack [the ATM card].
KT: So is it fair to say that you think something like this plastic ATM could not only not survive at Ground Zero, but not survive so well intact?
PO: I'd say it was a miracle.
Aircraft Wreckage
KT: Did you ever see any aircraft wreckage lying around on or after 9/11 at Ground Zero.
PO: Not on 9/11, but a bit after one day I was doing standby and there was a long flatbed truck bringing out a long piece of silver and charred metal, probably the length of 2 passenger cars, that one of the police officers doing standby detail with us brought to my attention and he said it was a piece of the plane.
KT: Could you at all tell what part of the plane this piece of debris you saw on this truck came from and could you see any windows or other discernable markings?
PO: No, it had to be brought to my attention what it was. In fact, I forgot I saw that until you asked the question. It would have stuck in my memory if it was a wing, or seats or anything like that. It was a somewhat long and curved at the edges piece of what looked like fuselage. I didn't see any company markings on it either.
KT: You mentioned this piece was silver in color. Did any part of that piece of silver debris you saw have any of the "shiny silver" you would see on your average American Airlines plane?
PO: Not when I saw it. The entire piece was dull and charred silver, but it definitely looked like part of a plane.
KT: Did anybody you know of who was at the WTC on 9/11 or at Ground Zero afterwards see or find any airplane debris?
PO: Not that I'm aware of. No one mentioned anything like that to me.
WTC Task Force Interview
KT: You were interviewed by the WTC task force afterwards. Did anybody else interview you about your experience at ground zero?
PO: The WTC Task Force was the only group that ever interviewed or debriefed me. They asked me to detail the events that day as well as mark on a map where I was parked and which way I ran.
KT: Who were the people at the WTC Task Force that interviewed you?
PO: I was told one was from the F.B.I., one was from D.O.I. [Dept. of Investigations], one was P.D. I recall there were 4 to 5 people involved. They were writing as well as voice recording.
KT: Do you know why some of the lines on pages 9, 12, 13 of your Task Force interview were blacked out?
PO: No, I never received a copy of my interview and I never read it. All I did was the one interview with them.
KT: When these officials were debriefing you, was this a normal routine after an incident?
PO: I had been on other calls that I was debriefed after (not many) and usually it was an EMS supervisor with P.D. if it was a crime scene, or if I had witnessed a crime, or incident in progress.
KT: Was your interview with the WTC Task Force more of a normal debriefing, or did you feel like you were being interrogated?
PO: I felt as if they were trying to pick apart every minute detail from every possible angle.
KT: Did you find that odd, especially having to trace your movements on a map?
PO: It was a crime scene, so much was lost. I figured they still had to recover equipment and needed to document. I think I was still a bit shell shocked to really consider it. There were so many things that were odd then, nothing was normal.
KT: Did you mention the flashes and explosions going off in the lobby of the WTC 6 to them?
PO: Yes, I did. I remember describing what looked like depth charges going off in the building I tried to run into, but I don't see it in the transcript of my interview.
KT: Did they ask you any follow-up questions about these explosions?
PO: No, they asked me to describe the events as I have described them to you here. I don't recall them asking any follow up questions. They simply took notes all the way through. The only specific questions I remember being asked was in regards to mapping out where my vehicle was and which way I ran.
WTC 5 Blowing Up
KT: On the Task Force interview, you said "I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on me was on Vesey." Which building were you refereeing to?
PO: I don't know, but that is all WTC property. I'm not sure if that was 6 or just a part of the WTC complex.
KT: When you said the building "blew up" on you, are you talking about the explosions you saw in the WTC 6 lobby?
PO: No, this was directly behind my vehicle as I was trying to put the stretcher back in. I don't know if that was part of 6 though. I ran from what was blowing up and that's when I tried to run into the lobby of 6. The vehicles were parked backed up to the curb, not parallel parked, so the back doors of the ambulance were facing the building [WTC 6] on the south side of Vesey.
KT: Do you feel that it was either the WTC 5 or 6 that was blowing up?
PO: Yes.
KT: Was this before the cars started catching on fire and blowing up, or about at the same time?
PO: All at the same time. Everything happened very quickly. I couldn't say which came first.
KT: You mentioned in that interview that you thought one of the lobbies of the building behind you is what blew out. Was this the lobby of WTC 5 or 6?
PO: I'm not sure, but it was probably 5 because 6 was west of me and that's the lobby I tried to run into.
KT: Can you describe more about how the building blew up on you? Did you feel the shock wave from the explosion and/or debris falling down near you?
PO: Well, one second I was trying to put my stretcher into the ambulance, the next thing I know I am thrown to the ground as the ground was shaking. Debris was flying at me from where the building I was parked in front of. There was a continual loud rumbling, there was just debris flying from every direction and then everything being covered in the black and gray smoke.
KT: Let's recap real quickly; your ambulance was parked backed up against the WTC 6, near the 6's corner by the alleyway between the WTC 5 and 6. When you were trying to put your stretcher back in, you were knocked down to the ground by an explosion that you thought came from the lobby of WTC 5. When you got back up, you started running west up the sidewalk on Vesey St towards West Side Hwy and then these cars parked along the street started blowing up as you ran by and that's when you tried to duck into the WTC 6 lobby for cover, but these policemen inside where preventing you from coming in and that's when you saw the explosions inside the lobby of WTC 6?
PO: Yes.
KT: Did anybody else you know concur with you that either the WTC 5 or 6 was blowing up at the same time you heard the rumbling of the South Tower collapsing?
PO: No, it never came up in discussion.
KT: After the attacks when things were starting to settle down for you and after the government and media was telling us what had all happened, did you ever look back and think what were all those explosions from the WTC 5 and 6 you witnessed were all about and why there was never any official mention of them?
PO: No, I didn't watch the news. I was a bit shell shocked to say the least. In fact the very first time I have revisited that day was when I found your site.
WTC 7
KT: You mentioned you left the WTC area before the North Tower collapsed, when did you hear about the WTC 7 collapsing, in which you were parked across them street from?
PO: When I stumbled onto your site 3 weeks ago.
KT: Did that surprise you that you never heard about the WTC 7 collapsing afterwards?
PO: Actually, it did. It confused me somewhat because I don't remember seeing anything on the news about it, or even knowing it was in any type of unstable condition.
KT: So you weren't aware that another building had collapse (which was WTC 7) when you returned to Ground Zero for morgue detail?
PO: No I wasn't. There was so much debris and wreckage I couldn't tell what was what anymore.
KT: When you were on the scene on Vesey St that whole time, did you happen to notice anything commotion or anything strange going on near the WTC 7?
PO: No.
Colleagues Lost
KT: Were you ever invited to the 9/11 Commission hearings?
PO: No.
KT: Were you ever gagged by anybody from talking about anything related to 9/11?
PO: No, I wasn't.
KT: Are you concerned that you might loose your job by speaking out on these issues?
PO: No, not at this time.
KT: Have you suffered any health effects from working down at Ground Zero?
PO: I broke a couple of ribs, but didn't realize it till 3 days later. I had, like most of my colleagues, the "WTC cough" for several months. It was an extremely annoying dry hack that didn't produce anything, but acted more like "spasms" rather than a cough. You'd get woken up in the middle of the night with this cough that sometimes would have you near passing out and unable to catch your breath. Over time it has dissipated, thanks gods.
KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?
PO: I stopped counting at 60.
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com
Arriving at the Scene
Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?
Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.
KT: What was your position and who did you work for?
PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.
KT: How did your day start off on Sept. 11 and when did you get called to the scene at the WTC?
PO: It started off like any other. I had dropped a patient off at Bellevue and one of the Doc's asked if I was going to respond to the WTC. I told him it was out of my area. I asked "why, what's going on?" He told me they were getting reports that "a helicopter" had crashed into one of the towers. I responded after both planes had hit. I was on scene approx 45 min before the first tower fell.
[The 2nd crash happened at approx 9:03 a.m. and the South tower fell at approx 9:59 a.m.]
KT: Was the WTC area part of your regular route?
PO: No, I worked in the Times Square area. The WTC was far downtown from where I was.
KT: What did you immediately do once you arrived at the scene and do you remember where exactly you arrived at?
PO: I reported to a staging officer who told me to park the ambulance along Vesey Street. I ended up parking along the street in front of the 6 World Trade with several other ambulances. We were going to get any injured people who were brought out of the burning buildings to transport to the hospital. I don't remember where we entered from as I was not so familiar with the area.
Another Airplane Warning
KT: Did you basically stay around that area before the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am?
PO: Yes, we were staged waiting for the triage teams to bring us patients when an officer in a white shirt and blue pants (don't know from what agency) said that there was a radio transmission that stated, "Another plane was headed towards us!" We were told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move fast, but it wasn't fast enough. All of a sudden there was a lot of activity within the several agencies there and everyone started to scramble to ready their respective vehicles.
KT: When you were told another aircraft was approaching, was this right before the South Tower collapsed?
PO: Maybe 3 to 5 minutes prior. I don't know if that estimation is correct, but I remember we all had time to take a minute and look into the skies all around to see if we could see anything.
KT: Did you see any planes in the sky?
PO: No, there was nothing in the skies at that time.
KT: Did you happen to see any helicopters, military or non-military, flying around?
PO: I didn't see any helicopters at the time either.
KT: Where did they want you to move your vehicles too, any particular spot, or just "away" from the WTC?
PO: "Just get ready to move fast" is the phrase I remember.
KT: Did they want you to move away from the area right away, or just get ready to move if another plane was coming in?
PO: I don't know, they just told us to get our equipment, put it back in the vehicles and "get ready to move...fast". At that point, they seemed to realize it just wasn't a safe place to be.
KT: In retrospect, did it seem a little too coincidental that they told all of the rescuers to get ready to move out of the area minutes before the Tower collapsed?
PO: It was a bit eerie at the time as well. In that job, when someone tells you to "just move fast" there's nothing to question, you just move. We had been on scene for a while before just setting up and waiting for patients and all of a sudden there was so much activity. It did seem odd that after being there for some time all of a sudden everyone had to get ready to get out. I personally never expected the buildings to come down.
KT: Did you receive any direct warnings or hear any rumors that any of the towers might be coming down?
PO: We were not told the building was possibly going to collapse. I did not hear any rumors about a building collapse. I never heard anyone say anything to the effect that any of the buildings in the area were not stable at the time. We were simply told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move.
KT: Was Vesey Street blocked off between Church St and West St?
PO: Yes, I think all that were there were fire, police, EMS, and OEM [Office Emergency Management].
KT: Did you ever see any videos or cameras being confiscated from anyone that day?
PO: No.
KT: Did you see any newscasters or any other media people on or near Vesey taking any footage?
PO: No, none that I could see.
Cars Blowing Up
KT: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?
PO: I didn't know what was happening, but there was a loud "roar" -- lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I'd be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn't see around me anymore.
KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?
PO: No.
KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?
PO: Yes.
KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?
PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.
KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?
PO: Up the sidewalk.
KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?
PO: I remember parts flying off -- I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don't specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.
KT: Do you have any idea what was causing these vehicles to catch on fire and/or explode? Was the air temperature really hot as you were running by these cars?
PO: I don't know what was causing them to blow up. I didn't know at the time that I was trying to outrun a skyscraper falling on me, but after I found out what I ran from. I figured it was the impact of the building falling and residual effect. I am not an engineer, so I can only guess at a probable cause. I don't remember feeling any extreme heat.
KT: Could you tell if the vehicles blowing up on the street were only parked next to the WTC 6?
PO: I was only paying attention to my immediate surroundings, if there were any vehicles not near me blowing up, I wasn't aware of them, just the ones closest to me.
KT: What type of vehicles were they (cars, SUVs, trucks -- civilian, non-civilian) that were on fire or had blown up?
PO: They were unmarked cars, most likely privately owned. I didn't see any SUVs, trucks or any "official" vehicles on fire.
KT: Were these cars all parked next to each other?
PO: They were parallel parked. There was no discernable order to what was on fire. It was all very chaotic.
Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?
PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.
KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?
PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.
KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?
PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.
KT: Could you still hear any of these explosions when you turned to run back out, or was the noise outside too loud?
PO: I don't recall hearing any more when I resumed running. It was very chaotic.
KT: Now to be clear, were you inside the Lobby of the WTC 6, or were you outside the building when you witnessed these what appeared to be explosions?
PO: I was in the doorway, but not inside the lobby. I remember being able to breathe the somewhat cleaner air coming from inside the building. They stopped me as I was trying to get past the threshold.
KT: Were the explosions going off as you were entering the lobby area, or did they seem to start going off after the police tried to turn you away?
PO: It all happened at the same time. As I got to the doorway, I was told not to come in. As the officer was telling me I couldn't get in the building the flashes starting going off.
KT: Where the police just right at the lobby door, or were some also way inside the building?
PO: There were probably 4-5 officers in the doorway. I could see a few others back in the lobby area.
KT: You said you saw "federal police." What exactly do you mean and did you find it strange they were in there and that they wouldn't let you in?
PO: Well, they were in light brown uniforms and "Smokey the bear" hats. I assumed they were federal police because NYC police don't look like that and I knew there was a lot of federal offices in the WTC as well as the surrounding area, so it wasn't strange to me to see them there, but I did find it very odd that they wouldn't let me in to get cover. But like I say, in that profession, someone tells you to go an opposite way you are going, you don't ask, you just go. I remember hoping they got out as I was watching whatever the small explosions were, because they stayed in the building. They weren't locking it up after evacuating or anything like that.
KT: Did you know which government agencies were in the WTC?
PO: I knew there were a lot of federal agencies in the WTC complex, but I don't know which ones specifically.
KT: Did these policemen run out of the WTC 6 lobby after these explosions occurred, or could you tell?
PO: It didn't look like they did. It looked like they were there making sure no one ran in like I tried to do. I remember seeing them in the doorway, but don't know what happened to them after that.
KT: Did you happen to notice if they were wearing any earplugs or any other uncommon protective gear?
PO: There was nothing that I could see. They appeared to be dressed to simply do lobby detail. No flack wear, no overcoats, no helmets. To this day, I still wonder if they got out.
KT: Did you think these explosions in the lobby were maybe lights popping out as in an electrical surge, or did they seem more like explosives going off in a timed manner?
PO: I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.
KT: Have you ever seen a building being demolished with explosives on TV and was the flashes and pops similar to that?
PO: It did remind me of just that. I had seen something on a Las Vegas casino being demolished and that's what it reminded me of.
KT: Can you try to describe what these "pops" you heard sounded like?
PO: They sounded like light bulbs popping, but there were no light fixtures where the explosions were coming from. The sound was not all that loud.
KT: Do you think these explosions you witnessed were loud enough to be heard on the street?
PO: Because of everything going on, I don't think these "pops" could have been heard from the street. It was definitely louder outside as a whole.
KT: At the time, who did you think planted these explosives in there?
PO: I didn't have any notions of where to put blame per se, but I remember thinking that it was possibly the same organization who tried to blow up the building back in 1993. I figured they came back to finish the job. At the time I was running, I remember thinking that "they" wired the whole area. At the time I wasn't aware that what made the towers catch fire were passenger jets crashing. I thought the buildings had bombs planted to go off that day. The idea of not only one passenger jet, but two took me a while to comprehend -- not to mention the pentagon as well.
KT: Can you estimate how long after you heard the load rumbling, which was the South Tower coming down, to when you witnessed these explosives going off in the WTC 6?
PO: Well, remember this was all on the same street I was parked. It is very difficult for me to estimate time with so much happening at once, but I want to say maybe 2 to 3 minutes from the rumbling and the ground, and the cars, and the fires, that I tried to run into 6 WTC for cover, which is when I saw those explosions.
KT: Did anybody else besides you and the police witness these explosions in the WTC 6 lobby?
PO: I imagine there must have been others to see, I wasn't the only one running up the street. I can't imagine being the only person to try to run for cover. I didn't see any "civilians" in the lobby of the 6, just the brown uniformed officers.
Motorola Radio Troubles
KT: After you witnessed the explosions in the lobby of the WTC 6, you started running in which direction and then what happened?
PO: I kept running west on Vesey. I got hit with the cloud shortly after being turned away from 6 WTC. I was probably at the corner of Vesey/West Street at that point running. I ran towards the West Side Highway -- there is a park area there. I remember running across grass and there was now lots of grey and black smoke. I was just trying to get to the water because nothing was exploding, or on fire from what I could see. There were lots and lots of people also running that way at this point.
KT: When were you able to escape the dust cloud and what happened after that?
PO: I was now at the water's edge. There were no boats I could see, so I started to run north along the side of the West Side Highway. I was about 9 or 10 blocks north of Vesey on the West Side Highway. I found the first FDNY EMS vehicle and knew the crew as they were also from my station. I remember not being able to breathe so well -- felt like someone was standing on my chest. When I looked back, I could see people coming out of the black cloud and continuing to run and walk north on the West Side Highway as well.
KT: Did you notice any firefighters or other rescuers having technical problems with their Motorola radios or any other equipment?
PO: Oh yeah, at one point there was a loud "buzzing" sound and none of the EMS radios worked for maybe 30 seconds? We all used Motorola radios and I believe our repeaters were on top of the towers, so when the tower came down our radios failed. I tried to use my cellphone, but that too did not work.
KT: Do you know if anybody's cellphone worked and were able to get through to anybody?
PO: A few of my co workers had Nextel phones. Theirs worked, but they couldn't talk to anyone who didn't have a Nextel because all the other services were out at the time.
KT: When did you get to leave the area to go home?
PO: I left by ambulance. A FDNY EMS supervisor came up to myself and my colleagues and told us to "go back in." I still wasn't aware of what I had come out of and I told him anyone who didn't get out isn't getting out and it's not safe to go back in. He yelled at me, demanding all 3 of us "go back in." I told him I was having chest pain and trouble breathing and my colleagues took me to St. Vincent's Hospital. I was on the stretcher with an oxygen mask on looking out the back windows as we were driving off and saw the other tower collapse. It didn't occur to me at the time that the other one was already gone and that's what I came out of. I don't remember when I got home. I had to walk over the Queensboro Bridge and it was dark out. I walked home from my station at Bellevue. I lived in Astoria, Queens at the time. All I wanted to do was get home and see my cats.
Bag & Tag at Ground Zero
KT: In the days after, did you have to go back at Ground Zero?
PO: Yes, I think my first day back was maybe 3 days later.
KT: What were your duties when you had to go back?
PO: We all took turns doing morgue detail, standby for anyone who got hurt going through the rubble. I did morgue detail a few times.
KT: Is this what is referred to as "bag & tag"?
PO: Yes, when you have to log any body parts, or personal effects in morgue work. It was important to try to document any remains we found.
KT: Now despite this being probably the most chaotic incident you had to work at, did you find any strange things when you're recovering evidence there?
PO: Well, I remember cataloging findings in the morgue log -- a tooth, an arm and such. Never catalogued watches, wallets or jewelry.
KT: You never found any jewelry on any of the victim's parts?
PO: I didn't, no. But I do recall at some point either in Brooklyn or Staten Island they had a facility where debris was trucked to and the contents sifted by hand for any evidence. That was some time after 9/11, maybe a few weeks after they started that.
KT: Did you find any personal belongings on the ground or buried under any debris?
PO: I didn't.
KT: What about things like office furniture, computers, and pictures -- things that would be in a normal office building?
PO: Everything was this sort of grey/black debris. I personally never saw anything definable like a chair, desk, or phone, but I never went into what was the base of the building itself, there could have been there. I remember everything being layered in grey soot and ashes everywhere and just debris. One thing I remember distinctly was on a corner adjacent to the towers a bike messenger's bicycle still chained to the lamppost covered in soot.
KT: Have you ever worked a recover detail where you didn't find any recognizable personal belongings or objects like interior furniture, say from the aftermath of a fire?
PO: I never worked a recovery detail before that. It wasn't customary for EMS to work recovery. From time to time we would have to transport a body to the morgue after an investigation was completed if the deceased was in public view. I worked in midtown. In the 12 years I was with EMS, I never responded to anything like that.
KT: A year after the attacks, a victim's family received an ATM card that belonged to their son who was supposedly on Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower and was supposedly found in relative pristine condition by rescue crews at Ground Zero. Did you ever come across anything even remotely close to someone's personal item like this in any condition?
PO: I never came across any personal effects. The things I did find were charred, burnt, rubble covered in soot. I guess that's the needle in the haystack [the ATM card].
KT: So is it fair to say that you think something like this plastic ATM could not only not survive at Ground Zero, but not survive so well intact?
PO: I'd say it was a miracle.
Aircraft Wreckage
KT: Did you ever see any aircraft wreckage lying around on or after 9/11 at Ground Zero.
PO: Not on 9/11, but a bit after one day I was doing standby and there was a long flatbed truck bringing out a long piece of silver and charred metal, probably the length of 2 passenger cars, that one of the police officers doing standby detail with us brought to my attention and he said it was a piece of the plane.
KT: Could you at all tell what part of the plane this piece of debris you saw on this truck came from and could you see any windows or other discernable markings?
PO: No, it had to be brought to my attention what it was. In fact, I forgot I saw that until you asked the question. It would have stuck in my memory if it was a wing, or seats or anything like that. It was a somewhat long and curved at the edges piece of what looked like fuselage. I didn't see any company markings on it either.
KT: You mentioned this piece was silver in color. Did any part of that piece of silver debris you saw have any of the "shiny silver" you would see on your average American Airlines plane?
PO: Not when I saw it. The entire piece was dull and charred silver, but it definitely looked like part of a plane.
KT: Did anybody you know of who was at the WTC on 9/11 or at Ground Zero afterwards see or find any airplane debris?
PO: Not that I'm aware of. No one mentioned anything like that to me.
WTC Task Force Interview
KT: You were interviewed by the WTC task force afterwards. Did anybody else interview you about your experience at ground zero?
PO: The WTC Task Force was the only group that ever interviewed or debriefed me. They asked me to detail the events that day as well as mark on a map where I was parked and which way I ran.
KT: Who were the people at the WTC Task Force that interviewed you?
PO: I was told one was from the F.B.I., one was from D.O.I. [Dept. of Investigations], one was P.D. I recall there were 4 to 5 people involved. They were writing as well as voice recording.
KT: Do you know why some of the lines on pages 9, 12, 13 of your Task Force interview were blacked out?
PO: No, I never received a copy of my interview and I never read it. All I did was the one interview with them.
KT: When these officials were debriefing you, was this a normal routine after an incident?
PO: I had been on other calls that I was debriefed after (not many) and usually it was an EMS supervisor with P.D. if it was a crime scene, or if I had witnessed a crime, or incident in progress.
KT: Was your interview with the WTC Task Force more of a normal debriefing, or did you feel like you were being interrogated?
PO: I felt as if they were trying to pick apart every minute detail from every possible angle.
KT: Did you find that odd, especially having to trace your movements on a map?
PO: It was a crime scene, so much was lost. I figured they still had to recover equipment and needed to document. I think I was still a bit shell shocked to really consider it. There were so many things that were odd then, nothing was normal.
KT: Did you mention the flashes and explosions going off in the lobby of the WTC 6 to them?
PO: Yes, I did. I remember describing what looked like depth charges going off in the building I tried to run into, but I don't see it in the transcript of my interview.
KT: Did they ask you any follow-up questions about these explosions?
PO: No, they asked me to describe the events as I have described them to you here. I don't recall them asking any follow up questions. They simply took notes all the way through. The only specific questions I remember being asked was in regards to mapping out where my vehicle was and which way I ran.
WTC 5 Blowing Up
KT: On the Task Force interview, you said "I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on me was on Vesey." Which building were you refereeing to?
PO: I don't know, but that is all WTC property. I'm not sure if that was 6 or just a part of the WTC complex.
KT: When you said the building "blew up" on you, are you talking about the explosions you saw in the WTC 6 lobby?
PO: No, this was directly behind my vehicle as I was trying to put the stretcher back in. I don't know if that was part of 6 though. I ran from what was blowing up and that's when I tried to run into the lobby of 6. The vehicles were parked backed up to the curb, not parallel parked, so the back doors of the ambulance were facing the building [WTC 6] on the south side of Vesey.
KT: Do you feel that it was either the WTC 5 or 6 that was blowing up?
PO: Yes.
KT: Was this before the cars started catching on fire and blowing up, or about at the same time?
PO: All at the same time. Everything happened very quickly. I couldn't say which came first.
KT: You mentioned in that interview that you thought one of the lobbies of the building behind you is what blew out. Was this the lobby of WTC 5 or 6?
PO: I'm not sure, but it was probably 5 because 6 was west of me and that's the lobby I tried to run into.
KT: Can you describe more about how the building blew up on you? Did you feel the shock wave from the explosion and/or debris falling down near you?
PO: Well, one second I was trying to put my stretcher into the ambulance, the next thing I know I am thrown to the ground as the ground was shaking. Debris was flying at me from where the building I was parked in front of. There was a continual loud rumbling, there was just debris flying from every direction and then everything being covered in the black and gray smoke.
KT: Let's recap real quickly; your ambulance was parked backed up against the WTC 6, near the 6's corner by the alleyway between the WTC 5 and 6. When you were trying to put your stretcher back in, you were knocked down to the ground by an explosion that you thought came from the lobby of WTC 5. When you got back up, you started running west up the sidewalk on Vesey St towards West Side Hwy and then these cars parked along the street started blowing up as you ran by and that's when you tried to duck into the WTC 6 lobby for cover, but these policemen inside where preventing you from coming in and that's when you saw the explosions inside the lobby of WTC 6?
PO: Yes.
KT: Did anybody else you know concur with you that either the WTC 5 or 6 was blowing up at the same time you heard the rumbling of the South Tower collapsing?
PO: No, it never came up in discussion.
KT: After the attacks when things were starting to settle down for you and after the government and media was telling us what had all happened, did you ever look back and think what were all those explosions from the WTC 5 and 6 you witnessed were all about and why there was never any official mention of them?
PO: No, I didn't watch the news. I was a bit shell shocked to say the least. In fact the very first time I have revisited that day was when I found your site.
WTC 7
KT: You mentioned you left the WTC area before the North Tower collapsed, when did you hear about the WTC 7 collapsing, in which you were parked across them street from?
PO: When I stumbled onto your site 3 weeks ago.
KT: Did that surprise you that you never heard about the WTC 7 collapsing afterwards?
PO: Actually, it did. It confused me somewhat because I don't remember seeing anything on the news about it, or even knowing it was in any type of unstable condition.
KT: So you weren't aware that another building had collapse (which was WTC 7) when you returned to Ground Zero for morgue detail?
PO: No I wasn't. There was so much debris and wreckage I couldn't tell what was what anymore.
KT: When you were on the scene on Vesey St that whole time, did you happen to notice anything commotion or anything strange going on near the WTC 7?
PO: No.
Colleagues Lost
KT: Were you ever invited to the 9/11 Commission hearings?
PO: No.
KT: Were you ever gagged by anybody from talking about anything related to 9/11?
PO: No, I wasn't.
KT: Are you concerned that you might loose your job by speaking out on these issues?
PO: No, not at this time.
KT: Have you suffered any health effects from working down at Ground Zero?
PO: I broke a couple of ribs, but didn't realize it till 3 days later. I had, like most of my colleagues, the "WTC cough" for several months. It was an extremely annoying dry hack that didn't produce anything, but acted more like "spasms" rather than a cough. You'd get woken up in the middle of the night with this cough that sometimes would have you near passing out and unable to catch your breath. Over time it has dissipated, thanks gods.
KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?
PO: I stopped counting at 60.
QUOTE
by LenBrazil
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
For someone who admits...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by LenBrazil Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory. |
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
QUOTE
"I think my talent in arguing with CTists lies in spotting logical holes [as opposed to technical ones] in their arguments."
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
Regarding the Spire,
There is a DVD called "7 Days in Spetember" which I hired last week. It has a home video sequence of the North tower collapse which I had not seen before.
It shows the spire briefly at the end of the collapse. It seems pretty clear to me that the spire is part of the perimeter columns rather than the core.
Are people still saying that the spire is part of the core?
(: hereward
There is a DVD called "7 Days in Spetember" which I hired last week. It has a home video sequence of the North tower collapse which I had not seen before.
It shows the spire briefly at the end of the collapse. It seems pretty clear to me that the spire is part of the perimeter columns rather than the core.
Are people still saying that the spire is part of the core?
(: hereward
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 12 2006, 02:13 AM)
Regarding the Spire,
There is a DVD called "7 Days in Spetember" which I hired last week. It has a home video sequence of the North tower collapse which I had not seen before.
It shows the spire briefly at the end of the collapse. It seems pretty clear to me that the spire is part of the perimeter columns rather than the core.
Are people still saying that the spire is part of the core?
(: hereward
The above interview with Patricia Ondrovic from 'Unregistered Guest' was quite an interesting read.
But on to your post hereward...
There is still ongoing discussions whether the spire was part of the perimeter or core column structure. I haven't seen absolute proof one way or another, yet.
I personally lean toward the core theory myself (at this time), but am not so committed that I would not be able to change my mind on that with better picture or video evidence.
Will you be putting the relevant portion of that dvd on your site?
Cheers
There is a DVD called "7 Days in Spetember" which I hired last week. It has a home video sequence of the North tower collapse which I had not seen before.
It shows the spire briefly at the end of the collapse. It seems pretty clear to me that the spire is part of the perimeter columns rather than the core.
Are people still saying that the spire is part of the core?
(: hereward
The above interview with Patricia Ondrovic from 'Unregistered Guest' was quite an interesting read.
But on to your post hereward...
There is still ongoing discussions whether the spire was part of the perimeter or core column structure. I haven't seen absolute proof one way or another, yet.
I personally lean toward the core theory myself (at this time), but am not so committed that I would not be able to change my mind on that with better picture or video evidence.
Will you be putting the relevant portion of that dvd on your site?
Cheers
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 12 2006, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE
by LenBrazil
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
For someone who admits...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by LenBrazil Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory. |
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
QUOTE
"I think my talent in arguing with CTists lies in spotting logical holes [as opposed to technical ones] in their arguments."
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
I'm still alive, but rather tired. 20+ hours commuting per week, still run down from the results of not taking care of myself...
I need to study non 911 stuff on weekends, and will focus on some 911 stuff after a few weeks, hopefully. My priority will almost certainly be talking to construction engineers, though I'm not sure how that can work as I now have a mostly fixed work schedule.
The one immediate exception is to try and contact Fetzer and give him the lowdown on the "free fall speed" controversy. I already sent him an email, but it bounced back. (I also requested associate membership, and still don't see my name listed....)
I will try to call him, tomorrow.
BTW, yesterday (Fri.) night I went to the WTC area. It was a nice night, and the area was sort of beautiful, but I still felt a strong sense of melancholy.
Basically nobody else was "taking in" the site - New Yorkers tend to hurry about their business, and apparently most everybody has put it behind them. There was one exception - a youngish man who was peering through the fence (which also obstructs the view with translucent plastic).
He looked a bit sad, and I wanted to ask him "what do you think happened here?"
However, he seemed immersed in a private reverie, perhaps remembering a lost loved one, and I didn't feel it was right to intrude.
Also, I haven't even managed to skim through the latest postings, but if there's not any mention of Karl Schwarz' people's latest findings, there probably should be (though a brief one, as this forum should be physics-oriented.)
Hi metamars, I had forgotten that you were taking that trip to NY. As you didn't mention anything, I suppose you didn't get a chance to talk to any of the firefighters there?
Best wishes on your new job. I hope it's enjoyable and rewarding to you.
I know you like to push the aspect that we need to approach civil & structural engineers, physics people, and other 'technicals' regarding having a look at all the 'evidence'. Not that I am 'knocking' or trying to downgrade such activities in any way, but think about your own architectural (cousin?).
All technical 'professionals' regardless of their qualifications are (after all) just mere humans, and subject to propaganda, group-think, biases, and other human attributes.
9/11 is such an emotionally-charged issue that it will be very difficult for anyone who is unaware of the unreported issues by Main Stream News, to suddenly become completely objective and be able to divorce their thinking from their own pre-conceived or propagandized beliefs, and to look at the events in a completely scientifically objective manner.
The denigration of 'conspiracy theorists' is so rampant in society that the average person has immediate psychological blocks to even listening to any theories outside of the 'official version' of events.
On the other hand, even though many of these 'professionals' would immediately 'pooh-pooh' alternative evidence, one can hope that a certain percentage of professionals might be convinced to have an honest look at the evidence.
2 - 3 years ago the 'Big Debunking' was "NOT ONE highly educated person with Ph'ds have stepped forward to support the conspiracy theories".
Today, many are stepping forward, and the 'Big Debunking' tactic now is to 'attack these messengers'.
It is interesting to note that Patricia Ondrovic apparently (according to the above transcript of an interview) states that she hadn't even considered such alternative theories until 'stumbling' upon some CT site 'a few weeks ago'...
Also interesting that she states she had never even heard about the collapse of WTC 7, (even though she was apparently right there at GZ). Reminds me of the shock I had when I first discovered (a couple of years after the fact) that a third building had also suffered Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse.
The authorities and media propagandists did a pretty good job of NOT reporting extensively on # 7.
Also her descriptions of the 'brisant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers bs explaination' that the Schneiby crew has been promoting.
Cheers
PS - what's Karl Schwarz up to now?
Best wishes on your new job. I hope it's enjoyable and rewarding to you.
I know you like to push the aspect that we need to approach civil & structural engineers, physics people, and other 'technicals' regarding having a look at all the 'evidence'. Not that I am 'knocking' or trying to downgrade such activities in any way, but think about your own architectural (cousin?).
All technical 'professionals' regardless of their qualifications are (after all) just mere humans, and subject to propaganda, group-think, biases, and other human attributes.
9/11 is such an emotionally-charged issue that it will be very difficult for anyone who is unaware of the unreported issues by Main Stream News, to suddenly become completely objective and be able to divorce their thinking from their own pre-conceived or propagandized beliefs, and to look at the events in a completely scientifically objective manner.
The denigration of 'conspiracy theorists' is so rampant in society that the average person has immediate psychological blocks to even listening to any theories outside of the 'official version' of events.
On the other hand, even though many of these 'professionals' would immediately 'pooh-pooh' alternative evidence, one can hope that a certain percentage of professionals might be convinced to have an honest look at the evidence.
2 - 3 years ago the 'Big Debunking' was "NOT ONE highly educated person with Ph'ds have stepped forward to support the conspiracy theories".
Today, many are stepping forward, and the 'Big Debunking' tactic now is to 'attack these messengers'.
It is interesting to note that Patricia Ondrovic apparently (according to the above transcript of an interview) states that she hadn't even considered such alternative theories until 'stumbling' upon some CT site 'a few weeks ago'...
Also interesting that she states she had never even heard about the collapse of WTC 7, (even though she was apparently right there at GZ). Reminds me of the shock I had when I first discovered (a couple of years after the fact) that a third building had also suffered Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse.
The authorities and media propagandists did a pretty good job of NOT reporting extensively on # 7.
Also her descriptions of the 'brisant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers bs explaination' that the Schneiby crew has been promoting.
Cheers
PS - what's Karl Schwarz up to now?
QUOTE (FOXX+)
Further to the above... I (once again) tell the 'pancakers' to go home.
Those who have fallen behind in their research (and ob-fu-sk8tors such as the Schneiby crew) need to do some catching up with regards to the old Eagar / NOVA Pancaking Floors collapse theory.
It's Dead & Gone.
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Foxx,
Why resort to LIES?
The NIST report clearly states that the collapse begins with the perimeter COLUMNS, not the floors.
The floors were what pulled the columns IN.
If the floors had FAILED then they couldn't pull the columns in now could they.
The PANCAKE analogy only applies AFTER the collapse ensues, it was not the STARTING point of the collapse.
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
Those who have fallen behind in their research (and ob-fu-sk8tors such as the Schneiby crew) need to do some catching up with regards to the old Eagar / NOVA Pancaking Floors collapse theory.
It's Dead & Gone.
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
QUOTE
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown NOT to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021025b.asp
Foxx,
Why resort to LIES?
The NIST report clearly states that the collapse begins with the perimeter COLUMNS, not the floors.
The floors were what pulled the columns IN.
If the floors had FAILED then they couldn't pull the columns in now could they.
The PANCAKE analogy only applies AFTER the collapse ensues, it was not the STARTING point of the collapse.
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 11 2006, 08:34 PM)
Also her descriptions of the 'brisant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers bs explaination' that the Schneiby crew has been promoting.
Just a prediction, Arthur will argue against using the term “brisant flashes” and ignore the witness’s claims. Then common Sence or Yesitdid will state that Foxx is trying to mislead people. Then a guest will appear and state that a brisant flash is not a term associated with explosives.
KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?
PO: No
So much for the "brisant" flashes.
Arthur
PO: No
So much for the "brisant" flashes.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 11 2006, 09:08 PM)
KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?
PO: No
So much for the "brisant" flashes.
Arthur
You must have selectively missed this part:
KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?
PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.
KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?
PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.
PO: No
So much for the "brisant" flashes.
Arthur
You must have selectively missed this part:
KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?
PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.
KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these "pops" you heard inside this lobby?
PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 11 2006, 08:56 PM)
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
Arthur
Can you tell me were NIST states this? How much does it cost to release the computer data?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 04:56 AM)
Why resort to LIES?
Then there is the LIE...
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
Still here, fu<kface? Don't they ever give you a day off?
Then there is the LIE...
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
Still here, fu<kface? Don't they ever give you a day off?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 04:56 AM)
Foxx,
Why resort to LIES?
The NIST report clearly states that the collapse begins with the perimeter COLUMNS, not the floors.
The floors were what pulled the columns IN.
If the floors had FAILED then they couldn't pull the columns in now could they.
The PANCAKE analogy only applies AFTER the collapse ensues, it was not the STARTING point of the collapse.
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
I should not respond to this, but this has to be without doubt the most tiresome aspect of following this thread, and I finally broke. For the love of God, can we have a break from calling people liars. If someone is lying we can all figure that out for ourselves, we don't need to have it shoved down our throats. Just state your facts.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
Why resort to LIES?
The NIST report clearly states that the collapse begins with the perimeter COLUMNS, not the floors.
The floors were what pulled the columns IN.
If the floors had FAILED then they couldn't pull the columns in now could they.
The PANCAKE analogy only applies AFTER the collapse ensues, it was not the STARTING point of the collapse.
Then there is the LIE about the Structural Engineers disagreeing with NISTs conclusions. The report says NO SUCH THING. SOME engineers would like to see a visualization, NIST says its not worth the expense.
This post seals it, FOXX and LIE are synonymous.
Arthur
I should not respond to this, but this has to be without doubt the most tiresome aspect of following this thread, and I finally broke. For the love of God, can we have a break from calling people liars. If someone is lying we can all figure that out for ourselves, we don't need to have it shoved down our throats. Just state your facts.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
QUOTE
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
Metamars, hi again
Regarding your comment on Karl Schwarz' recent 'findings'.
I am not sure whether the Schwarz you are referring to; and the one I am aware of, are the same person.
A lot of controversy has swirled about this 'activist'.
I was once fully convinced that he was 'reputable', (but since a couple of years ago)... I'm not so sure.
I try to avoid 'catfights' within the 9/11 independant investigators realms, but these inevitably come up.
Given the amount of psyopts being presented since 2001, it is really difficult to determine whose 'side' some 'posters / posers' are on.
Some disinformationists are purposeful deceivers, while others are not culpable in their actions, and are more guided by mis-placed zeal.
A couple of years ago a 'Karl W. B. Schwarz' was promoting an Online Journal series regarding the 'Pentagon Plane' thingie.
At first, he had me convinced that the motor part (sitting outside of the Pentagon) was a P&W JT8D engine (from an A-3 Skywarrior).
The Yid & Coastal will well remember this debate on Pravda.ru. After some heated exchanges, and fine examination of the points brought forward by Schwarz, (amidst some excellent debunkings from 'Tinfoilhatman' who works in the aviation field), I was forced to concede that Schwarz was mistaken (whether purposely or not).
I put these 'findings' on a page, and challenged 'Rense' & 'Online Journal' (as well as Schwarz) for a rebuttal... (which never came).
I also sent a copy of this research to Jim Hoffman.
The page can be seen here...
http://www.foxxaero.com/zyxpent.html
What is the 'moral' of this story?
...Examine all details of a story... independantly & objectively IF you really want to find the 'Truth'.
As has already been mentioned previously on this thread...
those really interested in truth will have no problem in admitting 'errors' (as Hoffman is well known for)... whereas 'ob-fu-sk8tors' and 'gravity-driven collapse supporters' seem incapable of doing such to modify their 'theories'...('they' are NEVER wrong !).
Anyway, in view of your statement related to a 'Karl Schwarz' new findings... I just thought I would mention the above info.
As you say the 'article(s) from him which you refer to his authorship are NOT related to the physics questions... and so may not be appropriate here anyway, but I am interested in WHAT you are referring to.
Let me know by PM (or other private message) what you are referring to.
Thanks --- Foxx
Patricia Ondrovic.
Heh....
Looks like old Patti saw a couple of planes explode over Jersey that day, too!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110048.PDF
Foxx,
Old Karl turned out to be a weasel, huh? Who warned you about him? Hmmmm?
Attack the messenger, indeed!
Coastal
Heh....
Looks like old Patti saw a couple of planes explode over Jersey that day, too!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110048.PDF
Foxx,
Old Karl turned out to be a weasel, huh? Who warned you about him? Hmmmm?
Attack the messenger, indeed!
Coastal
QUOTE (Fox+Feb 12 2006, 04:34 AM)
Hi meta mars, I had forgotten that you were taking that trip to NY. As you didn't mention anything, I suppose you didn't get a chance to talk to any of the firefighters there?
Best wishes on your new job. I hope it's enjoyable and rewarding to you.
I know you like to push the aspect that we need to approach civil & structural engineers, physics people, and other 'technicals' regarding having a look at all the 'evidence'. Not that I am 'knocking' or trying to downgrade such activities in any way, but think about your own architectural (cousin?).
All technical 'professionals' regardless of their qualifications are (after all) just mere humans, and subject to propaganda, group-think, biases, and other human attributes.
9/11 is such an emotionally-charged issue that it will be very difficult for anyone who is unaware of the unreported issues by Main Stream News, to suddenly become completely objective and be able to divorce their thinking from their own Prue-conceived or propagandized beliefs, and to look at the events in a completely scientifically objective manner.
The denigration of 'conspiracy theorists' is so rampant in society that the average person has immediate psychological blocks to even listening to any theories outside of the 'official version' of events.
On the other hand, even though many of these 'professionals' would immediately 'pooh-pooh' alternative evidence, one can hope that a certain percentage of professionals might be convinced to have an honest look at the evidence.
2 - 3 years ago the 'Big Debunking' was "NOT ONE highly educated person with Ph's have stepped forward to support the conspiracy theories".
Today, many are stepping forward, and the 'Big Debunking' tactic now is to 'attack these messengers'.
It is interesting to note that Patricia Entropic apparently (according to the above transcript of an interview) states that she hadn't even considered such alternative theories until 'stumbling' upon some CT site 'a few weeks ago'...
Also interesting that she states she had never even heard about the collapse of TC 7, (even though she was apparently right there at HZ). Reminds me of the shock I had when I first discovered (a couple of years after the fact) that a third building had also suffered Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse.
The authorities and media propagandists did a pretty good job of NOT reporting extensively on # 7.
Also her descriptions of the 'Briant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers BS explanation' that the Schneider crew has been promoting.
Cheers
PS - what's Karl Schwartz up to now?
First off, the construction engineers are not the ones to ask about EVERY aspect of the collapses. I have gone into this before and am pressed for time, so will not repeat these arguments. I get the sense you are concerned about hearing from some construction engineers that they have no problem with the Fairy Tale collapse versions. However, I am not concerned about that, at all.
If they merely wave their hands, that should mostly be obvious, even to somebody outside of their field, and certainly to other specialists that you can show what should be their detailed arguments to, which clearly explains the why of their claims. I would not be particularly impressed with hand-waiving statement against the FEM Fairy Tale, by construction engineers, either. More is required. (Indeed, recall some bozo poster on this thread who claimed an "ivy league" engineering prof was a skeptic, but couldn't give any details )
Note that when I debunked Biz's use of "elastic dynamic analysis", I stated exactly why it was not relevant. If somebody wants to rebut me, they have to be at least as specific. In summary: I am not particularly interested in construction engineers' hand-waiving "analysis", pro or con, and fairness requires you to rate such handwaiving of equal value, regardless of which side of the debate it comes down on.
Re Schwarz: It's certainly possible, on principle, that he's yet another disinfo guy, or has been fed disinfo, which he is unwittingly passing on. I did not follow the engine controversy closely, and, in fact, didn't know there was one. Note that Hufschmid is a member of "Scholars for 911 Truth", yet there is no disclaimer wrt his bogus claim of "free fall speed". (It doesn't help, either, that he claims Apollo moon landings were faked. ) I have sent 2 emails to reopen911.org, and yet their contest language is not only poorly written, but still subscribes to this mistaken belief.
Note further that Greg Szymanski has a radio show on rbn live, and he is rather questionable, IMO. See, e.g., an article on Szymanski 's treatment of Professor Jones, written for Hoffman's wtc7.net web site.
We need to keep our eyes open....
I am disappointed that we live in society where we have to unnecessarily take people's word for things (though sometimes that is the only basis you have, which you are free to accept or reject) Allow me to plug my remedy (once again )
Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media
I have recently posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.
The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
Note that I have 0 time to work on this, now, so am hoping that somebody will take the lead.
(Note to Activists: There is little hope for the necessary radical reforms of society to take place in a timely fashion, without an honest and competent media. Failure is an option, and so is wasting time for no good reason. Please think outside of the box, and consider whether or not reforming the media should take precedence over other activities.)
The latest Schwarz (http://karlschwarz.com/) "revelations" concern a NJ court finding re the WTC towers. There was a recent audio interview of Schwarz by Stadmiller (http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt06.html) Since this court was doubtless a public one, the case Schwarz is referring to should be public, and you and I should have the same access to it's details as him.
Best wishes on your new job. I hope it's enjoyable and rewarding to you.
I know you like to push the aspect that we need to approach civil & structural engineers, physics people, and other 'technicals' regarding having a look at all the 'evidence'. Not that I am 'knocking' or trying to downgrade such activities in any way, but think about your own architectural (cousin?).
All technical 'professionals' regardless of their qualifications are (after all) just mere humans, and subject to propaganda, group-think, biases, and other human attributes.
9/11 is such an emotionally-charged issue that it will be very difficult for anyone who is unaware of the unreported issues by Main Stream News, to suddenly become completely objective and be able to divorce their thinking from their own Prue-conceived or propagandized beliefs, and to look at the events in a completely scientifically objective manner.
The denigration of 'conspiracy theorists' is so rampant in society that the average person has immediate psychological blocks to even listening to any theories outside of the 'official version' of events.
On the other hand, even though many of these 'professionals' would immediately 'pooh-pooh' alternative evidence, one can hope that a certain percentage of professionals might be convinced to have an honest look at the evidence.
2 - 3 years ago the 'Big Debunking' was "NOT ONE highly educated person with Ph's have stepped forward to support the conspiracy theories".
Today, many are stepping forward, and the 'Big Debunking' tactic now is to 'attack these messengers'.
It is interesting to note that Patricia Entropic apparently (according to the above transcript of an interview) states that she hadn't even considered such alternative theories until 'stumbling' upon some CT site 'a few weeks ago'...
Also interesting that she states she had never even heard about the collapse of TC 7, (even though she was apparently right there at HZ). Reminds me of the shock I had when I first discovered (a couple of years after the fact) that a third building had also suffered Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse.
The authorities and media propagandists did a pretty good job of NOT reporting extensively on # 7.
Also her descriptions of the 'Briant' flashes and popping sounds pretty much destroys the 'transformers BS explanation' that the Schneider crew has been promoting.
Cheers
PS - what's Karl Schwartz up to now?
First off, the construction engineers are not the ones to ask about EVERY aspect of the collapses. I have gone into this before and am pressed for time, so will not repeat these arguments. I get the sense you are concerned about hearing from some construction engineers that they have no problem with the Fairy Tale collapse versions. However, I am not concerned about that, at all.
If they merely wave their hands, that should mostly be obvious, even to somebody outside of their field, and certainly to other specialists that you can show what should be their detailed arguments to, which clearly explains the why of their claims. I would not be particularly impressed with hand-waiving statement against the FEM Fairy Tale, by construction engineers, either. More is required. (Indeed, recall some bozo poster on this thread who claimed an "ivy league" engineering prof was a skeptic, but couldn't give any details
)Note that when I debunked Biz's use of "elastic dynamic analysis", I stated exactly why it was not relevant. If somebody wants to rebut me, they have to be at least as specific. In summary: I am not particularly interested in construction engineers' hand-waiving "analysis", pro or con, and fairness requires you to rate such handwaiving of equal value, regardless of which side of the debate it comes down on.
Re Schwarz: It's certainly possible, on principle, that he's yet another disinfo guy, or has been fed disinfo, which he is unwittingly passing on. I did not follow the engine controversy closely, and, in fact, didn't know there was one. Note that Hufschmid is a member of "Scholars for 911 Truth", yet there is no disclaimer wrt his bogus claim of "free fall speed". (It doesn't help, either, that he claims Apollo moon landings were faked.
) I have sent 2 emails to reopen911.org, and yet their contest language is not only poorly written, but still subscribes to this mistaken belief.Note further that Greg Szymanski has a radio show on rbn live, and he is rather questionable, IMO. See, e.g., an article on Szymanski 's treatment of Professor Jones, written for Hoffman's wtc7.net web site.
We need to keep our eyes open....
I am disappointed that we live in society where we have to unnecessarily take people's word for things (though sometimes that is the only basis you have, which you are free to accept or reject) Allow me to plug my remedy (once again
) QUOTE
Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media
I have recently posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.
The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
Note that I have 0 time to work on this, now, so am hoping that somebody will take the lead.
(Note to Activists: There is little hope for the necessary radical reforms of society to take place in a timely fashion, without an honest and competent media. Failure is an option, and so is wasting time for no good reason. Please think outside of the box, and consider whether or not reforming the media should take precedence over other activities.)
The latest Schwarz (http://karlschwarz.com/) "revelations" concern a NJ court finding re the WTC towers. There was a recent audio interview of Schwarz by Stadmiller (http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt06.html) Since this court was doubtless a public one, the case Schwarz is referring to should be public, and you and I should have the same access to it's details as him.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 12 2006, 01:40 AM)
I should not respond to this, but this has to be without doubt the most tiresome aspect of following this thread, and I finally broke. For the love of God, can we have a break from calling people liars. If someone is lying we can all figure that out for ourselves, we don't need to have it shoved down our throats. Just state your facts.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
QUOTE
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'. |
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
is ABSURD.
If I read a Police Report and it says "There is absolutely no proof that Mr X is a Child Molester" and I turn around and post: According to a Police report
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
Based on this article:
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
He uses the NCE article as PROOF of this, quoting some SELECT pieces even though the NCE article has been addressed before IN DETAIL.
Here's a bit more of the article:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
So Lon lets parse this and see if it AGREES with Foxx?
Ok the TEASER HEADLINE and lead in:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
So this teaser (and Foxx) makes it SOUND LIKE NIST is HIDING something.
But the REALITY is different, NIST isn't REFUSING TO SHOW ANYTHING. NIST simply didn't spend the MONEY to DEVELOP the visualizations that SOME people would like to see.
What was NIST's contention:
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
What was the reason given for WANTING the visualizations?
While University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response, he did not say he disagreed with NIST.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
Now does THAT Sound like professor Plank is in DISAGREEMENT with NIST?????
NO.
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
As a leading US structural engineer said "This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong"
Does THIS support Foxx's contention?????
NO
NIST obviously sees its money spent better elsewhere, such as the study of WTC 7, for which they have said they DO plan on developing a better Global Collapse model.
Which leads to the other point, no one who supports the NIST findings BELIEVES that EVERY structural Engineer is in COMPLETE agreement with NIST. This Strawman is set up by Foxx to give him WIGGLE ROOM. Both of these qualifiers represent a level of CERTAINTY which EVERYONE knows is not possible when using models, or in dealing with an event as complex as this. NIST doesn't even use this level of certainty in their report. What is clear though is NONE of these engineers is saying that NIST got it wrong in any major way.
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
Arthur
If I read a Police Report and it says "There is absolutely no proof that Mr X is a Child Molester" and I turn around and post: According to a Police report
QUOTE
Mr X is a Child Molester
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mr X is a Child Molester |
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
Based on this article:
QUOTE
The computer models, says the report, identify the failure of columns that either lost fireproofing or were destroyed on impact as the specific cause of the collapse of each tower. "No fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts," says the report.
It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City."
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses.
It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City."
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses.
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The computer models, says the report, identify the failure of columns that either lost fireproofing or were destroyed on impact as the specific cause of the collapse of each tower. "No fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts," says the report. It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City." The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses. |
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
He uses the NCE article as PROOF of this, quoting some SELECT pieces even though the NCE article has been addressed before IN DETAIL.
Here's a bit more of the article:
QUOTE
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
So Lon lets parse this and see if it AGREES with Foxx?
Ok the TEASER HEADLINE and lead in:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
So this teaser (and Foxx) makes it SOUND LIKE NIST is HIDING something.
But the REALITY is different, NIST isn't REFUSING TO SHOW ANYTHING. NIST simply didn't spend the MONEY to DEVELOP the visualizations that SOME people would like to see.
What was NIST's contention:
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
What was the reason given for WANTING the visualizations?
While University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response, he did not say he disagreed with NIST.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
Now does THAT Sound like professor Plank is in DISAGREEMENT with NIST?????
NO.
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
As a leading US structural engineer said "This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong"
Does THIS support Foxx's contention?????
NO
NIST obviously sees its money spent better elsewhere, such as the study of WTC 7, for which they have said they DO plan on developing a better Global Collapse model.
Which leads to the other point, no one who supports the NIST findings BELIEVES that EVERY structural Engineer is in COMPLETE agreement with NIST. This Strawman is set up by Foxx to give him WIGGLE ROOM. Both of these qualifiers represent a level of CERTAINTY which EVERYONE knows is not possible when using models, or in dealing with an event as complex as this. NIST doesn't even use this level of certainty in their report. What is clear though is NONE of these engineers is saying that NIST got it wrong in any major way.
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
Arthur
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 07:26 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 12 2006, 01:40 AM)
I should not respond to this, but this has to be without doubt the most tiresome aspect of following this thread, and I finally broke. For the love of God, can we have a break from calling people liars. If someone is lying we can all figure that out for ourselves, we don't need to have it shoved down our throats. Just state your facts.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
I will note that the following is Foxx's most recent statement regarding structural engineers and their thoughts toward the NIST study. It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
QUOTE
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'. |
Lon,
You do your group NO FAVOR by supporting someone who either distorts the truth or takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes.
All of which Foxx has been doing because he has invested so much time and effort that he is no desperate to prove his case.
Which is my point, when you resort to LYING you do nothing to prove your case and in fact make all your posts suspect. Your SUPPORT of Foxx makes YOUR posts suspect because Foxx's lies are so BLATANT.
There is absolutely NOTHING in EITHER of the articles that Foxx quotes that supports the position that NIST was wrong about the collapse of the towers.
To say that It looks to be right on base with the quotes Foxx has given.
is ABSURD.
If I read a Police Report and it says "There is absolutely no proof that Mr X is a Child Molester" and I turn around and post: According to a Police report
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
Based on this article:
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
He uses the NCE article as PROOF of this, quoting some SELECT pieces even though the NCE article has been addressed before IN DETAIL.
Here's a bit more of the article:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
So Lon lets parse this and see if it AGREES with Foxx?
Ok the TEASER HEADLINE and lead in:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
So this teaser (and Foxx) makes it SOUND LIKE NIST is HIDING something.
But the REALITY is different, NIST isn't REFUSING TO SHOW ANYTHING. NIST simply didn't spend the MONEY to DEVELOP the visualizations that SOME people would like to see.
What was NIST's contention:
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
What was the reason given for WANTING the visualizations?
While University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response, he did not say he disagreed with NIST.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
Now does THAT Sound like professor Plank is in DISAGREEMENT with NIST?????
NO.
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
As a leading US structural engineer said "This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong"
Does THIS support Foxx's contention?????
NO
NIST obviously sees its money spent better elsewhere, such as the study of WTC 7, for which they have said they DO plan on developing a better Global Collapse model.
Which leads to the other point, no one who supports the NIST findings BELIEVES that EVERY structural Engineer is in COMPLETE agreement with NIST. This Strawman is set up by Foxx to give him WIGGLE ROOM. Both of these qualifiers represent a level of CERTAINTY which EVERYONE knows is not possible when using models, or in dealing with an event as complex as this. NIST doesn't even use this level of certainty in their report. What is clear though is NONE of these engineers is saying that NIST got it wrong in any major way.
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
Arthur
Talk about taking something out of context. What is the cost of Visualization after compiling the data? Are you implying they did not use a Visualization to check their work?
Between you and I dear adoucette, there is only one of us who consistently denies and distorts the truth, and that would be you.
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now let's analyse your latest bs...
You claim that it is I who takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes... yet, in fact it is you who is guilty of this very thing.
For example... you quote the NCE article...
Between you and I dear adoucette, there is only one of us who consistently denies and distorts the truth, and that would be you.
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now let's analyse your latest bs...
You claim that it is I who takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes... yet, in fact it is you who is guilty of this very thing.
For example... you quote the NCE article...
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
Ignoring the statement that...
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (pxxxvii/39)
Yet, the above quote from a 'leading US structural engineer' tells us that "BY COMPARISON" the development of a global structural model is NOT as sophisticated ... (not as costly)
We are NOT really interested in things we already know... (that planes crashed, and there were ensuing fires)...
We want to know HOW these things led to the (previously unheard of) 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' myth.
We demand that NIST prove through computer modeling HOW the collapse occured.
We demand that NIST fulfill its objectives and to prove to us the computer modeling VISUALIZATIONS of HOW such an event is possible.
They deliberately truncated their investigation to exclude the very objective that they were charged to demonstrate... with the bullshit claim that they spent 'so much money' on telling us things we already knew that they didn't have any left over to explain the actual collapse mechanism... (the # 1 objective that they were supposed to do).
Read more about Circumscribing the Investigation here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/in...l#circumscribed
Now...great legendarian and mythmaker... try to answer gordons challenge to your bs.
If I read a Police Report and it says "There is absolutely no proof that Mr X is a Child Molester" and I turn around and post: According to a Police report
QUOTE
Mr X is a Child Molester
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mr X is a Child Molester |
My QUOTE may be accurate but the meaning is NOT.
As to the Quotes and contentions that Foxx makes:
Foxx makes this assertion:
Pancaking floors is a myth... a fairy tale (only believed by idiots and those who have not kept up).
The 'pancaking floors' theory was dismissed in Silversteins court case with the insurance companies by Weidlinger & associates way back in Oct 2002...
Based on this article:
QUOTE
The computer models, says the report, identify the failure of columns that either lost fireproofing or were destroyed on impact as the specific cause of the collapse of each tower. "No fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts," says the report.
It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City."
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses.
It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City."
The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses.
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The computer models, says the report, identify the failure of columns that either lost fireproofing or were destroyed on impact as the specific cause of the collapse of each tower. "No fireproofing is designed to withstand such devastating impacts," says the report. It adds that the fireproofing on the structural elements of the towers had been inspected regularly and that the inspection program "represented a greater standard of care than is generally followed for high-rise office buildings in New York City." The report exonerates the floor trusses for the collapses. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," it says. Studies by Hughes Associates and ARUPFire led the team to conclude that tower floors survived the initial impact of the planes, suffering only localized damage. On the basis of a review of smoke plumes and fire spread, for each tower, the engineers concluded that the fires did not lead to the collapses of the floors affected before the towers fell. Additionally, the engineers claim that computer modeling shows that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors explains the collapses. |
If you bother to read the NIST report it also states that the collapse begins with failure of the columns.
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated. Something which Foxx is well aware of.
Then Foxx makes this assertion:
It can readily be seen that (contrary to the position held by gravity-driven collapse supporters)... that structural engineers are NOT in complete agreement with the NIST postulations regarding 'Progressive Collapse'.
He uses the NCE article as PROOF of this, quoting some SELECT pieces even though the NCE article has been addressed before IN DETAIL.
Here's a bit more of the article:
QUOTE
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.
The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.
University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”
So Lon lets parse this and see if it AGREES with Foxx?
Ok the TEASER HEADLINE and lead in:
WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation
World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
So this teaser (and Foxx) makes it SOUND LIKE NIST is HIDING something.
But the REALITY is different, NIST isn't REFUSING TO SHOW ANYTHING. NIST simply didn't spend the MONEY to DEVELOP the visualizations that SOME people would like to see.
What was NIST's contention:
NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.
What was the reason given for WANTING the visualizations?
While University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response, he did not say he disagreed with NIST.
University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”
Now does THAT Sound like professor Plank is in DISAGREEMENT with NIST?????
NO.
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
As a leading US structural engineer said "This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong"
Does THIS support Foxx's contention?????
NO
NIST obviously sees its money spent better elsewhere, such as the study of WTC 7, for which they have said they DO plan on developing a better Global Collapse model.
Which leads to the other point, no one who supports the NIST findings BELIEVES that EVERY structural Engineer is in COMPLETE agreement with NIST. This Strawman is set up by Foxx to give him WIGGLE ROOM. Both of these qualifiers represent a level of CERTAINTY which EVERYONE knows is not possible when using models, or in dealing with an event as complex as this. NIST doesn't even use this level of certainty in their report. What is clear though is NONE of these engineers is saying that NIST got it wrong in any major way.
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
Arthur
Talk about taking something out of context. What is the cost of Visualization after compiling the data? Are you implying they did not use a Visualization to check their work?
QUOTE
by Arthurian Legends
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH.
Where I come from we call that LYING.
Between you and I dear adoucette, there is only one of us who consistently denies and distorts the truth, and that would be you.
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now let's analyse your latest bs...
You claim that it is I who takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes... yet, in fact it is you who is guilty of this very thing.
For example... you quote the NCE article...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Arthurian Legends For OTHERS who are NEW to this, I would simply correct their error, but Foxx has been at this FOUR YEARS, his are NOT MISTAKES but DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH. Where I come from we call that LYING. |
Between you and I dear adoucette, there is only one of us who consistently denies and distorts the truth, and that would be you.
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now let's analyse your latest bs...
You claim that it is I who takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes... yet, in fact it is you who is guilty of this very thing.
For example... you quote the NCE article...
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
Ignoring the statement that...
QUOTE
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. |
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (pxxxvii/39)
Yet, the above quote from a 'leading US structural engineer' tells us that "BY COMPARISON" the development of a global structural model is NOT as sophisticated ... (not as costly)
We are NOT really interested in things we already know... (that planes crashed, and there were ensuing fires)...
We want to know HOW these things led to the (previously unheard of) 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' myth.
We demand that NIST prove through computer modeling HOW the collapse occured.
We demand that NIST fulfill its objectives and to prove to us the computer modeling VISUALIZATIONS of HOW such an event is possible.
They deliberately truncated their investigation to exclude the very objective that they were charged to demonstrate... with the bullshit claim that they spent 'so much money' on telling us things we already knew that they didn't have any left over to explain the actual collapse mechanism... (the # 1 objective that they were supposed to do).
Read more about Circumscribing the Investigation here...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/in...l#circumscribed
Now...great legendarian and mythmaker... try to answer gordons challenge to your bs.
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 10 2006, 07:28 AM)
It is curious that 911myths cites the Fire Engineering article in support of the governmet conspiracy theory.
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
www.911myths.com provides a lot of links to alternate views so I am not sure why you shjould be surprised.
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
www.911myths.com provides a lot of links to alternate views so I am not sure why you shjould be surprised.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 12 2006, 05:19 PM)
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now this information I find useful if true. I saw a reference to Arthur being "outed" on the Pentagon thread but did not understand the issue and context as the relevant posts were deleted (for having involved personal information I believe). I don't know how to corroborate this info so I will leave it at that.
I am reconsidering my plea for an end to calling people liars and other names. Perhaps they should be urged to continue. It is simply a tactic and, as I implied earlier, anyone following the thread can pretty easily see who has an agenda and who is interested in getting at a full accounting of these matters. In the final analysis, there is no real need to be concerned about lies, distortions, and obfuscations for those engaged in spreading such "out" themselves regularly.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now this information I find useful if true. I saw a reference to Arthur being "outed" on the Pentagon thread but did not understand the issue and context as the relevant posts were deleted (for having involved personal information I believe). I don't know how to corroborate this info so I will leave it at that.
I am reconsidering my plea for an end to calling people liars and other names. Perhaps they should be urged to continue. It is simply a tactic and, as I implied earlier, anyone following the thread can pretty easily see who has an agenda and who is interested in getting at a full accounting of these matters. In the final analysis, there is no real need to be concerned about lies, distortions, and obfuscations for those engaged in spreading such "out" themselves regularly.
QUOTE (skyking+Feb 12 2006, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 10 2006, 07:28 AM)
It is curious that 911myths cites the Fire Engineering article in support of the governmet conspiracy theory.
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
www.911myths.com provides a lot of links to alternate views so I am not sure why you shjould be surprised.
Are you serious? Show one view that does not try to support the official conspiracy theory?
I had not read the original article before, but it is perhaps the most damning evidence of a post 9/11 cover-up that I have seen.
I have added it to the Critical Analysis section of my 911oz website:
http://www.911oz.com/link.phtml?id=129&nav_id=navbutt_129
The Critical Analysis section is my pick of the most interesting articles on 9/11 research.
911myths is really shooting itself in the foot by posting this.
(: Hereward
www.911myths.com provides a lot of links to alternate views so I am not sure why you shjould be surprised.
Are you serious? Show one view that does not try to support the official conspiracy theory?
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 12 2006, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 12 2006, 05:19 PM)
Having been exposed time after time in your charades, you have sunk to the level of Schneibster in attacking the messenger and blatantly use projection to accuse those who disagree with you of being 'Liars'.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now this information I find useful if true. I saw a reference to Arthur being "outed" on the Pentagon thread but did not understand the issue and context as the relevant posts were deleted (for having involved personal information I believe). I don't know how to corroborate this info so I will leave it at that.
I am reconsidering my plea for an end to calling people liars and other names. Perhaps they should be urged to continue. It is simply a tactic and, as I implied earlier, anyone following the thread can pretty easily see who has an agenda and who is interested in getting at a full accounting of these matters. In the final analysis, there is no real need to be concerned about lies, distortions, and obfuscations for those engaged in spreading such "out" themselves regularly.
this is true, lol! obvious obfuscations and deliberate distortions and overt ommisions are rampant here, or on ANY discussion board involved in these topics. these gov. autobots/pavlovian generators of popular myth are hired professionals.
total information awareness was a nice ploy. only the name has been changed to protect the guilty.
what's interesting is, that although conspiracy theorists disagree on many fine points like the who of it, and sometimes major points like nukes and holograms, most have done enough research to understand that there are FAR more holes in the official story than there are supporting facts of the official scenario.
most people here realise that there are major crimes being perpetrated on the american public, and consequentally the rest of the world by the american government and it's secret police forces.
despite a concerted effort to make everything an us/them argument(the hegelian divide and conquer rule, pg. 1 of the COINTELPRO disinfo tactical manual), the more experienced of us, here, have no problem ignoring the ad hominem(or, 'ad feminum' in my case, 'common sense', lol!?) and recognising numerous sock puppets as being one (vile) poster.
any lurker will quickly see who's who.
keep being vile, and keep talking, minion(s) of hell.
You pope-ishly imply above that you have some ability to 'correct' me, as if you are not NEW to this, even though you claimed a mere few months ago that you had no idea that the charge was being made that elements within the US spook community were complicit in the destruction of the WTC.
You lied then and your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
Now this information I find useful if true. I saw a reference to Arthur being "outed" on the Pentagon thread but did not understand the issue and context as the relevant posts were deleted (for having involved personal information I believe). I don't know how to corroborate this info so I will leave it at that.
I am reconsidering my plea for an end to calling people liars and other names. Perhaps they should be urged to continue. It is simply a tactic and, as I implied earlier, anyone following the thread can pretty easily see who has an agenda and who is interested in getting at a full accounting of these matters. In the final analysis, there is no real need to be concerned about lies, distortions, and obfuscations for those engaged in spreading such "out" themselves regularly.
this is true, lol! obvious obfuscations and deliberate distortions and overt ommisions are rampant here, or on ANY discussion board involved in these topics. these gov. autobots/pavlovian generators of popular myth are hired professionals.
total information awareness was a nice ploy. only the name has been changed to protect the guilty.
what's interesting is, that although conspiracy theorists disagree on many fine points like the who of it, and sometimes major points like nukes and holograms, most have done enough research to understand that there are FAR more holes in the official story than there are supporting facts of the official scenario.
most people here realise that there are major crimes being perpetrated on the american public, and consequentally the rest of the world by the american government and it's secret police forces.
despite a concerted effort to make everything an us/them argument(the hegelian divide and conquer rule, pg. 1 of the COINTELPRO disinfo tactical manual), the more experienced of us, here, have no problem ignoring the ad hominem(or, 'ad feminum' in my case, 'common sense', lol!?) and recognising numerous sock puppets as being one (vile) poster.
any lurker will quickly see who's who.
keep being vile, and keep talking, minion(s) of hell.
Does anyone have info on the approximate mass of WTC 1 and 2? The Frank Greening papers, which I am still looking over, use a mass of 510,000,000 kg for each. I have come across a post on another board which calls this into question. It indicates that the FEMA and NIST reports give a mass of 200,000,000 kg. The post goes on to suggest that 300,000,000 kg may be a better estimate. Here are some comparisons:
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 12 2006, 12:12 PM)
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
your lies were exposed when it was shown that you have a long history of working on the side of the gov't to try to debunk gov't conspiracies.
What lies were exposed Foxx?
I said I was NEW TO THE ISSUE THAT GOVT HAD BLOWN UP THE WTC TOWERS.
I posted the links to www.airdisaster.com where I had posted extensively on AVIATION related issues involving 9/11.
No one has posted anything to indicate that statement was not true.
What do you mean by Working on the side of the Govt?
You mean if I don't believe the BS you are trying to sell I'm working for them or on their behalf?
Arthur
What lies were exposed Foxx?
I said I was NEW TO THE ISSUE THAT GOVT HAD BLOWN UP THE WTC TOWERS.
I posted the links to www.airdisaster.com where I had posted extensively on AVIATION related issues involving 9/11.
No one has posted anything to indicate that statement was not true.
What do you mean by Working on the side of the Govt?
You mean if I don't believe the BS you are trying to sell I'm working for them or on their behalf?
Arthur
QUOTE (ReasonWhy+)
Talk about taking something out of context. What is the cost of Visualization after compiling the data? Are you implying they did not use a Visualization to check their work?
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
You claim that it is I who takes quotes out of context of uses only partial quotes... yet, in fact it is you who is guilty of this very thing.
==> BS, I put the entire article, including the parts you quoted, in my response.
==> BS, I put the entire article, including the parts you quoted, in my response.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
For example... you quote the NCE article...
Ignoring the statement that...
Ignoring the statement that...
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
==> Talk about BS. They spent the money to find out what happened to the towers because of the collision. You know, like how many interior columns were damaged and to what degree, because there was no other way to determine what happened on those floors besides a model.
==> MORE BS, they DID tell us why and how they collapsed. You just don't want to believe what they say.
==> MORE BS, they DID tell us why and how they collapsed. You just don't want to believe what they say.
Yet, the above quote from a 'leading US structural engineer' tells us that "BY COMPARISON" the development of a global structural model is NOT as sophisticated ... (not as costly)
==> MORE BS, because once the collapse ensued it was going to be total. Are you THAT moronic?
QUOTE
The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out.
Ignoring the statement that...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point is that VISUALIZATIONS are interesting and at times useful, but also very expensive to produce. As the article said, NIST is considering their request and hasn't ruled it out. |
Ignoring the statement that...
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
So, although NIST spent great sums of money on doing fancy CG to tell us things which we already knew... "planes crashed into the towers...and fires ensued', they then turn around and tell us that they couldn't afford to waste money on the VERY THING which they were mandated to do, and is clearly stated in their objectives which WAS to...
==> Talk about BS. They spent the money to find out what happened to the towers because of the collision. You know, like how many interior columns were damaged and to what degree, because there was no other way to determine what happened on those floors besides a model.
QUOTE
Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (pxxxvii/39)
==> MORE BS, they DID tell us why and how they collapsed. You just don't want to believe what they say.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (pxxxvii/39) |
==> MORE BS, they DID tell us why and how they collapsed. You just don't want to believe what they say.
Yet, the above quote from a 'leading US structural engineer' tells us that "BY COMPARISON" the development of a global structural model is NOT as sophisticated ... (not as costly)
==> MORE BS, because once the collapse ensued it was going to be total. Are you THAT moronic?
QUOTE (Foxx+)
We are NOT really interested in things we already know... (that planes crashed, and there were ensuing fires)...
We want to know HOW these things led to the (previously unheard of) 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' myth.
==>MORE BS, this is talking about WTC 1 & 2 and unlike WTC 7 there was NOTHING disproportionate about this collapse. One would think you would agree with NIST over the term "disproportionate" in regards to WTC 7, since that's in essence what you have been claiming ALL ALONG, that the collapse is OUT OF PROPORTION to the injury. Funny thing is, in your eagarness to slam everything NIST says, you slam the ONE thing they say that sorta agrees with your position.
The irony of that is so thick I think one would need thermite to cut it.
We want to know HOW these things led to the (previously unheard of) 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' myth.
==>MORE BS, this is talking about WTC 1 & 2 and unlike WTC 7 there was NOTHING disproportionate about this collapse. One would think you would agree with NIST over the term "disproportionate" in regards to WTC 7, since that's in essence what you have been claiming ALL ALONG, that the collapse is OUT OF PROPORTION to the injury. Funny thing is, in your eagarness to slam everything NIST says, you slam the ONE thing they say that sorta agrees with your position.
The irony of that is so thick I think one would need thermite to cut it.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
We demand that NIST prove through computer modeling HOW the collapse occured.
We demand that NIST fulfill its objectives and to prove to us the computer modeling VISUALIZATIONS of HOW such an event is possible.
===> "We demand"
Get over yourself, NOBODY gives a Shiit what YOU want.
I demand "Whirled Peas", but I don't think I'm gonna get it.
Arthur
We demand that NIST fulfill its objectives and to prove to us the computer modeling VISUALIZATIONS of HOW such an event is possible.
===> "We demand"
Get over yourself, NOBODY gives a Shiit what YOU want.
I demand "Whirled Peas", but I don't think I'm gonna get it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adouchebag+Feb 12 2006, 10:05 PM)
I'm working for them
And you never even get a day off...
Type, Arthur, type! Faster!
And you never even get a day off...
Type, Arthur, type! Faster!
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 12 2006, 06:30 PM)
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
No, Squibs are the invention of the CD crowd.
Which is really funny since squibs aren't used to do anything but set off High Explosives. Thus one NEVER sees a SQUIB go off.
Well, except in HOLLYWOOD, where squibs are used to SIMULATE explosions.
Now, do I believe a PRESSURE wave in front of the collapse is possible. You mean when an ACRE of floor collapses and ~ 400,000 cubic feet of air have to get out of the way in a fraction of a second?
Yeah.
Arthur
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
No, Squibs are the invention of the CD crowd.
Which is really funny since squibs aren't used to do anything but set off High Explosives. Thus one NEVER sees a SQUIB go off.
Well, except in HOLLYWOOD, where squibs are used to SIMULATE explosions.
Now, do I believe a PRESSURE wave in front of the collapse is possible. You mean when an ACRE of floor collapses and ~ 400,000 cubic feet of air have to get out of the way in a fraction of a second?
Yeah.
Arthur
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 12 2006, 06:24 PM)
QUOTE (adouchebag+Feb 12 2006, 10:05 PM)
I'm working for them
And you never even get a day off...
Type, Arthur, type! Faster!
Yeah, in honor of my hard work the White House called and asked if I'd like to go on a hunting trip with Cheney.
Arthur
For someone who admits...
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
Foxx,
I see you are your usual charming self. How much mileage do you expect to get out of those same quotes of mine? You already quoted them here, with the same eronious point. I was being a bit self-effacing since most of the most active members of AH are engineers and/or have science degrees. What exactly are YOUR science qualifications other than making fiberglass ornaments?
One doesn’t need a science degree to ask someone to back their claims. Metamars made a big issue over how the debunkers of the controlled demolition fantasy wouldn’t take his challenge to disprove his pet theory. A theory that I pointed out he hadn’t provided any evidence to support. He can do calculations and make claims till America is ready to elect an Arab-American transgender lesbian Atheist Anarchist president but if he does not provide any evidence such claims and calculations are worthless.
I agree that if the spire disappeared or “ceased to exist as solid object” as I think he put it in less time than free fall that something would be suspicious but he has not show that to be true. To me and the other at AH it looks as if the collapsing spire becomes shrouded by the enveloping dust cloud, he disagrees. Since he is the one making the claim it is incumbent on HIM to offer up some evidence. You contend it “telescoped” let’s see some proof.
As for your spin on that article from construction.com it does not bolster your case. At most it shows there is some disagreement among experts just as there is a great deal of disagreement among 9/11 “truth seekers”. It’s just one more of several studies by qualified experts that backs the impact damage + fire damage (exacerbated by damage to the fireproofing) led to the collapse. So far your side doesn’t have a single qualified expert supporting it. The report also backs the idea that the fires were hot enough to weaken steel (up to 1300 F).
Let’s try to think about this logically, if that study so contradicted the “official” theory to the point of invalidating it, do you think that Silverstein’s company would have released it? My dad has a PhD in chemistry and worked many years as a scientific consultant. His clients were law firms. He reviewed scientific reports and attended congresses etc. and told them how the latest scientific studies would impact their clients legal positions. I’m sure Silverstein would have the report vetted before releasing it. Your argument is like Creationists who play up small differences between evolutionary biologists to try to cast doubt on Evolution. Even if that report did substantially contradict others it is just one and there would be no reason to suppose it was right and the others wrong.
You don’t support the over all thesis of the report. Irrelevant it was prepared by a team qualified experts after detailed study of the relevant data. You are a solitary “Google researcher”/ ornament maker. You object that NIST didn’t have any forensic evidence of metal being heated to over 600 F. They calculated it reached higher temps. through computer models. Computer modeling is very commonly used in failure analysis. Do you have anything stronger than your suspicion to cast doubt on those models?
I never indicated let alone admitted that I “have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing” I have not seen a lot of hard science coming from you lately. Frater who claims to be an engineer almost never puts forth scientific arguments but I don’t see you getting on his case about it, but then again I don’t expect consistency from you.
You love throwing around those words “sophistry & semantics” I don’t think you really know what they mean. Prove me wrong provide examples of my use of “sophistry & semantics”.
I also have no interest in getting into a personal argumennt with you and will ignore any future BS from you about me.
And you never even get a day off...
Type, Arthur, type! Faster!
Yeah, in honor of my hard work the White House called and asked if I'd like to go on a hunting trip with Cheney.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 12 2006, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE
by LenBrazil
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL
Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory.
For someone who admits...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by LenBrazil Anybody know what happened to metamars. Ever since I challenged him to take up his own challenge and post frames of the the "spire's" collapse to back up his theory here and on AH he hasn't posted on either forum!!! LOL Do any of you CTists think there is anything to his the "spire" was zapped with an "uber secret" invisible death ray theory. |
For someone who admits...
I freely admit that my scientific background is close to zero. ... I can barely remember the science I learned in high school.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...29856715&page=1
I think you exalt yourself highly without merit. As metamars said, he was getting busy in other areas which could be a reason why he's not posted for about a week. On the other hand, he like most of us here do not have much use for disinformationists who wish to use sematics & sophistry in a proper scientific debate. He may also not be responding to you simply because he feels it is beneath his dignity to get into semantics with you in your self-professed...
QUOTE
"I think my talent in arguing with CTists lies in spotting logical holes [as opposed to technical ones] in their arguments."
You delude yourself, with your proclaimed 'talents'.
We have been over the spire numerous times. Metamars has put before all a challenge to show where his mathematics are wrong in analysing the drop in the spire. Neither YOU, nor anyone else has attempted to meet that challenge, so why would he respond to further bs from you?
Regardless of the alleged de-materialization of the 'spire', there is the other even more convincing fact that NO gravity-driven collapse supporters wish to acknowledge... that being the 'telescoping' aspect of the 'fall' of the spire. This can NOT be accounted for through known physics. A solid steel structure can NOT fall through itself in a completely vertical fashion. It is IMPOSSIBLE, yet that is clearly evident in the video clips. The 'spire' does NOT fall over (or to the side) as if something took out its base. It drops perfectly vertically through itself at near the rate of free-fall... such a drop is scientifically impossible according to known physics.
Although, I am responding to you (this once) regarding your above post to slap you for your arrogance, please don't expect me to get into expanded discussions or replies to your posts.
By your own admissions, you have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing, so I don't expect to waste a lot of my time responding to your sophistry & semantics.
Feel free to consider that non-response as if you have won some 'point' in the discussion, (like your quote above related to metamars contends). You are really ONLY deluding yourself, and a few other obfuscators who have attached themselves to this thread. Enjoy your delusions.
Foxx,
I see you are your usual charming self. How much mileage do you expect to get out of those same quotes of mine? You already quoted them here, with the same eronious point. I was being a bit self-effacing since most of the most active members of AH are engineers and/or have science degrees. What exactly are YOUR science qualifications other than making fiberglass ornaments?
One doesn’t need a science degree to ask someone to back their claims. Metamars made a big issue over how the debunkers of the controlled demolition fantasy wouldn’t take his challenge to disprove his pet theory. A theory that I pointed out he hadn’t provided any evidence to support. He can do calculations and make claims till America is ready to elect an Arab-American transgender lesbian Atheist Anarchist president but if he does not provide any evidence such claims and calculations are worthless.
I agree that if the spire disappeared or “ceased to exist as solid object” as I think he put it in less time than free fall that something would be suspicious but he has not show that to be true. To me and the other at AH it looks as if the collapsing spire becomes shrouded by the enveloping dust cloud, he disagrees. Since he is the one making the claim it is incumbent on HIM to offer up some evidence. You contend it “telescoped” let’s see some proof.
As for your spin on that article from construction.com it does not bolster your case. At most it shows there is some disagreement among experts just as there is a great deal of disagreement among 9/11 “truth seekers”. It’s just one more of several studies by qualified experts that backs the impact damage + fire damage (exacerbated by damage to the fireproofing) led to the collapse. So far your side doesn’t have a single qualified expert supporting it. The report also backs the idea that the fires were hot enough to weaken steel (up to 1300 F).
Let’s try to think about this logically, if that study so contradicted the “official” theory to the point of invalidating it, do you think that Silverstein’s company would have released it? My dad has a PhD in chemistry and worked many years as a scientific consultant. His clients were law firms. He reviewed scientific reports and attended congresses etc. and told them how the latest scientific studies would impact their clients legal positions. I’m sure Silverstein would have the report vetted before releasing it. Your argument is like Creationists who play up small differences between evolutionary biologists to try to cast doubt on Evolution. Even if that report did substantially contradict others it is just one and there would be no reason to suppose it was right and the others wrong.
You don’t support the over all thesis of the report. Irrelevant it was prepared by a team qualified experts after detailed study of the relevant data. You are a solitary “Google researcher”/ ornament maker. You object that NIST didn’t have any forensic evidence of metal being heated to over 600 F. They calculated it reached higher temps. through computer models. Computer modeling is very commonly used in failure analysis. Do you have anything stronger than your suspicion to cast doubt on those models?
I never indicated let alone admitted that I “have nothing to offer here related to the sciences we are discussing” I have not seen a lot of hard science coming from you lately. Frater who claims to be an engineer almost never puts forth scientific arguments but I don’t see you getting on his case about it, but then again I don’t expect consistency from you.
You love throwing around those words “sophistry & semantics” I don’t think you really know what they mean. Prove me wrong provide examples of my use of “sophistry & semantics”.
I also have no interest in getting into a personal argumennt with you and will ignore any future BS from you about me.
That green schematic is actually an accurate representation based on columns that were observed to be severed. The schematic starts around floor 70 which may look unusual at first glance.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021025-4.gif
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021025-4.gif
Progressive collapse isn't a post-911 term. It's been used often in the engineering community for decades and wasn't obscure before 911. Just read some professional structual engineering journals. It's not a term that is unique to controlled demolition either.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 12 2006, 01:49 AM)
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com
Arriving at the Scene
Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?
Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.
KT: What was your position and who did you work for?
PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.
[...]
KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?
PO: I stopped counting at 60.
What exactly is this interview supposed to prove? She claims she heard explosions in the lobby of 6 WTC – LOL – the CT’s are so detached from reality they don’t realize that they sometimes undermine their “theory”.
It would make no sense for the Illuminati/shape-shifters to detonate explosives in buildings they weren’t demolishing OR in buildings they demolished well before they brought them down. Therefore any witness reports of explosions or bombs or noises that sounded like explosions or bombs etc. under such circumstances reinforce the explanation that many things other than demolition charges could rationally explain such noises.
If I’m not mistaken there is one more category of person that does not support the “WTC was controlled demolition delusion”, WTC survivors. Not next of kin, not survivors who made comments that you think bolsters your case. Are their any people who were in either of the towers that morning who says publicly they believe the buildings were demolished with explosives?
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com
Arriving at the Scene
Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?
Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.
KT: What was your position and who did you work for?
PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.
[...]
KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?
PO: I stopped counting at 60.
What exactly is this interview supposed to prove? She claims she heard explosions in the lobby of 6 WTC – LOL – the CT’s are so detached from reality they don’t realize that they sometimes undermine their “theory”.
It would make no sense for the Illuminati/shape-shifters to detonate explosives in buildings they weren’t demolishing OR in buildings they demolished well before they brought them down. Therefore any witness reports of explosions or bombs or noises that sounded like explosions or bombs etc. under such circumstances reinforce the explanation that many things other than demolition charges could rationally explain such noises.
If I’m not mistaken there is one more category of person that does not support the “WTC was controlled demolition delusion”, WTC survivors. Not next of kin, not survivors who made comments that you think bolsters your case. Are their any people who were in either of the towers that morning who says publicly they believe the buildings were demolished with explosives?
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 12 2006, 08:03 PM)
Does anyone have info on the approximate mass of WTC 1 and 2? The Frank Greening papers, which I am still looking over, use a mass of 510,000,000 kg for each. I have come across a post on another board which calls this into question. It indicates that the FEMA and NIST reports give a mass of 200,000,000 kg. The post goes on to suggest that 300,000,000 kg may be a better estimate. Here are some comparisons:
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
Greening may have been using the total mass of both towers. That would explain the factor of two.
This site says the mass of both towers was about a million tons.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
Greening may have been using the total mass of both towers. That would explain the factor of two.
This site says the mass of both towers was about a million tons.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
I should point out that not only does Eric Hufschit think that man never went to the Moon (Fetzer doubts this too) he is also a Holocaust denier.
QUOTE (demello+Feb 13 2006, 12:51 AM)
Progressive collapse isn't a post-911 term. It's been used often in the engineering community for decades and wasn't obscure before 911. Just read some professional structual engineering journals. It's not a term that is unique to controlled demolition either.
Pancake collapse is not a new concept either. The Philly Fire Dept was worried about a possible collapse of One Meridian Plaza in 1991 after it burned for several hours. They consulted a structural engineer who declared that a "pancake structural collapse" might ensue and all firefighters were pulled from the building after the fire chief consulted Larry Silverstein the building's owner on the phone*.
http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdfpdf&e=9797 pdf page 23/114
That was a building that had not had a jumbojet fly into it a high speed severing dozens of support collumns, destroying/damaging fireproofing and dumping thousands of gallons of jet fuel into it
Len
*The part in italics is a joke of course
Pancake collapse is not a new concept either. The Philly Fire Dept was worried about a possible collapse of One Meridian Plaza in 1991 after it burned for several hours. They consulted a structural engineer who declared that a "pancake structural collapse" might ensue and all firefighters were pulled from the building after the fire chief consulted Larry Silverstein the building's owner on the phone*.
http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdfpdf&e=9797 pdf page 23/114
That was a building that had not had a jumbojet fly into it a high speed severing dozens of support collumns, destroying/damaging fireproofing and dumping thousands of gallons of jet fuel into it
Len
*The part in italics is a joke of course
Now, do I believe a PRESSURE wave in front of the collapse is possible. You mean when an ACRE of floor collapses and ~ 400,000 cubic feet of air have to get out of the way in a fraction of a second?
Yeah.
Arthur
No. I don't necessarily mean when an acre of floor collapses. That's up to you.
I asked maybe in a too roundabout way whether it was part of your theory that the floors pulled inwards on the wall but also managed to cause overpressures, several, indeed in some cases, many, storeys below the collapse front.
I find it difficult to believe that the floors could detach themselves then accelerate ahead of the collapse front to cause the overpressures at that level.
I also find it difficult to believe that if they stayed attached, they could cause overpressures a distance away, that distance as you indicate involving large volumes.
Or perhaps you had something else in mind?
Gordon.
Yeah.
Arthur
No. I don't necessarily mean when an acre of floor collapses. That's up to you.
I asked maybe in a too roundabout way whether it was part of your theory that the floors pulled inwards on the wall but also managed to cause overpressures, several, indeed in some cases, many, storeys below the collapse front.
I find it difficult to believe that the floors could detach themselves then accelerate ahead of the collapse front to cause the overpressures at that level.
I also find it difficult to believe that if they stayed attached, they could cause overpressures a distance away, that distance as you indicate involving large volumes.
Or perhaps you had something else in mind?
Gordon.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Feb 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
If I’m not mistaken there is one more category of person that does not support the “WTC was controlled demolition delusion”, WTC survivors. Not next of kin, not survivors who made comments that you think bolsters your case. Are their any people who were in either of the towers that morning who says publicly they believe the buildings were demolished with explosives?
Indeed, you are mistaken. There's at least several WTC survivors that I know of who don't believe in the "buildings just fell down" fairy tale, most notably the person who is believed to be the last one to exit the North Tower alive, after re-entering the building three times to rescue others. Look it up, and while you're at it maybe do a little research before you make your next proclamation.
Indeed, you are mistaken. There's at least several WTC survivors that I know of who don't believe in the "buildings just fell down" fairy tale, most notably the person who is believed to be the last one to exit the North Tower alive, after re-entering the building three times to rescue others. Look it up, and while you're at it maybe do a little research before you make your next proclamation.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 02:09 PM)
QUOTE (ReasonWhy+)
Talk about taking something out of context. What is the cost of Visualization after compiling the data? Are you implying they did not use a Visualization to check their work?
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
I have never used FEA without some form of visualization or post processer and find it hard to believe NIST does not see value in it. They could just release the raw data and let others post process the results.
"The `finite' in FEA comes from the idea that there are a finite, or countable, number of elements in a finite element model," explains Shepherd. "A computer then adds up all the individual behaviors to predict the behavior of the actual object." The computer is a necessity because using a calculator, while possible, would not get you very far; FEA is that tedious a technique. The FEA solver outputs a voluminous amount of data, which visualization tools then post process into graphical displays to show the stresses, strains, deformations, temperatures, and other details throughout the part."
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/109704.html
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
I have never used FEA without some form of visualization or post processer and find it hard to believe NIST does not see value in it. They could just release the raw data and let others post process the results.
"The `finite' in FEA comes from the idea that there are a finite, or countable, number of elements in a finite element model," explains Shepherd. "A computer then adds up all the individual behaviors to predict the behavior of the actual object." The computer is a necessity because using a calculator, while possible, would not get you very far; FEA is that tedious a technique. The FEA solver outputs a voluminous amount of data, which visualization tools then post process into graphical displays to show the stresses, strains, deformations, temperatures, and other details throughout the part."
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/109704.html
The nature of the fireproofing can mean the difference between a building standing and collapsing. The conspiracy sites like to post pics of the First Interstate Bank building fire but they don't tell you that the steel structures had very good fire proofing (see link below).
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
So if that were the case how did they withstand the force, transmitted through them, which is supposed to have pulled the perimeter columns inwards?
Gordon.
So if that were the case how did they withstand the force, transmitted through them, which is supposed to have pulled the perimeter columns inwards?
Gordon.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 13 2006, 03:36 AM)
The nature of the fireproofing can mean the difference between a building standing and collapsing. The conspiracy sites like to post pics of the First Interstate Bank building fire but they don't tell you that the steel structures had very good fire proofing (see link below).
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
so, no doubt, maintenance crews were constantly clearing this debris from the building, and reporting in the building maintenance records where and how much fireproofing was missing.
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
so, no doubt, maintenance crews were constantly clearing this debris from the building, and reporting in the building maintenance records where and how much fireproofing was missing.
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
The FBI lists Gadahn's aliases as Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.
But Adam Pearlmen is his REAL name! Adam is the grandson of the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993, much as AIPAC has been caught up in the more recent spy scandal.
I saw the above item on whatreallyhappened and thought it coincidental that there is again a mention of a urologist.
Have we uncovered a secret nest of ........I'm not sure???.....But they are definitely using urology as a cover.
Maybe its a code?
Or maybe its a rank??? and you could get promoted to gynaecologist or ornithologist??
The Orange County thing is definitely phoney because Orange is a colour, not a place. Unless you are in Northern Ireland. or Glasgow on Saturdays, when it can be a matter of life or death.
You can fool some of the people, but some of us can spot those vital clues.
Gordon.
But Adam Pearlmen is his REAL name! Adam is the grandson of the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993, much as AIPAC has been caught up in the more recent spy scandal.
I saw the above item on whatreallyhappened and thought it coincidental that there is again a mention of a urologist.
Have we uncovered a secret nest of ........I'm not sure???.....But they are definitely using urology as a cover.
Maybe its a code?
Or maybe its a rank??? and you could get promoted to gynaecologist or ornithologist??
The Orange County thing is definitely phoney because Orange is a colour, not a place. Unless you are in Northern Ireland. or Glasgow on Saturdays, when it can be a matter of life or death.
You can fool some of the people, but some of us can spot those vital clues.
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 12 2006, 06:30 PM)
The "pancaking floors" begins AFTER the collapse is initiated.
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
No, Squibs are the invention of the CD crowd.
Which is really funny since squibs aren't used to do anything but set off High Explosives. Thus one NEVER sees a SQUIB go off.
Well, except in HOLLYWOOD, where squibs are used to SIMULATE explosions.
Now, do I believe a PRESSURE wave in front of the collapse is possible. You mean when an ACRE of floor collapses and ~ 400,000 cubic feet of air have to get out of the way in a fraction of a second?
Yeah.
Arthur
You are shamelessly playing with semantics. The term "squib" as it's used in our discussions has cause and effect phases of definition. A squib is a smaller explosive that causes detonation in a larger one. A secondary, implied, working definition deals with the effect of this force. An external manifestation from the interior; caused by pressure reaching the exterior. The effect is also called a squib. We understand someone is implying a horizontal plume.
Go to CD sites and you can watch squibs all day, emanating from all over the buildings before they collapse. Are you for real saying no one ever sees a squib go off AND by the way, you're using the secondary definition here.
Most Hollywood movies, now a days, use over the top, expanding, pyro-technical conflagrations that come at you and throw the actors through the air. You need to get out more. I will fill in for your lack of linguistic precision. Your talking about strafing simulation from say a WW2 fighter aircraft attacking ground troops. They use sequentially timed strings of squibs to imply that visually.
Why would the initial asymmetrical south tower collapse instigate a pancake event. Any impact off-the-horizontal would be amplified in the other direction by subsequent impact. Just for the sake of argument, the closest thing to pancaking I could even envision, would be an escalating rocking effect, back and forth, all the way down. It doesn't explain the core obliteration, however. Another problem is what happened to all that chaos that effectively crushed and pulverized, early on, all the debris into micron magnitudes? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways. Either the floors were compressing pistons or they quickly became a chaotic, obliterating, falling debris cloud. Make up your mind.
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
The ONLY place it would matter that fireproofing was knocked off would be on the IMPACT floors and of course there is NO WAY that any explosives could have been set off on those floors. Nor were there any evidence of explosive going off on those floors.
So your point is?????
Arthur
So if the floors pulled the columns in, how did they then manage to detach themselves and then accelerate to be several floors ahead of the collapse front?
Gordon.
Who said they were detaching several floors ahead of the "collapse front"?
Arthur
I thought that part of the official conspiracy theory was that squibs due to overpressure several floors ahead of the collapse front were caused by floors pancaking at that region?
Has that changed?
Are we now being asked to believe that the overpressure was caused by the floors pancaking at the collapse front and that the overpressure extended far ahead of the collapse?
Gordon
No, Squibs are the invention of the CD crowd.
Which is really funny since squibs aren't used to do anything but set off High Explosives. Thus one NEVER sees a SQUIB go off.
Well, except in HOLLYWOOD, where squibs are used to SIMULATE explosions.
Now, do I believe a PRESSURE wave in front of the collapse is possible. You mean when an ACRE of floor collapses and ~ 400,000 cubic feet of air have to get out of the way in a fraction of a second?
Yeah.
Arthur
You are shamelessly playing with semantics. The term "squib" as it's used in our discussions has cause and effect phases of definition. A squib is a smaller explosive that causes detonation in a larger one. A secondary, implied, working definition deals with the effect of this force. An external manifestation from the interior; caused by pressure reaching the exterior. The effect is also called a squib. We understand someone is implying a horizontal plume.
Go to CD sites and you can watch squibs all day, emanating from all over the buildings before they collapse. Are you for real saying no one ever sees a squib go off AND by the way, you're using the secondary definition here.
Most Hollywood movies, now a days, use over the top, expanding, pyro-technical conflagrations that come at you and throw the actors through the air. You need to get out more. I will fill in for your lack of linguistic precision. Your talking about strafing simulation from say a WW2 fighter aircraft attacking ground troops. They use sequentially timed strings of squibs to imply that visually.
Why would the initial asymmetrical south tower collapse instigate a pancake event. Any impact off-the-horizontal would be amplified in the other direction by subsequent impact. Just for the sake of argument, the closest thing to pancaking I could even envision, would be an escalating rocking effect, back and forth, all the way down. It doesn't explain the core obliteration, however. Another problem is what happened to all that chaos that effectively crushed and pulverized, early on, all the debris into micron magnitudes? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways. Either the floors were compressing pistons or they quickly became a chaotic, obliterating, falling debris cloud. Make up your mind.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+)
A secondary, implied, working definition deals with the effect of this force. An external manifestation from the interior; caused by pressure reaching the exterior. The effect is also called a squib. We understand someone is implying a horizontal plume.
I'm shamelessly playing with semantics?
CD'ers use the term SQUIB whenever there is a small puff of smoke seen in a video.
They have NO EVIDENCE that the puff of SMOKE has anything to do with High Explosives, and yet they use the term ASSOCIATED with a small explosion.
Based on WHAT?????
Of course they ignore the fact that in REAL LIFE one NEVER SEES a squib go off, since its small explosion is totally overshawdowed by the blast from the High Explosive that it is used to detonate.
Arthur
I'm shamelessly playing with semantics?
CD'ers use the term SQUIB whenever there is a small puff of smoke seen in a video.
They have NO EVIDENCE that the puff of SMOKE has anything to do with High Explosives, and yet they use the term ASSOCIATED with a small explosion.
Based on WHAT?????
Of course they ignore the fact that in REAL LIFE one NEVER SEES a squib go off, since its small explosion is totally overshawdowed by the blast from the High Explosive that it is used to detonate.
Arthur
QUOTE (Zoktoberfest+)
Why would the initial asymmetrical south tower collapse instigate a pancake event. Any impact off-the-horizontal would be amplified in the other direction by subsequent impact. If anything, I see a rocking effect, back and forth, all the way down. Another problem is what happened to all that chaos that effectively crushed and pulverized all the debris into micron magnitudes. It seems to me, you can't have it both ways. Either the floors were continuous pistons or they were a chaotic, obliterating, falling debris cloud. Make up your mind.
Well it isn't that asymmetrical, and further the very strong external tube would tend to refocus the top portion towards the center, not amplify it in the other direction.
At least that's my opinion.
And I've made up my mind, the floors were continuous pistons until they became part of the chaotic, obliterating, falling debris cloud.
Sheeesh.
You guys are unreal, you expect explanations for every last detail seen in any of the videos that day.
Ain't gonna happen. It took NIST $16 million to produce the report you can read and no one's going to spend more money then NIST did on figuring out what happened to WTC 1 or 2.
I mean its pretty pathetic since no group on your side seems to be able to come up with the measly $13,000 to get a copy of all the pictures and movies from NIST's library.
So what NIST has produced is all you are gonna get.
Why did NIST not go further?
Pretty simple, the conditions become to chaotic to model, so WHY BOTHER?
You say, "it should have done this" or "it shouldn't have done that", but there is no way for you to prove your case just as there is no way for someone to prove it should or shouldn't have.
Arthur
Well it isn't that asymmetrical, and further the very strong external tube would tend to refocus the top portion towards the center, not amplify it in the other direction.
At least that's my opinion.
And I've made up my mind, the floors were continuous pistons until they became part of the chaotic, obliterating, falling debris cloud.
Sheeesh.
You guys are unreal, you expect explanations for every last detail seen in any of the videos that day.
Ain't gonna happen. It took NIST $16 million to produce the report you can read and no one's going to spend more money then NIST did on figuring out what happened to WTC 1 or 2.
I mean its pretty pathetic since no group on your side seems to be able to come up with the measly $13,000 to get a copy of all the pictures and movies from NIST's library.
So what NIST has produced is all you are gonna get.
Why did NIST not go further?
Pretty simple, the conditions become to chaotic to model, so WHY BOTHER?
You say, "it should have done this" or "it shouldn't have done that", but there is no way for you to prove your case just as there is no way for someone to prove it should or shouldn't have.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 12 2006, 11:47 PM)
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
So if that were the case how did they withstand the force, transmitted through them, which is supposed to have pulled the perimeter columns inwards?
Gordon.
Because the bolts (and welds) were all pulling together and thus were stronger than the force required to bend the columns which of course were somewhat weakened because of heating (~20% or more depending on location).
The falling upper section on the other hand, would have not hit all the bolts at the exact same instant, so at any point in time shear forces far in excess of the bolt strength would be applied by the falling mass.
As NIST shows, failure mode of the truss seats ABOVE the impact were random.
Failues BELOW the impact point were almost all downward.
Arthur
So if that were the case how did they withstand the force, transmitted through them, which is supposed to have pulled the perimeter columns inwards?
Gordon.
Because the bolts (and welds) were all pulling together and thus were stronger than the force required to bend the columns which of course were somewhat weakened because of heating (~20% or more depending on location).
The falling upper section on the other hand, would have not hit all the bolts at the exact same instant, so at any point in time shear forces far in excess of the bolt strength would be applied by the falling mass.
As NIST shows, failure mode of the truss seats ABOVE the impact were random.
Failues BELOW the impact point were almost all downward.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 13 2006, 12:02 AM)
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
The ONLY place it would matter that fireproofing was knocked off would be on the IMPACT floors and of course there is NO WAY that any explosives could have been set off on those floors. Nor were there any evidence of explosive going off on those floors.
So your point is?????
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 13 2006, 04:02 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 13 2006, 03:36 AM)
The nature of the fireproofing can mean the difference between a building standing and collapsing. The conspiracy sites like to post pics of the First Interstate Bank building fire but they don't tell you that the steel structures had very good fire proofing (see link below).
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
so, no doubt, maintenance crews were constantly clearing this debris from the building, and reporting in the building maintenance records where and how much fireproofing was missing.
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
How long is fire proofing protection usually required to last anyway? I read somewhere that the typical fire rating for the stuff they use on steel beams is about 2 hours.
The Meridian burned for 19 hours - long enough to burn away all the fireproofing on the affected floors.
The Cardington tests were used frameworks of only partially protected steel:
Cardington Fire Tests: 1995-1996
During 1995 and 1996, large-scale fire tests were conducted on an eight-story, steel-framed office building at the Cardington Laboratory of the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom ... The purpose of these tests was to investigate the behavior of a real structure under real fire conditions and to collect data that would allow computer programs, which are capable of analyzing structures in fire, to be verified. The structure was five bays long (148 ft) by 3 bays wide (69 ft) by 108 ft high, and beams in most of the tests were designed as simply-supported acting compositely with a concrete slab cast on metal deck... Columns were protected up to the underside of the floor slab and the beams, deck and floor slab in this unsprinklered building were unprotected.
Although the test program included one test on a restrained beam assembly on the seventh floor, it was noted that restraint as a variable in fire tests is largely unheard of in Europe. During this restrained assembly test, the maximum beam temperature reached was about 1,650 deg F and the maximum deflection was about 10 in. (see Figure 14). Although distress was noted in the bottom flange of the beam and at the connections (during cooling), the floor assembly continued to support its applied load at the conclusion of the test (see Figure 15).
(ENGINEERING JOURNAL SECOND QUARTER 2001 p.86)
(link)
Earlier in the same paper the following statment is made:
Earlier in the same paper the following statment is made:
There does not appear to be significant differences in
the fire resistance performance of restrained beams
that are shimmed against the test frame as compared
to restrained beams that are bolted to clip angles in the
manner described in this report. Thus, this test confirmed
that beams with bolted connections should be
considered as restrained beams.
If you look at the pics of the debris of the WTC towers, you don't many steel members with fireproofing still on them. Some show a trace of a thin whitish layer that looks like remnants of the foam that was sprayed on. If you look at pics of the columnss as they were falling, you don't see many with any insulation still on them. Not a good sign.
Large sections of the outer perimeter cores could be seen falling with no floor sections attached. That shows that the floors disconnected relatively easily from the perimeter columns. Not surprising since they were not welded together but bolted.
http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC2.htm
"Engineers later discovered that the building survived the fire with surprisingly limited structural damage; credit was given to especially thick layers of a relatively heavy, cementlike fireproofing that had been applied to structural steel. The World Trade Center had the much lighter, easily dislodged fireproofing on the floor braces whose failure probably initiated the collapse."
so, no doubt, maintenance crews were constantly clearing this debris from the building, and reporting in the building maintenance records where and how much fireproofing was missing.
i think it's a pretty fair guess that explosions would knock off fireproofing, btw.
How long is fire proofing protection usually required to last anyway? I read somewhere that the typical fire rating for the stuff they use on steel beams is about 2 hours.
The Meridian burned for 19 hours - long enough to burn away all the fireproofing on the affected floors.
The Cardington tests were used frameworks of only partially protected steel:
QUOTE
Cardington Fire Tests: 1995-1996
During 1995 and 1996, large-scale fire tests were conducted on an eight-story, steel-framed office building at the Cardington Laboratory of the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom ... The purpose of these tests was to investigate the behavior of a real structure under real fire conditions and to collect data that would allow computer programs, which are capable of analyzing structures in fire, to be verified. The structure was five bays long (148 ft) by 3 bays wide (69 ft) by 108 ft high, and beams in most of the tests were designed as simply-supported acting compositely with a concrete slab cast on metal deck... Columns were protected up to the underside of the floor slab and the beams, deck and floor slab in this unsprinklered building were unprotected.
Although the test program included one test on a restrained beam assembly on the seventh floor, it was noted that restraint as a variable in fire tests is largely unheard of in Europe. During this restrained assembly test, the maximum beam temperature reached was about 1,650 deg F and the maximum deflection was about 10 in. (see Figure 14). Although distress was noted in the bottom flange of the beam and at the connections (during cooling), the floor assembly continued to support its applied load at the conclusion of the test (see Figure 15).
(ENGINEERING JOURNAL SECOND QUARTER 2001 p.86)
(link)
Earlier in the same paper the following statment is made:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Cardington Fire Tests: 1995-1996 During 1995 and 1996, large-scale fire tests were conducted on an eight-story, steel-framed office building at the Cardington Laboratory of the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom ... The purpose of these tests was to investigate the behavior of a real structure under real fire conditions and to collect data that would allow computer programs, which are capable of analyzing structures in fire, to be verified. The structure was five bays long (148 ft) by 3 bays wide (69 ft) by 108 ft high, and beams in most of the tests were designed as simply-supported acting compositely with a concrete slab cast on metal deck... Columns were protected up to the underside of the floor slab and the beams, deck and floor slab in this unsprinklered building were unprotected. Although the test program included one test on a restrained beam assembly on the seventh floor, it was noted that restraint as a variable in fire tests is largely unheard of in Europe. During this restrained assembly test, the maximum beam temperature reached was about 1,650 deg F and the maximum deflection was about 10 in. (see Figure 14). Although distress was noted in the bottom flange of the beam and at the connections (during cooling), the floor assembly continued to support its applied load at the conclusion of the test (see Figure 15). (ENGINEERING JOURNAL SECOND QUARTER 2001 p.86) (link) |
Earlier in the same paper the following statment is made:
There does not appear to be significant differences in
the fire resistance performance of restrained beams
that are shimmed against the test frame as compared
to restrained beams that are bolted to clip angles in the
manner described in this report. Thus, this test confirmed
that beams with bolted connections should be
considered as restrained beams.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 12 2006, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 12 2006, 02:09 PM)
QUOTE (ReasonWhy+)
Talk about taking something out of context. What is the cost of Visualization after compiling the data? Are you implying they did not use a Visualization to check their work?
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
I have never used FEA without some form of visualization or post processer and find it hard to believe NIST does not see value in it. They could just release the raw data and let others post process the results.
"The `finite' in FEA comes from the idea that there are a finite, or countable, number of elements in a finite element model," explains Shepherd. "A computer then adds up all the individual behaviors to predict the behavior of the actual object." The computer is a necessity because using a calculator, while possible, would not get you very far; FEA is that tedious a technique. The FEA solver outputs a voluminous amount of data, which visualization tools then post process into graphical displays to show the stresses, strains, deformations, temperatures, and other details throughout the part."
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/109704.html
You quoted an Automotive Engineering source talking about using FEA to design a PART in a car.
On the other hand, the WTC modeled 8 floors on each tower.
To put the FEA that NIST performed in perspective the aircraft impact represented over 2 MILLION separate elements, and using sub-microsecond steps, it took 2 weeks on a 12 node computer to model the FRACTION of a second it took for the airplane impact.
So NO, I do not think making a Visualization, of events an HOUR past what was KNOWN to have happened would be very valuable, or money well spent. Apparently neither did the people at NIST.
Arthur
It is ridiculous to assert that a failure model that implicitly implies a symmetrical, systematic, pancaking collapse suddenly necomes too complicated to model once it is initiated.
Pancaking floors are too chaotic to model? Are you joking?
Everything you need is right here.
Basic Pancakes
Prep time: 3 minutes
Bake time 2: 4 minutes
2 cups baking mix
1 cup whole, low-fat or nonfat milk
2 eggs or ½ cup best of Egg
Mix until blended. Batter will be lumpy. Drop by scant ¼ cupful onto hot griddle. Cook until bubbles begin to break on top. Turn and cook until golden on bottom
I suspect its quite expensive.
One can evaluate the NUMERICAL results of a model fairly easily, but to take the NUMERICAL results of a model and use them to generate a 3D VISUALIZATION seems to me to be VERY complicated.
Do you have evidence that it is not?
Arthur
I have never used FEA without some form of visualization or post processer and find it hard to believe NIST does not see value in it. They could just release the raw data and let others post process the results.
"The `finite' in FEA comes from the idea that there are a finite, or countable, number of elements in a finite element model," explains Shepherd. "A computer then adds up all the individual behaviors to predict the behavior of the actual object." The computer is a necessity because using a calculator, while possible, would not get you very far; FEA is that tedious a technique. The FEA solver outputs a voluminous amount of data, which visualization tools then post process into graphical displays to show the stresses, strains, deformations, temperatures, and other details throughout the part."
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/109704.html
You quoted an Automotive Engineering source talking about using FEA to design a PART in a car.
On the other hand, the WTC modeled 8 floors on each tower.
To put the FEA that NIST performed in perspective the aircraft impact represented over 2 MILLION separate elements, and using sub-microsecond steps, it took 2 weeks on a 12 node computer to model the FRACTION of a second it took for the airplane impact.
So NO, I do not think making a Visualization, of events an HOUR past what was KNOWN to have happened would be very valuable, or money well spent. Apparently neither did the people at NIST.
Arthur
QUOTE (hereward+Feb 13 2006, 02:26 AM)
How long is fire proofing protection usually required to last anyway? I read somewhere that the typical fire rating for the stuff they use on steel beams is about 2 hours.
The Meridian burned for 19 hours - long enough to burn away all the fireproofing on the affected floors.
Fires don't burn in ONE SPOT for 19 hours, they run out of FUEL.
Arthur
The Meridian burned for 19 hours - long enough to burn away all the fireproofing on the affected floors.
Fires don't burn in ONE SPOT for 19 hours, they run out of FUEL.
Arthur
QUOTE
Pretty simple, the conditions become to chaotic to model, so WHY BOTHER?
It is ridiculous to assert that a failure model that implicitly implies a symmetrical, systematic, pancaking collapse suddenly necomes too complicated to model once it is initiated.
Pancaking floors are too chaotic to model? Are you joking?
Everything you need is right here.
Basic Pancakes
Prep time: 3 minutes
Bake time 2: 4 minutes
2 cups baking mix
1 cup whole, low-fat or nonfat milk
2 eggs or ½ cup best of Egg
Mix until blended. Batter will be lumpy. Drop by scant ¼ cupful onto hot griddle. Cook until bubbles begin to break on top. Turn and cook until golden on bottom
The falling upper section on the other hand, would have not hit all the bolts at the exact same instant, so at any point in time shear forces far in excess of the bolt strength would be applied by the falling mass.
But if the floors becoming disconnected was a precondition for collapse and hence the movement of the falling mass, how could they be disconnected by the falling mass?
Gordon
But if the floors becoming disconnected was a precondition for collapse and hence the movement of the falling mass, how could they be disconnected by the falling mass?
Gordon
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 12 2006, 08:03 PM)
Does anyone have info on the approximate mass of WTC 1 and 2? The Frank Greening papers, which I am still looking over, use a mass of 510,000,000 kg for each. I have come across a post on another board which calls this into question. It indicates that the FEMA and NIST reports give a mass of 200,000,000 kg. The post goes on to suggest that 300,000,000 kg may be a better estimate. Here are some comparisons:
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
The weights of the other buildings makes his calculations MORE resonable. Each WTC tower was much bigger than the other buildings.
Where do the estimates of the weights of steel and concrete etc used in each tower come from?
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Here is the analysis supporting the 300,000,000 kg calculation:
...the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower. The Aluminum panels were reported at 2 million kg. The wallboards were at 8 million kg.
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures. Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it. Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the building with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a added.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
The weights of the other buildings makes his calculations MORE resonable. Each WTC tower was much bigger than the other buildings.
Where do the estimates of the weights of steel and concrete etc used in each tower come from?
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 13 2006, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Feb 13 2006, 01:01 AM)
If I’m not mistaken there is one more category of person that does not support the “WTC was controlled demolition delusion”, WTC survivors. Not next of kin, not survivors who made comments that you think bolsters your case. Are their any people who were in either of the towers that morning who says publicly they believe the buildings were demolished with explosives?
Indeed, you are mistaken. There's at least several WTC survivors that I know of who don't believe in the "buildings just fell down" fairy tale, most notably the person who is believed to be the last one to exit the North Tower alive, after re-entering the building three times to rescue others. Look it up, and while you're at it maybe do a little research before you make your next proclamation.
I did couch that. Can you could provide any citations to back your claim?
As for reseach I've spent countless hours reading BOTH sides of the story.
Indeed, you are mistaken. There's at least several WTC survivors that I know of who don't believe in the "buildings just fell down" fairy tale, most notably the person who is believed to be the last one to exit the North Tower alive, after re-entering the building three times to rescue others. Look it up, and while you're at it maybe do a little research before you make your next proclamation.
I did couch that. Can you could provide any citations to back your claim?
As for reseach I've spent countless hours reading BOTH sides of the story.
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.