Basic Physics

Andrew Johnson

30th September 2005 - 09:23 PM

OK - If you are happy with those computer models, then I have no need to make further comments to you personally regarding this.

For myself (and possibly others), I am still asking someone to point out the actual error in the Physics I used. If the computer models are right, then the Physics I used must be wrong - so it should be simple enough to point out the actual error(s). This is why I addressed this forum.

Thanks

Andrew

a_ht

30th September 2005 - 09:42 PM

basic physic always tells the truth. What lies are the assumptions and the conclusions being made. One assumption that you have made is that the resistance of the lower floors provides a significant increase to the total time a building takes to fell down.

Show that the presence of lower floors is significant to the total time requiered for the building to collapse, and then you will have a more solid case. This will have to be done for a system of N particle where N is extremely high and must take into account ductile, resistance at high temperature properties of ciments and steel. It must also take into account angle of fall (if upper mass is tilted or not) and the time requiered by the majority of the mass to fall (as opposed to the external "walls") and must be done for a structural design similar or identical to the world trade center.

Im not trying to "put sticks in your wheels" but truthfully, every problems of consequence in engineering comes down to computer models.

One person who provided an analysis of the failure using basic physic only (and note that what he calls basic physic is much more advance than isolating t in r=.5at^2+vt+c) came to the conclusion that aircraft alone is enough to explain the collapse of the world trade center. This paper is one of the most quoted papers relating to the collapse of the world trade center, mainly because it was one of the first to be published. (it appeared much sooner than computer models did. and the author even states in his paper that his conclusions could be off by factors of 2 or more... a thing he won't know until computers models has been made).

What he does, is he approximates the structure to provide the most optimal resistance to failure allowed by the design, and shows that even if everything was optimal (never is in practice) the building would have still collapsed (using only the damage done by the aircraft to explain it).

Altought this paper does not address explicitly your question, it is still a uncontournable read for anyone interested in the science of the collapse of the WTC, and does provide the closest peer-reviewed analysis to your question, i believe you are likely to find.

An online copy can be found here
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

happy reading

Andrew Johnson

30th September 2005 - 10:51 PM

Thanks for the information - I will check out the paper and see what it says.

Andrew Johnson

1st October 2005 - 06:47 AM

I have had a look through:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

I would not pretend to understand how they derived or applied the equations they use as I do not have training in structural engineering, but I do not see that this would make a difference to the following notes:

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons (a) When the jets hit, only some floors were set on fire. e.g. (as a guess) the lower 500 feet of the tower had no fire at all, so their beams were not weakened or softened by heat of the fire. (B) the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising. c) The firemen said the fires were not very bad when they got there. (d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.

2) Again, the authors do not address the near-free fall time. Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data. They talk about weakening, softening, plasticity and elasticity. All these ideas are fine, but "free fall" by definition means "with no resistance". Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed).

3) If the beams/trusses had just softened, there would not have been a large pyroclastic flow of dust at the time of collapse. Creating a cloud of dust like this requires a great deal of energy. The potential energy of floors collapsing being converted into kinetic energy during the fall would not be sufficient to produce as large a cloud of fine powdered dust as was seen on the day. (Obviously any collapse would produce *some* dust.)

4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.

5) As is usual with these analyses, the paper does not mention WTC 7 - it too underwent free-fall collapse (as shown by at least 3 different video recordings I have) even though it was only hit by a small amount of debris and only had small fires burning for most of the day.

I think that, like the Pancake Collapse theory, the paper is wrong - for the same reasons as given in my slides - and for the reasons I already replied to above.

I know that what I have proposed and talked about is truly, truly shocking but as I alluded to, the emotional response to observed data does not change the physics which explains that data.

Thanks for the paper though - useful to know about.

brian

1st October 2005 - 02:03 PM

Is there an answer in physics or structural engineering to such questions as -

What caused steel beams to be ejected 300 feet horizontally?

What caused the molten steel, present for weeks, below the WTC buildings?

Hydrocarbon fires alone cannot produce molten steel so what did?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

Andrew Johnson

1st October 2005 - 07:23 PM

Brian,

These are all good questions and are backed up by significant data, and these issues (almost?) certainly related to the freefall tower collapse time. Again, shocking though the proof is, the data you mention all support the conlcusion that the towers were demolished with explosives after the jets hit - explosions that can have had nothing to do with the jets as most parts of the building which weren't near the impact and were not burning at all before or after the impacts were almost completely destroyed.

a_ht

1st October 2005 - 09:06 PM

What exploded or what caused the explosion, give me one good answer to that please. And saying I don't is not good enough. Because, basic physics tells us that something must explode to get an explosion. So if you can't come up we anything that explodes, your explaination is necessarely wrong.

I don't see what could have exploded, thats why I don't believe in what you are saying. Make me believe what you are saying by telling me what exploded.

Andrew Johnson

1st October 2005 - 09:49 PM

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. I can't show you what exploded - I was not there on the day. All I can say is that the "physics evidence" clearly shows explosives were, indeed used. I think I have to say that just because I cannot say whether it was C4 or some other type of high yield explosive does not mean they were not used at all. Neither can I comment on the exact amount used.

As an example, we cannot *directly* see Blacks Holes - we infer their existence from different types of "physics evidence" (and there are many other examples of this type of scenario in Physics). So you perhaps understand what I am saying

I am not going to go any further than this, because it departs from the "free-fall" issue, all of my comments about which are valid and correct, regardless of what explosive device(s) was/were used.

I really wish I could give you a better answer but forensic evidence was removed from the site, under heavy guard and buried, before a proper analysis had been undertaken - therefore there is no public evidence available to help me answer your question better. I can post links about this, but it would depart from the Physics, so you can mail me at ad.johnson@ntlworld.com if you wish to discuss this outside this forum.

I am not trying to make anyone believe anything - I am asking for comment on the behaviour of the collapse of the Twin Towers - form an "informed Physics Perspective". In one of your earlier posts, I think you said you favoured computer models to explain the towers' collapse over the basic physics that I have presented - I cannot and would not seek to change your view on this - I would only go so far as to say I disagreed with it (and would continue to do so). Others on this forum may agree with your position and they are just as free to post their comments etc

a_ht

1st October 2005 - 10:16 PM

Well, thank you for you interest in this matter. Of course dont be surprise if you dont rally most people to your cause. You are making extraordinary claim, yet you do not have the evidence to support it. Aircraft crash can explain the totality of the collapse. Yet you present an alternative view involving explosive whitout any idea or suggestion of what could have caused this explosion, only to claim is could be C4?? That suggestion leads me to believe you think there was a conspiracy by the US goverment going on here, and therefore what you suggest is a theory that is safe from falsification... permanantly.

Andrew Johnson

1st October 2005 - 10:37 PM

Sorry - but I have presented evidence which supports the statements I am making. I return to the issue of the freefall collapse, which is clearly set out in the original powerpoint presentation - with timings and equations based on observed data.

I asked this forum to point out the errors in the physics - so far, none have been pointed out. Only alternatives have been suggested. The alternatives suggested do not explain the observed data properly - because they do not explain at all the free fall collapse. See previous posts - I also pointed out that I was aware that what I am suggesting is shocking and unbelievable - but this does not change the physics of the situation and what the observed data indicates.

I did not mention the word conspiracy - because this is not relevant to the free-fall physics. That avenue can only be fruitfully discussed and explored once it is agreed that the official version of events is wrong (which it is). The place to discuss that is not here - as I also suggested in a previous post.

Thank you for reading my posts - I think I have stated my case clearly and it has not yet been significantly refuted based on points of physics or observed data. Again, I regard, on this forum, other issues as secondary to this.

a_ht

1st October 2005 - 11:13 PM

People dont believe your interpretation of basic physic to this problem because;

People don't agree that the falling time of the WTC was 10s. From the CNN video I can count the external wall to fall in 13s.

Since the WTC was constructed with an almost empty internal struture, so that most of the support beams are outside, the inside of the structure provided very little resistance to the fall of the upper body. Thereby suggesting that a total fall time would approach the free-fall time.

It has been shown with computer models that the impact of the aircraft is enough to explain the collapse.

It had been shown mathematicaly that since the upper part felt tilted into the lower floors, the lower floors provided almost no resistance to its fall.

You can't provide a good explaination or even identify what in the building could have caused an explosion, because nothing already in it could. (Only something put afterwards by, say, the US goverment could, which is conspiracy theory).

And what you calculate as 10s are the first debris to hit the ground. From the video you can't see the internal mass of the structure falling because of the dust obscuring the view. Only the free falling debris are visible on the videos and thats what you calculated.

In order to explain why it felt the way it did, if an explosion was truly what happened, the explosion would have had to be started from the floor where the aircraft crashed. If the explosion would have occured at the ground, the WTC would not have felt the way it did.

Preparing the explosives for collapsing a building takes days sometimes weeks, saying that CIA could have done it in an hour in a highly hazardous environment seems impropable to say the least.

And on top of that, you don't even think computer models are good and needed to explain this collapse, which right there shows me your not qualify to study this problem. You have to forgive us, sometime we grow tired of reading alternative theories by people who don't understand both sides.

jim

1st October 2005 - 11:25 PM

hey guys
didnt read all your posts, i've a very very slow dial up connection so didnt check out the links

however reguarding the collapse of the twin towers, as an impartial observer (i say impartial i mean i aint from usa or within 3000 miles so i dont know what conspiricies politics etc might be playing on your minds) anyhooo
i just saw a lot of talk about "molten steel" and figures of bout 1500 degrees being quoted. yep thats fairly spot on" however the wtc were basically a big steel skeleton. the steel at the bottom doing a hell of a lot more work keeping it up than the steel at the top. you could have built the last three floors from wood no problem but not the first three!! what i'm getting at is this. you may have already metioned it but i didnt see the word "creep"
steel dosnt have to melt to fail. when you heat it up even to temprature of about 8 or 9 hunderd degrees and apply a large stress (load) it will behave preety much like spagetti. i'm sure everyone has seen footage of forgeries where they roll steel
the stuff can be fairly easily shaped even if its only barely red hot.
anyway just thought i should say the word creep. in my mind thats what happend

+i heard the tower that was hit second collapsed first???
dunno if thats right?
+ i heard the tower that was hit second was hit lower down??
dimmp if thats right

well if it is right it makes sense
if you hit a tower like that on the 5th or 6th floor it would collapse much sooner

anyhoo thats my two cents
ps i'm a dumbass feel free to ignore me!!
jim

Andrew Johnson

1st October 2005 - 11:27 PM

I will no longer repeat posts and points I have already made.

If you use a collapse time figure of 13 seconds - that would still be too quick for a pancake collapse or similar model. All previous points I made about free-fall collapse are still essentially the same.

To pick up on 1 other of your points:

QUOTE

Since the WTC was constructed with an almost empty internal struture, so that most of the supports beam are outside, the inside of the structure provided very little resistance to the fall of the upper body. Thereby suggesting that a total fall time would approach the free-fall time.

Yes, of course there is empty space inside the building - but the steel beams support all that empty space and therefore the empty space is not relevant to the proof or the observed data of free-fall collapse. The strength of the beams and their behaviour when heated (or not) is, of course, central to the proof that I laid out. An idea of the strength of the construction is given in one of the pictures in the presentation. I tried to make this clear.

Sorry, I will leave the other points you made as they do not address the timing or use of the Laws of Motion in a direct enough way for me to usefully reply to. So others are left to decide for themselves which data and conclusion is valid.

a_ht

1st October 2005 - 11:51 PM

The time it took to fall is more than enough to justify the pancake model of the collapse of the WTC. Remember that the WTC has a unique design, one in which the beams are concentrated on its exterior. The interior space was supported by beams designed to support that small weight and nothing more. Thats very different then most other buildings.

And I don't see how you can think the fact that you (and anyone else for that manner) are clueless about what could have caused the explosion is not a problem for your theory.

Lets do a summary of what you got so far;
Your basic physic tells you that the building collapsed in nearly free fall time. Using your numbers, thats the only thing you can be certain of. I can see 2 conclusions one can reach from that information alone.

1) there was an explosion that nullified the lower floor resistance, allowing the building to collapse unresisted.

2) the lower floor simply did not provide enough resistance to significantly reduce the falling time of the upper body.

Since there exist nothing credible to account for what the explosion could have been, and that computer models show that -since the upper mass was tilted- the lower floor did not provide significant resistance to its fall, I fail to see how a strictly logical player can conclude #1.

Guest

2nd October 2005 - 03:34 PM

To answer the question of explosions by asking what explosive then arguing that if you cannot say then explosives are ruled out is disingenious at best. If you return home and there is a mysterious big hole in your front lawn the fact you dont know how it got there is neither here nor there. It exists, its cause to be established.

As with steel beams being ejected horizontally and the molten steel beneath the WTC buildings - it is a matter of fact which no reasonable explanation other than explosives has been proposed. Occams razor anyone?

"Thermite has been proposed as a chemical reactant that is capable of achieving the collapse of the central cores of the WTC towers. The thermite reaction produces great heat, capable of melting steel, and since it does not produce reactant gases, there would not be the high explosive signature of a massive shock wave."

http://physics911.net/thermite.htm

It would also help if those engaged in this debate familarise themselves with the actual construction of the WTC buildings. They were NOT, I repeat NOT, "an empty internal structure" not even nearly. The MAIN support for the buildings were the 47 CENTRAL steel box collumns, an extremely strong support distributed by the means of the hat truss atop the buildings. This meant that even had there been a truss failure these collumns would have remainded standing straight up in the air at least below the impact/fire damaged level.

And lets not forget the elephant in the picture - WTC7. Never in history has a steel built high rise building collapsed due to fire yet on September 11 three such buildings collapse AS IF by controlled demolition all within the space of a few hours and one of them, WTC7, had no significant damage that can even partly explain its collapse. WTC7 collapse was virtualy ignored in the official reports.

Occams razor anyone?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/#corecolumns

newton

3rd October 2005 - 05:54 PM

tower seven was not hit by an airplane. you can actually see it puff out as the explosiuons go off that bring it down in perfectly symmetrical freefall.
the idea that more advanced models will perform more accurately than simple models is HILARIOUS! basic physics are quite sufficient for this calculation.
the reported faster-than-freefall time of 8,1 seconds would be impossible, if it weren't for the fact that powerful explosions created a vacuum which literally sucked the building down to earth.

i can't believe that at a phsics forum, there is any question at all whether these towers fell naturally, or were blown. the evidence is overwhelming, and only orwellian runarounds stop the truth from getting out.

tower seven had asymmetrical damage. a large percentage of the side facing the twin towers had been hit by debris. if this building were to collapse because of loss of structural support, it SHOULD have leaned or cascaded to the damaged side. it went down in a perfectly straight freefall.

and, i believe that our 'expert' here is completely out to lunch on the load distribution properties of the twin towers. the interior core columns were the main support for the building. the outer columns, although loadbearing, were NOT the main supports.
if they were, the illuminati apologists would have an even harder time explaining how a building falls, when the load bearing supports are being constantly cooled by the atmosphere.
the fake official lie requires high temperature. the NIST report states that jet fuel was most likely NOT reponsible for the collapse.
it also requires that you only ever focus on one aspect of the overall picture at any given time, and completely ignore obvious 'problems' with the lie, like tower seven, or tower six, which had it's roof explode 550ft up into the air at almost exactly the same time that the second plane hit. hardly anyone ever mentions that one. 'cause the lie says debris fell on it when the towers collapsed. yet, it is verifiable that that is NOT what happened. ignore the hundreds of reports of explosions. ignore the janitor who lived to report explosions that devastated a whole floor in the subbasement BEFORE the tower fell.

the fascist takeover of the world might be your first clue that 'they' are LYING about EVERYTHING. afghanistan, iraq, n. korea, china, al cia-duh...... the globalists are coming, the globalists are coming!....
snooze, you lose.

and in closing, this is WAR, and those who support the lie are the ENEMY(although most of them are unaware, in an orwellian twist of reality).

have a nice day. don't forget to wash your brain in the total energy sink.

London to SF

3rd October 2005 - 11:29 PM

Well, you learn something new every day dont you...IF YOU KEEP YOUR EYES AND EARS OPEN that is.

It takes a big person to be able to analyze, digest, and incorporate new information into ones own theories/beliefs.

What Andrew Johnson has suggested is simply irrefutable, even though a couple of "characters" (naming no names as to whom I'm referring to (but it wouldnt take "a degree in structural engineering" to figure it out)) have attempted to, and then resorted to insults and slander having failed.

Andrew asked for someone, anyone to dispute the "basic physics" put forth, and no-one has, because no-one CAN.

So, now we have established that the "official US Govt." conclusion/report is not entirely correct, we are left with many questions, two of which are:

1, What is the truth?

2, Why were we lied to?

Furthermore, for those that have trouble opening their mind, think of it like this...

ITS TIME TO STOP LOOKING AT "HOW" IT HAPPENED,

AND TIME TO START LOOKING AT "WHY" IT HAPPENED

P.S. Please do not even insult the intelligence of the previous posts with any answers to this rhetorical question, as this isnt the forum for that discussion...and certainly do not reply with anything that resembles... "Arab terrorists did it coz they hate America, and what it stands for" lol.

a_ht

4th October 2005 - 05:10 AM

Maybe you should read my last thread (prior to this one). Really, if your going to jump to conclusion at least read to whole thread.

Sinclair

4th October 2005 - 04:17 PM

I believe I am correct in stating that only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. All three of these buildings collapsed on 11th September 2001; WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7.

If anyoneone has any evidence of any other fire induced collapse of steel framed buildings, please post.

In addition, the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11.

If the fires inside the towers were hot enogh to melt steel then what explanation can be given for this photo?

Also, what explanation can be given for the 'squib effects' evident on a number of still/video images?

a_ht

4th October 2005 - 05:06 PM

an interesting read;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

LArry S

4th October 2005 - 05:29 PM

If he wanted to know why WTC7 collapsed, just ask the Lease holder Larry Silverstein, who confirmed that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when, on national TV he said 'with the terrible loss of life we decided to pull it. So WE PULLED IT and we watched he building come down'

It's admitted folks.

Sinclair

4th October 2005 - 06:24 PM

a ht,

Here is another version of that article, with comments added, disputing some of the original analysis....... Link here

The author of the original article, Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT, Thomas Eagar, was nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security.

Andrew Johnson

4th October 2005 - 06:34 PM

Point of information re Silversteing quote - he lead you to believe that the building was pulled by the fire department. However, the problem with this interpretation (which *on the face of it* sounds plausible - as does the jet crash causing the 1 & 2 collapse) fire departments don't "pull buildings". They may leave them to burn, but controlled demolitions take between 1 week and one month to set up.

Automatically people then use this point to dismiss the destruction of WTC 1&2 as demolition because no one could have that kind of access to the building to pre-plant the explosives.

Only, later you learn about the firm whose contract to manage the security for the complex (Securacom - or that's what they were called a few years ago). I leave you to find out who they were for yourselves - because again, I am departing from the physics - which no one has disproved. Referring to Nova documentaries is fine -we had a similar show over here in the UK. They tended to show "proof by computer animation", but again I return to all the previous points I made - if you are happy they explain all the facts then why are you reading this? (I'm not happy, that's why I'm typing this).

a_ht

4th October 2005 - 07:08 PM

Your basic physic does not need to be disprooved because it prooves nothing.

There you have it. I have tried to explain it to you in so many ways I will no longer repeat myself.

Sinclair

5th October 2005 - 04:46 PM

a ht,

I took a look at the official NIST report into instances of collapses of structures as a result of fire events, which was produced in December 2002.

The report can be accessed at:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf

Reading the report, it lists 6 examples of ‘fire-induced collapse events’ involving steel framed buildings. 4 of these occurred on 11th September 2001 (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-6 & WTC-7). Of these 4 cases, 3 cases (WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7)were of full and catastrophic collapse (i.e. complete collapse of the structures to ground level).

WTC-6 was later demolished due to the fire damage it had sustained. The other 2 recorded cases of steel-framed building collapses were only partial collapses of sections of flooring (i.e. not fully collapsed to the ground AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE ALONE)

Reading the NIST Report, we can see the two remaining cases , the Alexis Nihon Plaza fire in Montreal, Canada on October 26, 1986, caused only the partial collapse of a section of one floor, and that was after the fire burned for 5 hours! The report notes that the partial collapse resulted from fire damage to the smaller ‘clip angles’ at the end of the floor girders, where they connect to the vertical columns. It was noted that the steel girders and beams of the collapsed floor section were virtually straight and un-deformed,

The building stood. This is a minor failure in comparison and should not be described as a full building collapse.

The other example cited is the fire at One New York Plaza on August 5, 1970. Here the form of construction was a mixed steel/reinforced concrete. The fire burned for approximately 5 hours and again there was some localized failure of end connection bolts, leading to a partial collapse of sections of the 33rd and 34th floors. The building did not collapse.

So the point remains:

FIRE HAS NEVER COLLAPSED ANY STEEL FRAMED BUILDING PRIOR TO 11th SEPTEMBER 2001.

On that date, 3 collapsed. One of the WTC Towers was on fire for 56 minutes prior to collapse and another (WTC-7) was never hit by any aircraft.

Larry S

5th October 2005 - 05:40 PM

I think you missunderstood me Andrew. I know it takes months to arrange a perfect demolition like the one which occured.

Larrys admission confirms that explosives must have been there for some weeks. Confirming that the oficial stroy is untrue and also casting hugh doubt over the collapse of the other 2 towers.

Guest

5th October 2005 - 06:37 PM

There are a number of anomolies with the whole 9/11 official story.

It seems that anyone expressing any doubt is labelled a conspiracy theorist. To me, the biggest conspiracy is that the events were orchestrated soley by 19 arab terrorists, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden.

Anyone who wishes to spend time researching the whole subject can be baffled by the information AND disinformation present on the www .

For anyone who is serious and wishes to commence looking into the issues, I would reccomend starting here, and then checking out here. The second site takes a while to load) as it contains lots of pics/links /articles etcto

An excellent study into the whole 9/11 event is David Ray Griffin's book 'THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, of which there is a free online copy at http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php.

____________________________________
Mum, This is Mark Bingham......... Flight 93 telephone call

Andrew Johnson

5th October 2005 - 07:30 PM

Larry - Sorry that I misunderstood you there - I suppose for those who saw the PBS documentary with Silverstein's comments, it adds another element of confusion. There is a clear discrepancy in what the FEMA report said about WTC7 and what Silverstein said. You would think that if Silverstein was the owner (which he was), the FEMA report would question his story - or the other way round. Another part of the official story which makes little sense when you look at the facts.

a_ht

5th October 2005 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (Sinclair+Oct 5 2005, 04:46 PM)

a ht,

I took a look at the official NIST report into instances of collapses of structures as a result of fire events, which was produced in December 2002.

The report can be accessed at:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf

Reading the report, it lists 6 examples of ‘fire-induced collapse events’ involving steel framed buildings. 4 of these occurred on 11th September 2001 (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-6 & WTC-7). Of these 4 cases, 3 cases (WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7)were of full and catastrophic collapse (i.e. complete collapse of the structures to ground level).

WTC-6 was later demolished due to the fire damage it had sustained. The other 2 recorded cases of steel-framed building collapses were only partial collapses of sections of flooring (i.e. not fully collapsed to the ground AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE ALONE)

Reading the NIST Report, we can see the two remaining cases , the Alexis Nihon Plaza fire in Montreal, Canada on October 26, 1986, caused only the partial collapse of a section of one floor, and that was after the fire burned for 5 hours! The report notes that the partial collapse resulted from fire damage to the smaller ‘clip angles’ at the end of the floor girders, where they connect to the vertical columns. It was noted that the steel girders and beams of the collapsed floor section were virtually straight and un-deformed,

The building stood. This is a minor failure in comparison and should not be described as a full building collapse.

The other example cited is the fire at One New York Plaza on August 5, 1970. Here the form of construction was a mixed steel/reinforced concrete. The fire burned for approximately 5 hours and again there was some localized failure of end connection bolts, leading to a partial collapse of sections of the 33rd and 34th floors. The building did not collapse.

So the point remains:

FIRE HAS NEVER COLLAPSED ANY STEEL FRAMED BUILDING PRIOR TO 11th SEPTEMBER 2001.

On that date, 3 collapsed. One of the WTC Towers was on fire for 56 minutes prior to collapse and another (WTC-7) was never hit by any aircraft.

Hi sinclair, necessarely there must be an answer for your question otherwise no one would believe the official story. And of course, there is. The reason no other building has ever collapsed from fire is because no other building suffered an impact that removed the insulation surrounding the steel beams. So, previously, the fire figthers always had time to stop the fire. Removal of insulation by impact is confirmed by computer models and suggested by debris recovered from ground zero. Therefore, it shows that an explosion is not required to explain that particular conjecture.

Andrew Johnson

5th October 2005 - 09:38 PM

a_ht,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, WTC 1 & 2 were the only buildings to have impacts - you are quite right.

However, as we have mentioned,

1) WTC 7 was not impacted
2) Firemen reported fires were mostly out
3) Well over half the building was not burning, therefore should not have been weakened.

Finally, in 1945 a B25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State building. It did not collapse:

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

Of course, a B25 bomber is not the same as a modern jetliner etc, but neither is the construction of the Empire State building compared to the more modern structure of the WTC towers. You may not think it is a fair comparison - that is fine. Even if it isn't a fair comparison, there are still points 1-3 above.

farang

6th October 2005 - 05:30 AM

It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events.

I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal.

In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner.

That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements.

Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower?

a_ht, what caused that?

Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct?

Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball?

What was it?

Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,

explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?

Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation".

One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY.

Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here?

a_ht, Mr. Jackson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate.

I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.

Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions.

I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked.

Yet.....

Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911.

Obviously.

a_ht

6th October 2005 - 04:28 PM

I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.

Andrew Johnson

6th October 2005 - 04:42 PM

Hi a_ht,

I salute your bravery in contributing to this forum and if it is compromising you in any way, I applaud you for honestly debating the issue and presenting your views and data for discussion.

There are a great number of people, I suspect, who are in a similar position to yourself. This is partly what makes it such a horribly unbelievable situation. I know I am stating the obvious but basic physics is pretty unforgiving of politics etc - I know that sounds a bit trite as well, but there you go.

If it's any consolation to any one reading who has a similar situation to a_ht (wish I knew your firstname or something more friendly), there are plenty of others out there like you. I do (despite how it might seem) have some appreciation for this sort of situation. I am in a position which gives me a bit more freedom to try and offer what I consider to be objective commentary (others may disagree), but it is important for me (and others) to keep in mind that not everyone has this luxury.

I am pleased the way that this thread has developed into a good, honest debate with facts and data presented to support the points that have been made. I hope it can continue in this vain (vein??).

Sinclair

6th October 2005 - 05:12 PM

a__ht,

i am a civil engineer. What would you believe is the best course of action? Play a part in the (I believe) cover up or instigate and assist in a reviewing of the evidence into complicity by the US Government into a catastrophic event, that served the catalyst to the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq.

It is a VERY difficult choice. Look at all the FBI & CIA agent who have have their careers blanked whilst those exhibiting complicity have been promoted.

I believe that the tide is turning and the evidence will leak out bit by bit and the realisations will be made over time

Iif you are a civil engineer (or you just work in the publicity department), then please present some of these points to your engineering colleagues.

My previous post was more of a statement, but since you are interested in questions, I would be pleased if you could comment on any of the following:

1. Why was the primary evidence of the 3 largest structural failures in history, the structural steel, removed and destroyed as quickly as possible, preventing rigorous analysis of this catastrophic event? The evidence destruction operation was conducted over the concerted objections of victims' family members and the fire fighting community.

2. The theory explaining the collapse mechanism (Bazant & Zhou) assumes that all columns on a floor were raised to 800Âº C. The behaviour of steel in fires is a complex mechanism (see http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_480.htm ) Steel columns would fail by gradual buckling. The fires did not cover an entire floor area in either tower. The maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating is 825Âº C (1517Âº F). The melting point of steel is 1535Âº C (2795Âº F). Even assuming that the fires reached a temperature to produce a gradual reduction in the steel’s (compressive & tensile) strength at temperatures up to the melting point, the mode of collapse initiation and free-fall of the whole structure would not fit in with this explanation. There would have been a gradual toppling/leaning of the structure towards the elevation where the fires (temperatures) were hottest. The collapse initiation did not indicate this. In fact, there are moving picture images showing steel beams that were projected horizontally out from the building as the floors collapsed.
.
3. Corus Construction performed extensive tests subjecting un-insulated steel-frame car-park structures to prolonged hydrocarbon-fuelled fires. The highest recorded steel temperatures were 360Âº C. All 287 columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse in an instant to cause the telescoping seen in North Tower. Asymmetric damage cannot produce such a symmetric result.

4. Even if simultaneous column failure caused the building to start crushing itself straight down, it would either stop, or be deflected to the side and topple. Of collapse causes other than controlled demolition, only earthquakes can cause the simultaneous damage needed to cause total collapse.

5. A theory to explain the collapse mechanism ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis’ by Zdenek P. Bazant & Yong Zhou, was produced on 13th September 2001 without any investigation of the remaining steel components at the accident scene. Such an analysis would have/should have taken months. Not 2 days. Any engineer would concur with such a view.

6. In respect of the Truss Failure Theory, eagerly championed by Professor Thomas Eagar, this hypothesis relies on the theory of progressive total collapse or ‘Pancake Theory’. The only structures where this theory has been cited in relation to total collapse are as follows:
The WTC North Tower
The WTC South Tower
WTC Building 7

7. Other indications of demolition of the structures include:
· The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.
· The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.
· The volume of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitational energy.

Please read & research for yourself, don't ignore the evidence.

Thanks for reading this far

Nemesis

7th October 2005 - 06:19 PM

INVENTING TERRORISM

On September 11 2001, in New York City, the twin buildings of the World Trade Centre, hit by aircraft which could have only caused localised damage, perfectly vertically imploded. Building 7, of the WTC complex, hours later, came out in sympathy and also collapsed in a heap. This was the first, second, third and only times in history and all on the same day, that this phenomenon had occurred without a planned, professionally-executed, ground-based demolition operation.
The trillion-dollar US air safety and defence systems, active at all other times, were stood down on the morning of Sep. 11. The automatic hijack alert codes were not transmitted from the aircraft. The “19 hi-jackers” were quickly identified : 19 photographs appeared : their cars were quickly found. The passport of the “chief conspirator”, Atta, survived the crash and fire and was “found” 3 blocks away from the crash impacts. Atta’s rent-a-car was found not at the airport where he was alleged to have first taken off but at the airport of the intermediate flight – the one that crashed. His baggage, with the “incriminating evidence”, “missed the flight”.
The WTC security meeting, scheduled for Sep 11, was cancelled on Sep 10. NYC and Federal agents removed vast amounts of debris before the investigation team arrived : the planes’ black boxes and everything else were “pulverised by the collisions.” and on and on …
New York’s Columbia University seismographs recorded huge underground disturbances at the start of the building collapses. * Video footage shows plane-launched missiles hitting the towers and shows windows blown out due to internal bombs. Later, the Pentagon was “hit by a Boeing 757” : this left a 65ft. hole up to 9 ft deep in the steel-reinforced concrete walls. The plane, lock, stock and landing wheels, 124ft wingspan, 155ft long ang 44ft high then dematerialised. **No trace was seen on any film, photograph or video. An eye-witness reported “It was like a cruise missile with wings. It slammed into the Pentagon .. huge explosion .. great ball of fire.” and on and on …

The attacks : were the US-commissioned “new Pearl Harbor” : they provided the excuse to invade Afghanistan and take control of the strategically-oil-critical area : restored the heroin trade : reinforced the spurious arguments for the invasion of Iraq : destroyed large amounts of criminal evidence, against some very big Bush-friends, on the FBI and SEC floors of the WTC buildings : facilitated the pay-back of huge sums of election-donated money to the arms and pharmaceutical industries and allowed the Bush administration to create an even more tyrannically-controlled police state in the USA and kidnap, imprison and tortue innocent “terrorists”
“ ..the government is then authorized to enforce the quarantine of individuals and entire cities, confiscate property from anyone who resists and take control of roads into and out of your city and state, in case anyone might try to leave town to avoid being medicated or vaccinated.
The government can also confiscate all communication devices such as telephones or computers, and can seize your house, car, food, clothing and firearms. The military is authorized to enforce the law, presumably holding down anyone who resists vaccination and escorting resisters or those too ill to take the shots to jail or the quarantine area for isolation, with the length of time to be determined by the state. An “actual” event of bioterrorism isn’t even necessary ; a “potential” emergency will suffice .. “ Lynne Born International Socialist Review, January 2004.

The Blair govt. is using the same phony reasons to push ID cards, imprisonment without trial and move further towards a police state.

missing Boeing
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen...e/erreurs_en.ht

Viv Realanti

7th October 2005 - 06:27 PM

You got it right about everything except the plane-launched missiles. That has been disproved.

Nemesis

7th October 2005 - 06:42 PM

Sorry
Sent in an outdated document.
NEW PEARL HARBOUR
“ Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th ; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from … the guilty. ” George W Bush Nov 10 2001
On September 11 2001, in New York City,
the twin buildings of the World Trade Centre, hit by aircraft which could have only caused localised damage, perfectly vertically imploded. Building 7, of the WTC complex, hours later, came out in sympathy and also collapsed in a heap.
The trillion-dollar US air safety and defence systems, active at all other times, were stood down on the morning of Sep. 11. The automatic hijack alert codes were not transmitted from the aircraft. The “19 hi-jackers” were quickly identified : 19 photographs appeared : their cars were quickly found. The passport of the “chief conspirator”, Atta, survived the crash and fire and was “found” 3 blocks away from the crash impacts. Atta’s rent-a-car was found not at the airport where he was alleged to have first taken off but at the airport of the intermediate flight – the one that crashed. His baggage, with the “incriminating evidence”, “missed the flight”.
The WTC security meeting, scheduled for Sep 11, was cancelled on Sep 10. NYC and Federal agents removed vast amounts of debris before the investigation team arrived : the planes’ black boxes and everything else were “pulverised by the collisions.”
New York’s Columbia University seismographs recorded huge underground disturbances at the start of the building collapses. Video footage shows windows blown out due to internal bombs. and on and on …

The attacks : were the “new Pearl Harbor” which the oil-boys had said they needed : provided the excuse to invade Afghanistan and take control of the strategically-oil-critical area : restored the heroin trade : reinforced the spurious arguments for the invasion of Iraq : destroyed large amounts of criminal evidence on the FBI and SEC floors of the WTC buildings : facilitated the pay-back of huge sums of election-donated money to the arms and pharmaceutical industries and allowed the Bush administration to create an even more tyrannically-controlled police state in the USA.
“ ..the government is then authorized to enforce the quarantine of individuals and entire cities, confiscate property from anyone who resists and take control of roads into and out of your city and state, in case anyone might try to leave town to avoid being medicated or vaccinated.
The government can also confiscate all communication devices such as telephones or computers, and can seize your house, car, food, clothing and firearms. The military is authorized to enforce the law, presumably holding down anyone who resists vaccination and escorting resisters or those too ill to take the shots to jail or the quarantine area for isolation, with the length of time to be determined by the state. An “actual” event of bioterrorism isn’t even necessary ; a “potential” emergency will suffice .. “
Lynne Born International Socialist Review, January 2004.
The UK government is also trampling on human rights and democracy through it’s phony “War on Terror.”
Film, photographs and eye-witness reports of the events were seen ONCE on live State US network television and then quickly buried by the US authorities, BUT NOT QUICKLY ENOUGH.
.There were no “hijacked commercial airliners” involved : the
WTC buildings were hit by remote-controlled military aircraft
and were demolished by explosives from within and below.
A missile hit the Pentagon.
Confronting the Evidence : DVD
2 hours 40 mins. £2.00 post paid
NEMESIS PO Box 73 Chesterfield S41 0YZ

URL : copy/paste : hunt the missing Boeing
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm

www.911inplanesite.com

mason free party

8th October 2005 - 01:47 AM

QUOTE (a_ht+Sep 30 2005, 07:02 PM)

Maybe the planes carried explosives, after all there were terrorists in there.

And saying that since steel melts at 1500 degree and that the fuel burns at 800 degree, the steel couldnt have melted and the floor couldnt collapse is non sense, because it is WELL KNOWN that steel's resistance decreases with temperature. As the official story said; it decreased ENOUGH. It doesnt have to melt.

EDIT:
And for the basic physic used in there. just wow. All of their argumentation reside on their calculated value of how long it took for the building to collapse which, they calculated at, 10s and 8s. I would like to know how exactly they calculated it since, I came up with 22s. Not the same number as they have???? How can that be?? well, maybe there is more than one object that felt, and depending on which object you calculate the falling time from, you get different results. Thats why computer models are used, because there are much more objets that one could ever hope to model with just one equations. Such models require 100 of man hour to complete and hundreds of thousands of dollars. If simple physic was enough, do you think ANYONE would use such models? And such models are used everwhere, in every field of science and engineering. The answer is no.

You apparently have some basis in physics. You, however, are at a dangerous stage, one at which you think you know enough to reach a good/valid conclusion. My advice, which I know you won't follow, is to shut up until you get a degree.

I suppose they were carrying nuclear explosives in their rucksackswhich brought the towers down...jeez give me strength,why can't people open their friggin eyes that this was an inside demolition job...whats up,scared you might upset some of your masonic friends/colleagues?

Winston Smith

9th October 2005 - 07:55 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 6 2005, 04:28 PM)

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department...

So is your posting on this forum on or off the clock?

This is the same ASCE that was involved in the cover-up of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9803576

Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, a military ordnance expert, was called in to investigate the aftermath of the bombing as well. He discovered clear evidence of demolition charges being placed in the building, criminal removal of evidence by the feds, and that it was physically impossible by an order of magnitude for the fertilizer bomb in the Ryder truck to cause the damage observed. Partin then tried to get congress and anyone who would listen to take up the case. He has hand-delivered the report to hundreds of congress members and authorities within the government and military. He was, and is to this day, completely ignored and even silenced in indirect ways.

Your organization has been compromised at some level, as NIST appears also to have been. (FEMA it seems is simply rotten from the ground up). If you are not paid to be here and value justice at all, I would do some investigating yourself into how much your employer values the truth.

You can read General Partin's report here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P.../PARTIN/okm.htm

And here is a video of a presentation he gave personally (104Mb, but worth every byte):
http://www.lastingnetworks.com/alexvideos/parton-ok.wmv

QUOTE

And for the basic physic used in there. just wow. All of their argumentation reside on their calculated value of how long it took for the building to collapse which, they calculated at, 10s and 8s. I would like to know how exactly they calculated it since, I came up with 22s.

Just for reference, NIST's report is probably the best resource available for external observations and data regarding the construction of the WTC towers and the collapse on 9-11, although much of it is fallacy in regards to the collapse mode, the projected damage to core columns, and the concluded intensity of the fires. NIST places the collapse time at 12s +/-0.5 for each tower.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm

Just visiting

10th October 2005 - 04:51 PM

QUOTE (Sinclair+Oct 6 2005, 05:12 PM)

5. A theory to explain the collapse mechanism ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis’ by Zdenek P. Bazant & Yong Zhou, was produced on 13th September 2001 without any investigation of the remaining steel components at the accident scene. Such an analysis would have/should have taken months. Not 2 days. Any engineer would concur with such a view.

I'm a software engineer and it takes us more than two days to DESIGN a login page, one of the most simple parts of a website.

engineer

11th October 2005 - 11:26 AM

The article is bunk.

The failure of the building was at the *impact points*, not the top of the building - the failures commenced from there, with the top structure riding down in freefall a fair way before disintegrating. Thus negating the entire demolition/pseudo-physics argument based on timing from the TOP of the building.

Asides from which the timing required for this proof is BS; it requires the timing of the TOP of the building hitting the ground - observation of which to the accuracy required to imply "implosion" is impossible due to the debris cloud.

The timing of the collapse during the period when the tops of the buildings are visible follows the progressive collapse theory just fine. And after the collapse of the top of the building has started, total destruction is inevitable.

The steel used in the WTC's strength is roughly halved at the temperatures generated in the fires. Uneven heating also increases the stress loading.

Bowing of the external structural beams - F*CKING OBVIOUS on the film footage - were obviously going to be responsible for some kind of failures; as it happens, disconnection of the floors, causing their failure onto the floors below them.

The buildings design has been shown in experiment and simulation to also have a design-specific vulnerability to the extended temperatures (softening/bowing of the external beams and floor truss' leading to their disconnection).

Read the wikipedia article if you want to understand it. In particular the section titled "The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, indicating that there were in fact two modes of failure."

Failure times of floors under the falling juggernaut are obviously going to offer no significant increase in time to the duration of the collapse. The first floor to fail was hit with 45,000 tons of the failed structure above it. The floor designs were for 1500 tons. The exterior columns were held in place by the floors and to each other, so the floors failure disconnected the exterior columns.

This is F*CKING OBVIOUSLY seen with large pieces of exterior struture progressively peeling away and falling.

The footprint of the buildings debris in *no way* showed paths consistent with high-speed ejection of debris accompanying an explosion at the time of collapse.

Indeed, portions of the exterior columns can be seen STILL STANDING for short periods *during* the collapse. This is EXACTLY what youd see as the floors failed, falling inside the 'tube' without managing to pull in all the exterior columns. Of course eventually the exterior columns are knocked over or pulled in by failing floors.

The large volumes of air expelled propelled a cloud of debris out - but only at mechanically-induced speeds. (Go look at the collapse videos again and think of the volume of air in a floor being squeezed out in ~1/20th of a second per floor).

As for the other 'arguments' - the main *structural* material of the building - steel columns - wasn't "pulverised to a powder".

There were 6 million feet of internal walls. This gypsum panel cladding *was* throughly crushed and expelled and this was the primary constituent of the dispersed cloud.

The thin 4" poured load-spreading concrete floors were also thoroughly destroyed, but this is expected as they were ONLY 4" thick structurally-unreinforced concrete. The destruction of the concrete corresponds to the destruction of the floors it was poured on. The majority of the concrete debris was confined to the collapse area.

Tower 7's collapse was similarly largely the result of fire and impact damage. Some beams recovered from 7 showed signs of 1000'c exposure. With no fire-supression activity taken, the buildings failure due to the combination of structural damage from the collapse of the WTC and fire was also inevitable - though in a different fashion to the WTC collapse. Tower 7's collapse is analysed in the NIST documents at

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

What's interesting is the progress of the collapse of WTC7 takes place over 8 seconds BEFORE the global collapse - if you know where to look.

Rather than more IDIOTIC conspiracy theories, what should be thought about is what improved design requirements should be legislated (increasing the costs of buildings) and who should foot the bill.

Andrew Johnson

11th October 2005 - 11:46 AM

Engineer,

I believe the most of the points you made have already been mentioned in this thread - and many items of data have been presented to refute them.

Whatever NIST or FEMA have said, I for one stick with the basic view that:

It is not possible for things to fall through the air as quickly as it is for them to fall through melting / bending / cracked / softened / plasticised or buckled steel. To get near the freefall time, all of the supporting structure must essentially "disappear" - or collapse in synchronisation. All the evidence supports that this is what happened. The amount of energy required for this to happen in the situation of WTC 1 & 2, however, simply can not be provided by the kinetic energy of the jet impacts combined with the total potential and combustion energy of those things which burned in the resulting fires. Such calculations have been attempted already (clearly, they can only be done with some margin of error).

These articles focus on the science of this particular aspect of the demolition:

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/how-hot.htm

This type of evidence has nothing to do with conspiracies, as I have tried to make clear above. You have to focus on the video and physical evidence, then other conclusions flow from that. Stating the obvious, this is the essence of scientific method, is it not?

If you immediately assume it was the jet fuel and impacts alone which caused the collapse and will not examine the evidence which shows this assumption is wrong, then you are bound to come to a conclusion which is incorrect. i.e. all the evidence and data must be considered carefully before dismissing a particular conclusion as "a theory" etc.

To refute these analyses, you need to present hard data and arguments - we can prove, using basic physics, the official reports are wrong, however many times links to them are posted, or references to NIST and FEMA are made. Their basic physics is wrong - despite the $$ spent on simulations and computer animations.

Thanks for reading.

metamars

11th October 2005 - 04:11 PM

I haven't studied the NIST document, but certainly the FEMA "explanation" is a Fairy Tale. Even FEMA admits (in Chp 2) that "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses." Never mind, for now, that FEMA never attempts to quantify how much energy you need to effect a global collapse of WTC 1 & 2, when they try to argue that there was sufficient energy to initiate collapse, what tried and tested technique do they rely on?

Well, FEMA waives it's hands, that's what it does!.

Everybody should read Chapter 2 of the FEMA report to see what a laugher it is. Just when they get to the "good stuff" - which is "explaining" where the extra energy comes from - they suddenly become as scientific as the flat earth people. Specifically:

QUOTE

FEMA says ( p. 2-37) that "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses." The report immediately goes on to blame the effects of other combustibles:, "However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from theses fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

Got that? 7,000 gallons of kersone fuel, representing the what remained of the estimated 10,000 gallons that did not erupt in the impact fireball outside of the WTC wasn't enough to to collapse the weakened structure. But add in all that burning paper, carpeting, and plastic, and you've got something "estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station". How many KW this hypothetical power station puts out and how they got this amazing figure, FEMA DOESN'T SAY. No reference, nothing. (I quote the references for FEMA Chp. 2 at the end of this post. *)

Furthermore, the picture of a woman standing in the gaping hole left by one of the planes, WHICH IS IN THE FEMA REPORT ITSELF, (other photos of the same woman is linked to below) gives the lie to this ridiculous claim. There is obviously no proper shielding of this hypothetical "large commercial power generating station", yet this woman is standing there, as calm as can be. Her hair is not on fire, her clothes are not on fire, she is fine. Indeed, as you can see in the middle picture, she is waiving.

user posted image

Unfortunately for the US Government's Fairy Tale version of collapse, and it's supporters, even back of the envelope calculations making absurdly generous assumptions in FEMA's favor show you that the FEMA non-explanation is energetically impossible, certainly by an order of magnitude, and more realistically by two orders of magnitude. To a sufficiently great degree of accuracy, we know how much kinetic energy was in the plane, how much chemical energy was in the fuel, and, most importantly, how much potential energy was stored by the mass of the buildings themselves. Comparing these energy sources to the energy sinks puts the lie to the FEMA report.

(Oh, and by the way, if you still believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale, and believe that WTC 1 & 2 could have collapsed without the use of explosives, you can win $1,000,000 by proving that's the case. See reopen911.org for details of the contest. But I digress)

Jim Hoffman has looked at the energy sink reprented by the pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud that enveloped WTC 1 & 2 during collapse, and this energy sink alone exceeds the energy sources mentioned above. Please visit his site for details (911research.wtc7.net) Hoffman is obviously very smart, very successful, and very eloquent. Certainly not a crank. His work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest, and Nature. You can hear extensive interviews of him on this subject at:

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=4344&page=3&type=all
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=5608&page=3&type=all

As for my humble back of the envelope calculation, wherein I ignore the energy sink of pyroclastic flows (because I know nothing of their physics

), and in which I pretend that all of the heat energy from 7,000 gallons of burning fuel magically go into the steel (so as to weaken it maximally - this is a ludicrous assumption which obviously favors FEMA), is reproduced below. ( In point of fact, Im sure most of the heat energy from the burning get fuel went into heating air, which simply vented out the building.) While I can be rightly accused of ignoring the heat from secondary fires, I'm certainly not ignoring it any more than the woman in the photos. Although I haven't done it, a reasonable way to put that nonsense to rest is to assume that 15 percent of the volume of the office space in, say, 15 of the WTC floors is filled with a combustible, such as copier paper, and calculating the heat energy released by that in a fire.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

FEMA says ( p. 2-37) that "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses." The report immediately goes on to blame the effects of other combustibles:, "However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from theses fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

Got that? 7,000 gallons of kersone fuel, representing the what remained of the estimated 10,000 gallons that did not erupt in the impact fireball outside of the WTC wasn't enough to to collapse the weakened structure. But add in all that burning paper, carpeting, and plastic, and you've got something "estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station". How many KW this hypothetical power station puts out and how they got this amazing figure, FEMA DOESN'T SAY. No reference, nothing. (I quote the references for FEMA Chp. 2 at the end of this post. *)

Furthermore, the picture of a woman standing in the gaping hole left by one of the planes, WHICH IS IN THE FEMA REPORT ITSELF, (other photos of the same woman is linked to below) gives the lie to this ridiculous claim. There is obviously no proper shielding of this hypothetical "large commercial power generating station", yet this woman is standing there, as calm as can be. Her hair is not on fire, her clothes are not on fire, she is fine. Indeed, as you can see in the middle picture, she is waiving.

user posted image

Unfortunately for the US Government's Fairy Tale version of collapse, and it's supporters, even back of the envelope calculations making absurdly generous assumptions in FEMA's favor show you that the FEMA non-explanation is energetically impossible, certainly by an order of magnitude, and more realistically by two orders of magnitude. To a sufficiently great degree of accuracy, we know how much kinetic energy was in the plane, how much chemical energy was in the fuel, and, most importantly, how much potential energy was stored by the mass of the buildings themselves. Comparing these energy sources to the energy sinks puts the lie to the FEMA report.

(Oh, and by the way, if you still believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale, and believe that WTC 1 & 2 could have collapsed without the use of explosives, you can win $1,000,000 by proving that's the case. See reopen911.org for details of the contest. But I digress)

Jim Hoffman has looked at the energy sink reprented by the pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud that enveloped WTC 1 & 2 during collapse, and this energy sink alone exceeds the energy sources mentioned above. Please visit his site for details (911research.wtc7.net) Hoffman is obviously very smart, very successful, and very eloquent. Certainly not a crank. His work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest, and Nature. You can hear extensive interviews of him on this subject at:

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=4344&page=3&type=all
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=5608&page=3&type=all

As for my humble back of the envelope calculation, wherein I ignore the energy sink of pyroclastic flows (because I know nothing of their physics

), and in which I pretend that all of the heat energy from 7,000 gallons of burning fuel magically go into the steel (so as to weaken it maximally - this is a ludicrous assumption which obviously favors FEMA), is reproduced below. ( In point of fact, Im sure most of the heat energy from the burning get fuel went into heating air, which simply vented out the building.) While I can be rightly accused of ignoring the heat from secondary fires, I'm certainly not ignoring it any more than the woman in the photos. Although I haven't done it, a reasonable way to put that nonsense to rest is to assume that 15 percent of the volume of the office space in, say, 15 of the WTC floors is filled with a combustible, such as copier paper, and calculating the heat energy released by that in a fire.

Specific Heat of steel

0.438 Jg-1K-1
or 438 Joules/kg K

According to FEMA, 350,000 tons of steel removed from ground zero (WTC 1 & 2)
which is 317,450,000 KG

so 158,725,000 kg of steel for just WTC 1
let's call it 1.5 x 10^8 kg

So, need 438 x 1.5 x 10^8 Joules to raise the temperature of the steel in WTC 1 by 1 degree K

= 6.57 x 10^10 Joules to raise the temperature of the WTC steel by 1 degree K

(some specific heats are at; http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/223/spheat/)

from http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcomworkenergy.html
=======================================================
132,500 BTU in 1 gallon of kerosene
1 BTU = 1055.06 joule
so 10,000 gallons kerosene =

1,397,954,500,000 Joules
= 1.40 x 10 ^ 12 Joules

SO, IGNORING DAMAGE, KINETIC ENERGY OF PLANE, AND SECONDARY FIRES, IF WE ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW HOT COULD THE FUEL IN 10,000 GALLONS OF KEROSENE HEAT THE STEEL IN WTC 1 IF ALL OF THE HEAT ENERGY WENT INTO THE STEEL AND THE TEMPERATURE WAS UNIFORM, WE SEE THAT THE WTC STEEL WOULD HAVE INCREASED IN TEMPERATURE BY ABOUT 20.3 DEGREES K

(20.3 = 1.40 x 10 ^ 12 / 438 x 1.5 x 10^8 )

TO WEAKEN STEEL BY 40%, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE IT'S TEMPERATURE TO ABOUT 550 DEGREES KELVIN
( http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm )

68 DEG FARENHEIT = 20 CELCIUS = 293 KELVIN

SO, IN THIS SCENARIO, TO FURTHER INCREASE THE TEMPERATURE OF WTC1 TO 550 KELVIN, AND THUS WEAKEN THE STRENGTH BY 40%, YOU WOULD NEED THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF ALMOST 12 ADDITIONAL JETLINERS WORTH OF FUEL TO BE ADDED TO THE SYSTEM, EACH CARRYING 10,000 GALLONS OF KEROSENE

[ ( (550-293) / 20.3 ) = 12.7 ]

N.B. We know that the collapse occurred over about an 11 second period, which is almost free fall speed, so, making up plausible but possibly very goofy numbers, if you assume that the buildings' steel must decrease in strength by 80% before collapse ensues, and therefore that this implies that you need a additional factor of 1.5 in your heat source, and furthermore consider that the buildings are over engineered to the tune of a factor of 5, you would end up needing something like 12 x (1.5 - 1) x (5 - 1) = 24 additional planes worth of fuel. Mr. FEMA, got any clue where this amount of energy would come from?

===========================================

* References from Chp. 2 of the FEMA Fairy Tale, wherein they justify their ludicrous assumptions that secondary fires were sufficient to provide the missing energy needed to initiate the collapse of the WTC buildings NOT AT ALL. As you can see, most all these references are nothing more than first person accounts of survivors.

QUOTE

BBC News. 2001. "We Ran for Our Lives." Account of Mike Shillaker. September 13.
Cauchon, D. 2001a. "For Many on Sept. 11, Survival Was No Accident," USAToday.com. December 19.
Cauchon, D. 2001b. "Four Survived by Ignoring Words of Advice," USAToday.com. December 19.
Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI). 2000. SAP-2000. Berkely, CA.
Dateline NBC.2001. "The Miracle of Ladder Company 6." September 28.
Hearst, D. 2001. "Attack on America: Survivors: Suddenly they started to yell out. 'get out now':Bravery and fear mingled with disbelief," Guardian Home Pages, page 15. Account of Simon Oliver. September 13.
Labriola, J. 2001. Personal account. Channel 4 News, "Inside the World Trade Center," broadcast. September 13.
Masetti, A. 2001. Personal account received by email. December 21.
Mayblum, A. 2001. Personal account. www.worldtradecenternews.org/survivorstory.html, World Trade Center Miracles section. September 18.
New York Board of Fire Underwriters. 1975. One World Trade Center Fire, February 13, 1975.
Nicholson, W.J.: Rohl, A.N.: Weisman, L.; and Seltkoff, I.J. 1980. Environmental Asbestos Concentrations in the United States, page 823. Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount Zion Hospital, New York, NY.
Scripps, H. 2001. "I walked out ... I made it out alive," BostonHerald.com. Account of John Walsh. September 14.

Jon Pratt

11th October 2005 - 07:34 PM

My name is Jon Pratt: Sometimes I post under the name Plectic.

I have a HND in civil engineering, a first class degree in communication design and a master of arts (MA) in Multimedia.

During 5 have helped construct many structures and roads, as structural engineer and setting-out engineer. I have a keen interest in occult science (with emphasis on science), and philosophy and media theory.

If one group of people can help resolve this problem it is the physics community, because invariably the paradigm change will first spread from the physical sciences to the other "communities" . The real war is between the empiricals and what I refer to as the de-cens or relativistic (in every sense of the word). Some occultists refer to the "empirical" as

Ahrimanic.Ahrimanis the symbol of matter, crystallization, formation of boundaries and limitations, solidification in all regions. Ahriman is the tendency for the animate to become inanimate, for motion to become stillness. Ahriman is thus identified with unconsciousness, materialism, and stasis. Because matter is 'mute' Ahriman can be considered to be the enemy of non material abstractions like morality and ethics.

It´s the death throe´ of epistemology, because of the fraudulent scientific practice that denies the reliance of it´s method on axioms* (*axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up) . The story that some rag-headed urban legend/multi-millionaire/ex-cia/business partner of many influential Americans co-ordinated a simultaneous multi-target hijacking, scoring 3 direct hits under the auspices of (supposedly) the most-protected country in the world is in itself a conspiracy.

QUOTE

All of this activity has been triggered by repeated charges that the Bush administration has reached a new low in its willingness to twist and undermine scientific information to suit desired policy objectives. Such accusations have a four year history, stretching from early concerns over whether the administration would even name a science adviser, through 2001 debates over stem cells and global warming, past reports complied by members of Congress denouncing the administration's meddling with science going on at federal agencies and the composition of scientific advisory committees, and up to a landmark moment--a February 2004 statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists (and assorted scientific community superstars) that denounced the Bush administration for unprecedented and systematic abuses and misuses of science.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars2/

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
One of the most famous challenges against empiricism is Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which built upon Norwood Russell Hanson's Patterns of Discovery (1958). In this, he argues that theory change is actually developed through paradigm shifts, where a new idea is offered that doesn't follow on existing theories but instead offers a unique, creative solution to existing problems. Scientific thinking, in Kuhn's view, goes through revolutions, instead of gradual theory development through testing and experimentation. After the revolution occurs, scientists can see things they weren't able to see before in the former framework. Kuhn also questioned whether scientific experimentation is truly unbiased and neutral since the experimenter had previous theories and preconceptions which could affect what experiments are chosen and the way in which the results are interpreted. Kuhn also questioned whether we can trust the reliability of our senses, and cited the famous illusions printed in Hanson's 1958 book.
The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

All of this activity has been triggered by repeated charges that the Bush administration has reached a new low in its willingness to twist and undermine scientific information to suit desired policy objectives. Such accusations have a four year history, stretching from early concerns over whether the administration would even name a science adviser, through 2001 debates over stem cells and global warming, past reports complied by members of Congress denouncing the administration's meddling with science going on at federal agencies and the composition of scientific advisory committees, and up to a landmark moment--a February 2004 statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists (and assorted scientific community superstars) that denounced the Bush administration for unprecedented and systematic abuses and misuses of science.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars2/

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
One of the most famous challenges against empiricism is Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which built upon Norwood Russell Hanson's Patterns of Discovery (1958). In this, he argues that theory change is actually developed through paradigm shifts, where a new idea is offered that doesn't follow on existing theories but instead offers a unique, creative solution to existing problems. Scientific thinking, in Kuhn's view, goes through revolutions, instead of gradual theory development through testing and experimentation. After the revolution occurs, scientists can see things they weren't able to see before in the former framework. Kuhn also questioned whether scientific experimentation is truly unbiased and neutral since the experimenter had previous theories and preconceptions which could affect what experiments are chosen and the way in which the results are interpreted. Kuhn also questioned whether we can trust the reliability of our senses, and cited the famous illusions printed in Hanson's 1958 book.
The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

"I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal."

Dearest a_ht, thankyou for the bombastic revelation. Why should we care about the politicians not wanting "another scandal"? Do you not feel obligated to do/say something?

Is it Einstein vs Newton ? 100 years later ?

QUOTE

First class Degree Dissertation in Communication Design (spring 1999)
Virtually every (apparently) important event in recent times has been
recorded, edited, digitally remastered and recontextualised within the
televisual environment. These have ranged from man's first step on the
moon to the death of Princess Diana to the crumbling of the Berlin
Wall, many of which have been broadcast live to audiences of billions.

'This sense of immediacy and truthfulness which is the result of
watching a steady stream of images interpreted with authority is what
George Gerbner warned about as'instant history' - that is, history
constructed by technology which 'concentrates power, shrinks time, and
speeds action to the point where reporting, making and writing history
merge'
http://plectic.com/diss.pdf

Master of Arts from the university of Portsmouth. January 2000

Unit: Linear- Non Linear Design part 1 Synchronicity Briefing

This project asks you initially to carefully consider the vast and complex inter- relationships and ideas being forged between the urban environment and a technological society . This theme offers a basis by which a range of discourses and diverse expertise from many subject specializations can be valued and a context for our own practice with multimedia be better understood.

" Further critical engagement became possible with this more defined work area. I attributed certain well-known theorists and various groups as specialists in particular areas. Baudrillard for his dysopian simulations, Focault for his work on power structure, Virillo for politics, technology and speed and Critical Art Ensemble for biotechnology (to name but a few)".

"The models of the universe which our culture has employed influence our very language, and the structure of our thought, indeed the very constitution of our logic, is seen in the architecture of today"s computers. The western model of the universe is political, being derived from engineeriong or architecture. All Western thought is based on the idea that the universe is a construct, and even when we get rid of the idea of the constructor of the personal god we continue to think of the world in terms of it being a machine" (1)
http://www.plectic.com/non-linear.html

We now turn to a structural analysis of modern false-flag terrorism of the type that is
commonly sponsored by factions or networks embedded in the secret intelligence
agencies of modern states. This discussion draws on the work of Andreas von Bülow,
Gerard Wisnewski, Gianfranco Sanguinetti, and on my own research on the Moro
assassination, the Red Brigades, and Italian terrorism in general.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

First class Degree Dissertation in Communication Design (spring 1999)
Virtually every (apparently) important event in recent times has been
recorded, edited, digitally remastered and recontextualised within the
televisual environment. These have ranged from man's first step on the
moon to the death of Princess Diana to the crumbling of the Berlin
Wall, many of which have been broadcast live to audiences of billions.

'This sense of immediacy and truthfulness which is the result of
watching a steady stream of images interpreted with authority is what
George Gerbner warned about as'instant history' - that is, history
constructed by technology which 'concentrates power, shrinks time, and
speeds action to the point where reporting, making and writing history
merge'
http://plectic.com/diss.pdf

Master of Arts from the university of Portsmouth. January 2000

Unit: Linear- Non Linear Design part 1 Synchronicity Briefing

This project asks you initially to carefully consider the vast and complex inter- relationships and ideas being forged between the urban environment and a technological society . This theme offers a basis by which a range of discourses and diverse expertise from many subject specializations can be valued and a context for our own practice with multimedia be better understood.

" Further critical engagement became possible with this more defined work area. I attributed certain well-known theorists and various groups as specialists in particular areas. Baudrillard for his dysopian simulations, Focault for his work on power structure, Virillo for politics, technology and speed and Critical Art Ensemble for biotechnology (to name but a few)".

"The models of the universe which our culture has employed influence our very language, and the structure of our thought, indeed the very constitution of our logic, is seen in the architecture of today"s computers. The western model of the universe is political, being derived from engineeriong or architecture. All Western thought is based on the idea that the universe is a construct, and even when we get rid of the idea of the constructor of the personal god we continue to think of the world in terms of it being a machine" (1)
http://www.plectic.com/non-linear.html

We now turn to a structural analysis of modern false-flag terrorism of the type that is
commonly sponsored by factions or networks embedded in the secret intelligence
agencies of modern states. This discussion draws on the work of Andreas von Bülow,
Gerard Wisnewski, Gianfranco Sanguinetti, and on my own research on the Moro
assassination, the Red Brigades, and Italian terrorism in general.
PATSIES
“I’m just a patsy.”
Lee Harvey Oswald,
November 1963
Speaking of Guy Fawkes and his confreres, Father Gerard comments that “many
intelligent men took for granted that in some way or other the actual conspirators were
but the dupes and instruments of more crafty men than themselves, and in their mad
enterprise played the game of ministers of State.” (Gerard 43) In this sense, Guy Fawkes
may represent the archetype of the category of person known in modern intelligence
parlance as the patsy.
The real authorship of state sponsored terrorism is to be successfully concealed, then a
collection of scapegoats is the first ingredient required. These may be defined as the
patsies, or alternatively as fall-guys, scapegoats, useful idiots, or dupes. It is necessary
that they be of low mental ability and great gullibility, since their mission is to be part of
false-flag groups which pretend to be working for a cause, such as the restoration of the
caliphate, while in reality they are under the control of a private network inside the US
government. It is vital for the terrorist controllers that the patsies not realize that this or
that comrade in arms is actually a double agent, a provocateur working for the parallel
CIA or some other complicit agency, or which more will be said later. The best
candidates for the patsy role are psychotics, psychopaths, or sociopaths. They may be
fanatics bursting with criminal energy and criminal intent, or they may be pathetic
ideologues and naifs. Frequently they are also misfits, bunglers, and generally maladroit
in what they undertake.
According to research sponsored in 1999 by the Library of Congress, in a 1972 study
“psychologist B.J. Berkowitz described six psychological types who would be most
likely to threaten or try to use WMD: paranoids, paranoid schizophrenics, borderline
mental defectives, schizophrenic types, passive-aggressive personality types, and
sociopath personalities. He considered sociopaths the most likely actually to use WMD.
Nuclear terrorism expert Jessica Stern disagreed. She believed that "Schizophrenics and
sociopaths, for example, may want to commit acts of mass destruction, but they are less
likely than others to succeed." She pointed out that large-scale dissemination of chemical,
biological, or radiological agents requires a group effort, but that "Schizophrenics, in
particular, often have difficulty functioning in groups...." (Hudson)"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/lon.../07/317435.html

Alex

11th October 2005 - 08:22 PM

Hi, I studied only pre-med level physics at a prestigious university, but am quite good at math.

Check out www.911Proof.com for first-hand eyewitness testimony regarding destruction of the world trade centers.

Can physics explain the phenomena described in the absence of controlled demolition?

Guest_tony

11th October 2005 - 10:41 PM

Great to find this impassioned yet eminently reasonable discussion of the enormous questions that remain (and only seem to grow) surrounding what actually happened on 9/11/2001. I find myself thinking about these questions all the time.

Some good relevant writing at:
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by Dave Heller

QUOTE

...but the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.

I myself wonder, first and foremost, why there seems to be so much obfuscation and fear around even discussing these questions -- particularly by government agencies, but also by the media.

Focusing on just the science allows us to remove any political or emotional prejudices we may have.

metamars

11th October 2005 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE

I myself wonder, first and foremost, why there seems to be so much obfuscation and fear around even discussing these questions -- particularly by government agencies, but also by the media.

Shucks, that's an easy one. Once you realize that that the FEMA/US Gov't. versions of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a Fairy Tale, (because it's energetically impossible), you then have to ask yourself who could have supplied this source of energy.

The figures I've seen indicate you'd need at least the energy equivalent of 14 tons of explosives. "

That tells you immediately that this was an inside job, since Osama Bin Laden could not have supplied this much of an energy source.

Which means that agencies within your own government not only countenanced this murder of American citizens, it means that they essentially Made It Happen On Purpose. (MIHOP)

Not a pleasant thought....

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I myself wonder, first and foremost, why there seems to be so much obfuscation and fear around even discussing these questions -- particularly by government agencies, but also by the media.

Shucks, that's an easy one. Once you realize that that the FEMA/US Gov't. versions of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a Fairy Tale, (because it's energetically impossible), you then have to ask yourself who could have supplied this source of energy.

The figures I've seen indicate you'd need at least the energy equivalent of 14 tons of explosives. "

That tells you immediately that this was an inside job, since Osama Bin Laden could not have supplied this much of an energy source.

Which means that agencies within your own government not only countenanced this murder of American citizens, it means that they essentially Made It Happen On Purpose. (MIHOP)

Not a pleasant thought....

"Focusing on just the science allows us to remove any political or emotional prejudices we may have."

In principle, yes, but scientist are often not as rational as they presume they are. It hasn't helped that the overwhelming majority of the evidence was destroyed.

However, the nice thing about energy source / energy sink calculations is that you can still do them to a great enough degree of accuracy to make firm conclusions, even after all this time. Which ain't too hard, since the government/FEMA version was so wildly off. Too bad for us that they used a jetliner instead of a Cessna, which made their ruse more convincing. Otherwise we would have caught on much sooner.

somebigguy

12th October 2005 - 12:59 AM

Hey Engineer, you make the following statement:

"Rather than more IDIOTIC conspiracy theories, what should be thought about is what improved design requirements should be legislated (increasing the costs of buildings) and who should foot the bill."

If you care so much, please contact the media and your congressman to demand an answer as to why the WTC debris was illegaly removed which prevents anyone from adequately investigating the collapses to help us improve the design of buildings in the future.

Galileo

12th October 2005 - 05:27 AM

By conservation of energy, a destructive collapse from above at anywhere near free-fall speeds is impossible. Otherwise, parachutes wouldn't work.

Guest

12th October 2005 - 06:47 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Sep 30 2005, 09:14 PM)

The field would be structural or mechanical engineering. Not science. Having done both, the difference is flagrant, but in my experience, scientists often believe they are just as good as engineers to perform these analysis. And unfortunatly, aren't.

Yeah, engineers are really good...like the ones who designed the levee systems in New Orleans..

Andrew Johnson

12th October 2005 - 07:50 PM

I thought I would just mention, in response to this last post that the relative skills of Engineers and Scientists (I am sure there are good and bad versions of both) do not affect the observed near-free fall collapse time of the WTC Towers. Neither does what happened or did not happen in New Orleans.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I wanted this thread to focus on the Physics of the Collapse of the WTC Towers.

The Physics of the New Orleans disaster could be started on a separate thread, once more evidence and data are available for analysis.

Andrew

Schneibster

13th October 2005 - 05:09 AM

QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Oct 1 2005, 06:47 AM)

I have had a look through:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
By Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

I would not pretend to understand how they derived or applied the equations they use as I do not have training in structural engineering, but I do not see that this would make a difference to the following notes:

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons (a) When the jets hit, only some floors were set on fire. e.g. (as a guess) the lower 500 feet of the tower had no fire at all, so their beams were not weakened or softened by heat of the fire. (

the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising. c) The firemen said the fires were not very bad when they got there. (d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.

2) Again, the authors do not address the near-free fall time. Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data. They talk about weakening, softening, plasticity and elasticity. All these ideas are fine, but "free fall" by definition means "with no resistance". Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed).

3) If the beams/trusses had just softened, there would not have been a large pyroclastic flow of dust at the time of collapse. Creating a cloud of dust like this requires a great deal of energy. The potential energy of floors collapsing being converted into kinetic energy during the fall would not be sufficient to produce as large a cloud of fine powdered dust as was seen on the day. (Obviously any collapse would produce *some* dust.)

4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.

5) As is usual with these analyses, the paper does not mention WTC 7 - it too underwent free-fall collapse (as shown by at least 3 different video recordings I have) even though it was only hit by a small amount of debris and only had small fires burning for most of the day.

I think that, like the Pancake Collapse theory, the paper is wrong - for the same reasons as given in my slides - and for the reasons I already replied to above.

I know that what I have proposed and talked about is truly, truly shocking but as I alluded to, the emotional response to observed data does not change the physics which explains that data.

Thanks for the paper though - useful to know about.

I feel strongly that insufficient time was spent answering the points in this post. I'd therefore like to pose some answers and see how far we get with them.

QUOTE

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.

(a) When the jets hit, only some floors were set on fire. e.g. (as a guess) the lower 500 feet of the tower had no fire at all, so their beams were not weakened or softened by heat of the fire.

No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.

QUOTE

(

the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising.

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a HIGH INDEX OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, BUILD UP or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just HOT AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from SEVERAL FEET AWAY NO MATTER WHETHER YOU'RE OVER IT OR UNDER IT, can you???

Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(

the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising.

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a HIGH INDEX OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, BUILD UP or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just HOT AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from SEVERAL FEET AWAY NO MATTER WHETHER YOU'RE OVER IT OR UNDER IT, can you???

Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

c) The firemen said the fires were not very bad when they got there.

What fires where were "not very bad?" And just exactly what does "not very bad" mean, anyway, in terms of a fire that is consuming an ENTIRE FLOOR OF A BUILDING? And, of course, the FIRST FIREMEN ON THE SCENE (hey, you said "when they got there") have MAGIC X-RAY EYES AND CAN SEE UP A THOUSAND FEET AND THROUGH CONCRETE AND STEEL TO KNOW JUST HOW BAD THE FIRES ARE, right? Oh, and by the way, can I see some LINKS to what these firemen said? Can you maybe provide MULTIPLE SOURCES in case someone is lying or just twisting the truth a little bit so they can sell more subscriptions or whatnot? That would be NICE.

QUOTE

(d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.

Wow, this is the WORST MISSTATEMENT OF THE BUNCH! This just keeps getting BETTER and BETTER. OK, let's start from the beginning:
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, ENERGY JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE, right? Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, JUST IGNORE THE PAPER AND CLOTH AND WOOD on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and EVEN IF THEY DO THEY DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT,

Andrew Johnson

13th October 2005 - 07:11 AM

Schneibster,

Thanks for your comments, which I will try to address below. In summary, there are 3 ways I look at this issue

a) Using Basic Physics (which your considered post did not specifically comment on - rather it commented on my response to the "Simple Analysis" report)

Looking at the video and physical evidence

c) "Common Sense" interpretation of same evidence.

Your points:

QUOTE

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor..<snip>.slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I did not state the floors weren't *constructed* in an identical manner - they were, I stated that the damage to each floor was not identical - this is an important consideration in the model. If, say, 3/4 of the side of the towers were on fire, then the "simple analysis" might have been based on reality more.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor..<snip>.slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I did not state the floors weren't *constructed* in an identical manner - they were, I stated that the damage to each floor was not identical - this is an important consideration in the model. If, say, 3/4 of the side of the towers were on fire, then the "simple analysis" might have been based on reality more.

No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.

This may well be correct - but I return to previous points - however much they were overloaded - even by a factor of 100, it does not make the steel fall away so that the material above can undergo freefall (which it essentially did).

QUOTE

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a ... one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

OK - I made a vey general and basic point to try and express that the floors would be different temperatures. I used no specific figures. This was another reason, I felt, why the Simple Analysis wasn't good. If you think this point (

is a waste of time, I won't argue with you.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a ... one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

OK - I made a vey general and basic point to try and express that the floors would be different temperatures. I used no specific figures. This was another reason, I felt, why the Simple Analysis wasn't good. If you think this point (

is a waste of time, I won't argue with you.

What fires where were "not very bad?" And just exactly what does "not very bad" mean, anyway, in terms of a fire that is consuming an ENTIRE FLOOR OF A BUILDING? And, of course, the FIRST FIREMEN ON THE SCENE (hey, you said "when they got there<snip>firemen said? Can you maybe provide MULTIPLE SOURCES in case someone is lying or just twisting the truth a little bit so they can sell more subscriptions or whatnot? That would be NICE.

Again, I didn't make a specific point about physics here, I was referring to other evidence. The fires were cool. If you listen to the Firemen's tapes

http://www.nbvfd3.org/nbvfd3_wtcaudio.html

you will hear this. Here is a partial transcript:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

from 9:52 am here:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefight...pe-excerpts.htm

Obviously this isn't a comprehensive analysis of the situation, but it is supporting evidence that what I (and many others) have said is basically correct.

QUOTE

Wow, this is the WORST MISSTATEMENT OF THE BUNCH! This just keeps getting BETTER and BETTER. OK, let's start from the beginning:
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, ENERGY JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE, right? Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, JUST IGNORE THE PAPER AND CLOTH AND WOOD on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and EVEN IF THEY DO THEY DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT,

I don't see why this is a mis-statement. A lot of fuel from the 2nd plane exploded in a fireball in the air - thus that energy contributed little or nothing to the fire in the WTC tower. That's what I meant. Obviously there were fires there and all the burning things you mentioned. This, again, was not sufficient to cause freefall collapse. In previous posts, I tried to consider another aspect related to the freefall collapse - the total potential, kinetic and combustion energy of the WTC as a system. I haven't done these calculations - see other web pages referenced in earlier posts and form your own opinion of them. I think it is abundantly clear that those calculations also show that explosives must have been used to explain the energy of the system that was apparent that day.

Anyway, let us assume for a moment that you are right about the points 1a) to 1d) that you referenced above - i.e. I am wrong, I think it is still important to offer good answers to points 2-5 that I raised in the same post.

Thanks for reading.

Schneibster

13th October 2005 - 08:07 AM

I feel strongly that insufficient time was spent answering the points in this post. I'd therefore like to pose some answers and see how far we get with them.

QUOTE

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I should also tell you that I did a calculation based on the number of stories above the damaged story, and on them falling JUST ONE FLOOR- and the figures I got showed that the force was OVER A HUNDRED TIMES THE STATIC LOAD. So thirty times is pretty much a conservative estimate, and allows for quite a bit of elasticity in the steel, and for quite a slow collapse rate.

So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.

Then there's the eyewitness accounts, and several video tape sound tracks, where the first collapse, and the second, are clearly audible- and separated by enough time that they are easily distinguishable. They are followed by a series that gets faster and faster until it merges into a rumbling roar, and the camera holder invariably starts running- NOBODY'S stupid enough to just stand there while all that steel and concrete falls out of the sky!

So now we have multiple data points- theoretical, and evidentiary, and the evidence both on multiple video tapes and in multiple pieces of testimony- that supports the much-maligned "pancake theory." As I said to the last person who tried this crap, would you like some syrup? I understand that the pancakes are improved by it, although I can't say I expect it will help the crow you're eating much.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

1) Their model/analysis treats each floor of the towers in a similar way. This does not seem correct or valid to me for several reasons

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor contained a fire hot enough to cause sufficient "creep" of the steel to make it collapse. They then show that the forces caused by that collapse were sufficient to cause at least ten times more force on the next lower floor than it could ever have held given even the most optimistic estimate; and that's the very least amount of force it would have seen, the most is more like seventy or eighty times its maximum possible load, making the median roughly thirty times its maximum possible load. And once that next floor had collapsed, even if it had slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I should also tell you that I did a calculation based on the number of stories above the damaged story, and on them falling JUST ONE FLOOR- and the figures I got showed that the force was OVER A HUNDRED TIMES THE STATIC LOAD. So thirty times is pretty much a conservative estimate, and allows for quite a bit of elasticity in the steel, and for quite a slow collapse rate.

So, did you have some point about how a thirty-times overload of the structure JUST COULDN'T have caused it to fail? How's that again? I really would like to see your calculations on this score.

Then there's the eyewitness accounts, and several video tape sound tracks, where the first collapse, and the second, are clearly audible- and separated by enough time that they are easily distinguishable. They are followed by a series that gets faster and faster until it merges into a rumbling roar, and the camera holder invariably starts running- NOBODY'S stupid enough to just stand there while all that steel and concrete falls out of the sky!

So now we have multiple data points- theoretical, and evidentiary, and the evidence both on multiple video tapes and in multiple pieces of testimony- that supports the much-maligned "pancake theory." As I said to the last person who tried this crap, would you like some syrup? I understand that the pancakes are improved by it, although I can't say I expect it will help the crow you're eating much.

(a) When the jets hit, only some floors were set on fire. e.g. (as a guess) the lower 500 feet of the tower had no fire at all, so their beams were not weakened or softened by heat of the fire.

No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.

QUOTE

(

the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising.

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a high index of thermal conductivity, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, build up or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just hot AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from several feet away SIDEWAYS, right?

Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. How many more will there be? Let's find out.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(

the floors above would be at a higher temperature due to the heat rising.

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a high index of thermal conductivity, right? Ummm, or not. You know, like maybe concrete doesn't conduct heat AT ALL WELL, and perhaps that might cause the heat to, like, you know, build up or something? No, no, that couldn't be right, we all know that HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE IN BASIC PHYSICS, right? Oh, and by the way, isn't it just hot AIR that rises- not HEAT ITSELF? No, no, that can't be right, you can't FEEL the heat from a fire from several feet away SIDEWAYS, right?

Lemme see now, that's at least four BASIC PHYSICS principles you've violated right here in this one, single statement. And at least three more in the previous one. How many more will there be? Let's find out.

c) The firemen said the fires were not very bad when they got there.

What fires where were "not very bad?" And just exactly what does "not very bad" mean, anyway, in terms of a fire that is consuming an entire floor of a building? And, of course, the firemen have magic X-ray eyes and can see up a thousand feet and through steel and concrete to tell just how bad the fire is, right? Oh, and by the way, can I see some LINKS to what these firemen said? Can you maybe provide MULTIPLE SOURCES in case someone is lying or just twisting the truth a little bit so they can sell more subscriptions or whatnot? That would be nice.

QUOTE

(d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.

"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, energy just disappears into nowhere, right? No such thing as conservation of energy; that's just one of those mainstream physics notions like the theory of relativity, and all that BS. Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, just ignore the paper, cloth, and wood on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and even if they do they DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT, and even if they do it JUST DISAPPEARS, right? And while we're on the subject of heat, EVERYONE KNOWS that the maximum temperature JUST CAN'T be dependent on the amount of heat and the volume and specific heat of the substance absorbing it, RIGHT? NO WAY could anything get hotter than the fire; after all, we can't smelt iron in a charcoal fire, right? Naww, never happen.
"the collapse of the tower was essentially the same" Oh, you mean like the top thirty floors leaned over first in this one, whereas they didn't in the other? Or did you mean the part about where the collapses both began at the point of impact, and the second jet hit lower down than the first one? So the amount of building above the damaged part was much greater? But of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the amount of stress on part of a building has NOTHING TO DO with the amount of building above that part! Right? Isn't that right? Yah, sure it is. That's how come the tower hit lower was the first one to collapse, even though it was the last one hit, right?

OK, now let's move on to point number two; looking back, I see nothing behind me but scorched earth. I don't think there's a point number one there any more. I guess you'll have to make something new up for it. Oh, well, THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

(d) With the second jet, much of the jet fuel fireball exploded outside the building so the heat energy was rapidly dissipated, yet the collapse of the tower was essentially the same as the other one.

"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, energy just disappears into nowhere, right? No such thing as conservation of energy; that's just one of those mainstream physics notions like the theory of relativity, and all that BS. Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, just ignore the paper, cloth, and wood on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and even if they do they DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT, and even if they do it JUST DISAPPEARS, right? And while we're on the subject of heat, EVERYONE KNOWS that the maximum temperature JUST CAN'T be dependent on the amount of heat and the volume and specific heat of the substance absorbing it, RIGHT? NO WAY could anything get hotter than the fire; after all, we can't smelt iron in a charcoal fire, right? Naww, never happen.
"the collapse of the tower was essentially the same" Oh, you mean like the top thirty floors leaned over first in this one, whereas they didn't in the other? Or did you mean the part about where the collapses both began at the point of impact, and the second jet hit lower down than the first one? So the amount of building above the damaged part was much greater? But of course EVERYONE KNOWS that the amount of stress on part of a building has NOTHING TO DO with the amount of building above that part! Right? Isn't that right? Yah, sure it is. That's how come the tower hit lower was the first one to collapse, even though it was the last one hit, right?

OK, now let's move on to point number two; looking back, I see nothing behind me but scorched earth. I don't think there's a point number one there any more. I guess you'll have to make something new up for it. Oh, well, THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT?

2) Again, the authors do not address the near-free fall time.

Hmm, when I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia),
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. Gee, that's almost a quarter of the height it already fell! And we haven't even made it to ELEVEN seconds yet; my goodness, it could have fallen MORE THAN TWICE ITS HEIGHT in that additional four seconds! Well, what do you know. So sure, you betcha, the time for it to fall three and a half times its own height is REALLY, REALLY CLOSE to the free-fall time, right? My goodness, it's so close I can barely see the difference! Only THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS HEIGHT, what do you know.

Looks like you flunked BASIC PHYSICS, bud. Back to the drawing board for you, I think. Let's move right along here, I don't want to spend all night on this, now do I?

QUOTE

Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data.

And that would be because, well, let's see now, perhaps because they did the physics and realized that thirteen seconds was enough time for it to fall in free fall THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT? No, no, that can't be it. Was it perhaps because HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOTHING? No, I guess it can't be that either. Well, then, was it perhaps because THERE WAS NO EXTRA TIME ALLOWED FOR THE FLOORS TO COLLAPSE? Well, no, actually it looks like with a thirty times overload, and with TWO AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT to play with, that can't be it either. I'm sorry, I just can't figure out what you're talking about there. Could you be a little more specific about what precisely it is that you think doesn't match? Oh, no, I guess you can't- YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH BASIC PHYSICS!!! Well, that's a real disappointment, isn't it? I guess we'll never know what you were talking about, because you don't have the analysis skills to make good on it!

Moving right along,

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Their theory/analysis does not therefore match the observed and recorded data.

And that would be because, well, let's see now, perhaps because they did the physics and realized that thirteen seconds was enough time for it to fall in free fall THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT? No, no, that can't be it. Was it perhaps because HEAT JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOTHING? No, I guess it can't be that either. Well, then, was it perhaps because THERE WAS NO EXTRA TIME ALLOWED FOR THE FLOORS TO COLLAPSE? Well, no, actually it looks like with a thirty times overload, and with TWO AND A HALF TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT to play with, that can't be it either. I'm sorry, I just can't figure out what you're talking about there. Could you be a little more specific about what precisely it is that you think doesn't match? Oh, no, I guess you can't- YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH BASIC PHYSICS!!! Well, that's a real disappointment, isn't it? I guess we'll never know what you were talking about, because you don't have the analysis skills to make good on it!

Moving right along,

They talk about weakening, softening, plasticity and elasticity. All these ideas are fine, but "free fall" by definition means "with no resistance".

And of course there was NO RESISTANCE, it was JUST AIR that made it take long enough to fall down THREE AND A HALF TIMES, right? Yep, sure, that's it. You betcha.

QUOTE

Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed).

Well, gee, it looks like it DID take a LOT longer- in fact, there was time for a building THREE AND A HALF TIMES TALLER to fall by free fall.

Did you have a point there, somewhere? I'm sorry, I just can't see it- just more scorched earth. Do you feel a sudden sinking sensation? Are you seeing smoke out the canopy? Could that possibly be the ground you see coming up so fast in front of you? Are the wheels coming off? Looks that way to me. I think you're crashing and burning. I suggest bailing out immediately.

Moving right along here, I don't really want to spend any more time on this than I absolutely have to, I've already spent over fifteen minutes.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Any softening or weakening etc would at least leave some resistance - which would mean the collapse time was significantly greater than the collapse time for free fall (as was observed).

Well, gee, it looks like it DID take a LOT longer- in fact, there was time for a building THREE AND A HALF TIMES TALLER to fall by free fall.

Did you have a point there, somewhere? I'm sorry, I just can't see it- just more scorched earth. Do you feel a sudden sinking sensation? Are you seeing smoke out the canopy? Could that possibly be the ground you see coming up so fast in front of you? Are the wheels coming off? Looks that way to me. I think you're crashing and burning. I suggest bailing out immediately.

Moving right along here, I don't really want to spend any more time on this than I absolutely have to, I've already spent over fifteen minutes.

3) If the beams/trusses had just softened, there would not have been a large pyroclastic flow of dust at the time of collapse. Creating a cloud of dust like this requires a great deal of energy. The potential energy of floors collapsing being converted into kinetic energy during the fall would not be sufficient to produce as large a cloud of fine powdered dust as was seen on the day. (Obviously any collapse would produce *some* dust.)

Well, now. Gee, maybe you have a point here. Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
Now, the mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less! Hey, that's over a QUARTER KILOTON! We're talking about as much energy as a SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building! We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris- and guess what, that's ANOTHER small nuclear weapon-equivalent right there) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing! My goodness. Now what do you suppose made that pyroclastic flow?

OK, so what are we talking about here? How about if we started dropping 1000-pound block buster bombs on top of it- and didn't stop until we'd dropped five hundred and forty of them? Do you think that would do it? No question in my mind, having seen films of what a 1000-pound bomb can do to a city block. After all, the tower is a city block- and there's only 110 floors- that means we get to use four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor! How much dust do you think that would create? Suppose we put those four or five 1000-pound bombs on each floor and blew them all off at once. How much concrete do you think that would blow into dust? Gee, I bet pretty much all of it, huh?

Are you SURE you want to state that there wasn't enough energy around to do this? Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. Do you think we can do it with that much? Hey, man, we could blow a hole in New York that would be a heckuvalot bigger than the WTC with a kiloton!

Gimme a break; take the time to do a very teeny bit of research and a little easy, basic physics before you start with this stuff. This is SOPHOMORE CRAP we're talking here- you ain't even made it out of high school, you're flunkin' tenth grade, dude!

OK, gotta move along- used up almost an hour of irreplaceable life here.

QUOTE

4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.

You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?

Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?

OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?

Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

4) A softening and bending of beams would lead to an asymmetric collapse - this again does not match observed data.

You mean, like how the top thirty stories kinda tipped over before 2 WTC collapsed?

Then again, I'd like to know what your source is for your "asymmetric collapse" theory. How precisely was the heat distributed inside the building? Can you address the issue of the differences in heat distribution from the plane impact, the jet fuel fire, the paper/wood/plastic/cloth fire, and so forth? Do you have a temperature map of the inside of the building where the plane hit it? Do you have information that we would need to know how much of the cladding on the joists and the center columns was damaged, so we can evaluate how much of the heat that you already don't know enough to calculate would have made it into the floor joists and central columns? How about the effects of the heat on the bolts and welds that held the three-story perimeter column sections together? And how about the mechanical damage to the perimeter columns and the core from the plane impacts?

OK, so how come you know enough to maintain your "asymmetric collapse" theory? I say this is handwaving. Provide some credible calculations, and show us your assumptions that led up to this, and by the way try to use something a LITTLE more advanced than the SOPHOMORE BS I see above to substantiate it, K?

Now, that one only took about a minute. So I'm gainin on ya.

5) As is usual with these analyses, the paper does not mention WTC 7 - it too underwent free-fall collapse (as shown by at least 3 different video recordings I have) even though it was only hit by a small amount of debris and only had small fires burning for most of the day.

I will tell you something you do not have, because I have searched the 'Net for it. You do not have a picture of the North face of 7 WTC after the falls of the Towers. The only information I have been able to dig up is two anecdotal accounts by firemen- in this case, not grunts but a couple of commanders- who describe a "twenty-story tall hole" in the North face of WTC 7.

Now, a "twenty-story hole" ain't a small amount of damage, and from the descriptions, there were multiple fires visible on the exposed floors- the phrase of the fire commander who had his act together enough to pull all the firemen- grunts, that is- away from the building before it fell down was, "fully involved." Now I'm no fireman, but when I hear a fire commander- this is a guy who's been a grunt, done it for years and years, they don't let anybody else do that job- say things like, "fully involved," I expect that building ain't gonna be good for much afterward. And when I hear there's a "fully involved" fire in a structure that is only 40 stories tall and has a hole half that big in its front, my expectation is, that building probably ain't gonna be standing at the end of the day, and I expect them to prevent any of their firefighters from going in there unless there's people to rescue- and there weren't. The building was evacuated. And the testimentary evidence is, they didn't send anyone in- it wasn't safe, and they were afraid it was gonna fall down. In fact, they PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED people from going in! And gee whiz, whadda ya know, it DID fall down! Now ain't that a surprise when a fire captain with twenty years' experience thought it was gonna do that- must be a plot! Yahfersureyabetcha.

I'll let you google around for the accounts by these two guys; I'm too damn lazy and done this far too many times to bother going and digging them up again. It was in some firefighting magazine or other, and the accounts were published in mid-2002, IIRC. Have fun.

And don't sling me any more horsepucky about "slight damage," or "small fires," K? I'm envisioning multiple 23-ton three-story three-column perimeter column sections moving at 100 meters/second- that's TWO HUNDRED MILES AN HOUR- slamming into that building. Hey, it's only 40 stories high- where do you suppose a 20-story hole came from, anyway? And what else besides make holes in the skin of the building those COLUMN SECTIONS THE MASS OF A SHERMAN TANK FLYING AROUND AT 200 MILES AN HOUR did, huh? Gee, I bet you could fend one of those off with your SUPER SEKRIT L33T SKILLZ! No WAY they could damage that building, right?

QUOTE

I think that, like the Pancake Collapse theory, the paper is wrong - for the same reasons as given in my slides - and for the reasons I already replied to above.

I don't believe that a single one of your reasons is worth diddly-squat. I don't see any sign that you've done anything but the standard self-serving emotionally-motivated fuzzy-thinking rehash of old, stale horsepucky that half the 'Netdiots out there have already beaten to death, and been hammered for, and fail over and over again to acknowledge because they JUST CAN'T THINK and JUST DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS.

I don't find it in any way shocking that you should do this- what I do find is that it is abysmally ignorant. To come on a physics site with crapola like this and expect not to get flamed into scorched meat is incredibly naive, as far as I can tell. I found out about this on another site, where quite a few people who share your "theories" congregate, and from their track record, what I expect from you is a bunch of obfuscation and a bunch more hand waving, and not ONE SINGLE EQUATION to back your statements up. I've seen it all before, over and over and over again; this will be the sixth such debate I've been involved in, and it always winds up the same way: hand waving and a lot of extraneous points, which get demolished like the first set, until I get bored and stop responding.

If the entire proof be known, I'd like to believe that there is someone in the current MISadministration stupid enough to participate in a plot that was as sure to be found out as anything involving demolitions of three buildings in the middle of New York City, but even though I think they're pretty stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid. I think the skulduggery went a lot deeper than that relatively obvious piece of disinformation- and I have to say, that coming up with yet another theory on how the WTC got blowed up by teh FBI and teh CIA makes a pretty good smokescreen that might prevent some people from asking the REALLY difficult questions, like:
1. Gosh, Elmer, what exactly do we do when we're running a hijacker exercise, if there's actually a hijacking?
2. Lands-o-mercy, Knurlman, how come you suppose none of them airliners got shot down when it's been doctrine that hijacked planes that approach DC will be shot out of the sky for only about the last FIVE DECADES?
3. Hully gee, I wonder how those guys set up an operation that had HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE in it and the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, MOSSAD, and every other spy agency in the entire western world TOTALLY MISSED IT?
4. My goodness, whatever happened to all those WMDs everybody was talking about?
There's plenty more REAL questions where those came from, too. And they are questions that we haven't seen any answers to, despite a congressional investigation and a couple of headhunting expeditions, either. So can we get on with the REAL discussion now, and stop PLAYING WITH OURSELVES?

Schneibster

13th October 2005 - 08:50 AM

QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Oct 13 2005, 07:11 AM)

Schneibster,

Thanks for your comments, which I will try to address below. In summary, there are 3 ways I look at this issue

a) Using Basic Physics (which your considered post did not specifically comment on - rather it commented on my response to the "Simple Analysis" report)

Looking at the video and physical evidence

c) "Common Sense" interpretation of same evidence.

Your points:

QUOTE

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor..<snip>.slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I did not state the floors weren't *constructed* in an identical manner - they were, I stated that the damage to each floor was not identical - this is an important consideration in the model. If, say, 3/4 of the side of the towers were on fire, then the "simple analysis" might have been based on reality more.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor..<snip>.slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I did not state the floors weren't *constructed* in an identical manner - they were, I stated that the damage to each floor was not identical - this is an important consideration in the model. If, say, 3/4 of the side of the towers were on fire, then the "simple analysis" might have been based on reality more.

No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.

This may well be correct - but I return to previous points - however much they were overloaded - even by a factor of 100, it does not make the steel fall away so that the material above can undergo freefall (which it essentially did).

QUOTE

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a ... one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

OK - I made a vey general and basic point to try and express that the floors would be different temperatures. I used no specific figures. This was another reason, I felt, why the Simple Analysis wasn't good. If you think this point (

is a waste of time, I won't argue with you.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a ... one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

OK - I made a vey general and basic point to try and express that the floors would be different temperatures. I used no specific figures. This was another reason, I felt, why the Simple Analysis wasn't good. If you think this point (

is a waste of time, I won't argue with you.

What fires where were "not very bad?" And just exactly what does "not very bad" mean, anyway, in terms of a fire that is consuming an ENTIRE FLOOR OF A BUILDING? And, of course, the FIRST FIREMEN ON THE SCENE (hey, you said "when they got there<snip>firemen said? Can you maybe provide MULTIPLE SOURCES in case someone is lying or just twisting the truth a little bit so they can sell more subscriptions or whatnot? That would be NICE.

Again, I didn't make a specific point about physics here, I was referring to other evidence. The fires were cool. If you listen to the Firemen's tapes

http://www.nbvfd3.org/nbvfd3_wtcaudio.html

you will hear this. Here is a partial transcript:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

from 9:52 am here:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefight...pe-excerpts.htm

Obviously this isn't a comprehensive analysis of the situation, but it is supporting evidence that what I (and many others) have said is basically correct.

QUOTE

Wow, this is the WORST MISSTATEMENT OF THE BUNCH! This just keeps getting BETTER and BETTER. OK, let's start from the beginning:
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, ENERGY JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE, right? Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, JUST IGNORE THE PAPER AND CLOTH AND WOOD on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and EVEN IF THEY DO THEY DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT,

I don't see why this is a mis-statement. A lot of fuel from the 2nd plane exploded in a fireball in the air - thus that energy contributed little or nothing to the fire in the WTC tower. That's what I meant. Obviously there were fires there and all the burning things you mentioned. This, again, was not sufficient to cause freefall collapse. In previous posts, I tried to consider another aspect related to the freefall collapse - the total potential, kinetic and combustion energy of the WTC as a system. I haven't done these calculations - see other web pages referenced in earlier posts and form your own opinion of them. I think it is abundantly clear that those calculations also show that explosives must have been used to explain the energy of the system that was apparent that day.

Anyway, let us assume for a moment that you are right about the points 1a) to 1d) that you referenced above - i.e. I am wrong, I think it is still important to offer good answers to points 2-5 that I raised in the same post.

Thanks for reading.

Hey, sorry about that- it posted an early version somehow or other, before I finished it. Better take a look at the second one- but for now, let's see what you had to say to the early points.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Wow, this is the WORST MISSTATEMENT OF THE BUNCH! This just keeps getting BETTER and BETTER. OK, let's start from the beginning:
"heat energy was rapidly dissipated" Here we are again, ENERGY JUST DISAPPEARS INTO NOWHERE, right? Yahsureyabetcha. Oh and by the way, JUST IGNORE THE PAPER AND CLOTH AND WOOD on those floors, EVERYONE KNOWS THEY WON'T BURN and EVEN IF THEY DO THEY DON'T MAKE MUCH HEAT,

I don't see why this is a mis-statement. A lot of fuel from the 2nd plane exploded in a fireball in the air - thus that energy contributed little or nothing to the fire in the WTC tower. That's what I meant. Obviously there were fires there and all the burning things you mentioned. This, again, was not sufficient to cause freefall collapse. In previous posts, I tried to consider another aspect related to the freefall collapse - the total potential, kinetic and combustion energy of the WTC as a system. I haven't done these calculations - see other web pages referenced in earlier posts and form your own opinion of them. I think it is abundantly clear that those calculations also show that explosives must have been used to explain the energy of the system that was apparent that day.

Anyway, let us assume for a moment that you are right about the points 1a) to 1d) that you referenced above - i.e. I am wrong, I think it is still important to offer good answers to points 2-5 that I raised in the same post.

Thanks for reading.

Hey, sorry about that- it posted an early version somehow or other, before I finished it. Better take a look at the second one- but for now, let's see what you had to say to the early points.

QUOTE (Schneibster+)

First of all, each floor was constructed in an identical manner. Second of all they indeed do not treat all the floors the same; they make the assumption that ONLY ONE floor..<snip>.slowed the upper floors above down by HALF (which is a really long stretch, at a thirty-times overload), it would still be moving FASTER when it hit the NEXT floor down than the speed that created the thirty-times overload on the previous floor!

I did not state the floors weren't *constructed* in an identical manner - they were, I stated that the damage to each floor was not identical - this is an important consideration in the model. If, say, 3/4 of the side of the towers were on fire, then the "simple analysis" might have been based on reality more.

Kinda convenient there how you snipped out the point about how their analysis assumed LESS damage than actually occurred- they assumed only one floor collapsed, and that the floor below it was undamaged, and they showed there was still plenty of force available to collapse it. Thirty times as much as was needed, in fact. So what exactly was your point here? That they assumed MUCH LESS damage could have caused the collapse? Well, hully gee, sport, I think that's EXACTLY THE POINT! And by the way, how exactly did you answer my assertion that the floor after that would have MORE than thirty times the rated maximum force, and the one after that MUCH MORE than that, and so forth? Hmmm, examining your response, it appears to me that you DIDN'T! Which is about what I expected.

Next.

QUOTE (Andrew+)

QUOTE (Schneibster+)

No, they certainly weren't weakened by fire- of course, in the presence of an overload that would rapidly increase starting at about THIRTY TIMES their designed load, gee, maybe they didn't need to have a fire to collapse.

This may well be correct - but I return to previous points - however much they were overloaded - even by a factor of 100, it does not make the steel fall away so that the material above can undergo freefall (which it essentially did).

Wrong, which it essentially didn't- there was enough time for it to fall three and a half times its height, as I proved in the "completed" version of my post. Care to answer that one? Or you gonna dodge it like the last one?

QUOTE (Andrew+)

QUOTE (Schneibster+)

Yeah, fire rises STRAIGHT THROUGH concrete doesn't it? Yep, for sure, concrete has a ... one. HOW MANY MORE WILL THERE BE? Let's find out.

OK - I made a vey general and basic point to try and express that the floors would be different temperatures. I used no specific figures. This was another reason, I felt, why the Simple Analysis wasn't good. If you think this point (

is a waste of time, I won't argue with you.

And you completely ignored my point that calculations of the temperature of the steel based on the temperature of the fire are meaningless- any calculation of the temperature of the steel will be dependent not on the TEMPERATURE of the fire, but on the HEAT the fire makes, minus the heat that escapes, divided into the specific heat and volume of the material absorbing that heat. That's basic physics, right there.

What possible meaning in all of this is the fact that the floors were different temperatures? Do other people let you get away with non-sequiturs like that? Certainly I have no intention of it.

Meanwhile, the people who wrote the report did some basic calculations and showed that the steel was hot enough to be formed in a rolling mill; 800 degrees was the figure they threw around, using, again, BASIC PHYSICS. Or did that escape your attention? Gee, if you can form it in a rolling mill at that temperature, what do you suppose several hundred tons of pressure will do to it? Could it possibly be that it will be deformed? YA THINK???

You did provide at least SOME response to my call for links to support your statement that the fires "weren't very bad." On the other hand, I find that the data are taken out of context, and I also look over the pictures of the fires, and I think to myself, "Gee, if I saw a fire where I could see an ENTIRE FLOOR of a building burning, and smoke pouring out in a cloud AS BIG AS THE BUILDING, would 'not bad' be MY first choice of words to describe this CATASTROPHE? Hmmm, somehow I think not." And based on that, I'm sorry, but you're going to need to provide just a few more linkies there, and perhaps just a bit more of the surrounding context. And then there's the "78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." (Emphasis mine.) Now, a 10-45 is a report-in request, or a report in this context; and numerous reports of Code Ones (presumably fires) on the 78th floor is by no means what immediately preceeds it, which is "only a couple." So you know what? I think this is taken out of context and you've misinterpreted it. And I'd like to see something quite a bit more comprehensive, and quite a bit more supportive of your claims, than this vague, short, and contradictory fragment. Why don't you see if you can produce something like that, that's a bit more convincing?

QUOTE (Andrew+)

I don't see why this is a mis-statement. A lot of fuel from the 2nd plane exploded in a fireball in the air - thus that energy contributed little or nothing to the fire in the WTC tower. That's what I meant. Obviously there were fires there and all the burning things you mentioned. This, again, was not sufficient to cause freefall collapse.

And there's the "free-fall collapse" red herring again. Again, I state, THERE WAS ENOUGH TIME FOR IT TO FALL THREE AND A HALF TIMES AS HIGH AS IT WAS. Add those three seconds onto the front, and its not much- but you don't get to do that, you have to add them onto the end, and when you do, you find that it falls nearly a third as far as it already has in just a single second; thus, in nearly four seconds, even if it didn't accelerate, it would have fallen one and a third times as far as it already had, and since it was accelerating to boot, there would be time for it to fall a LOT farther than it did in free-fall. In fact, the speed it fell at was a REALLY, REALLY LONG WAY from free-fall. It was less than HALF the speed it would have fallen at if it had really fallen at free-fall speeds. So stop saying it, because it just plain flat AIN'T TRUE.

Meanwhile, are you conceding that JUST MAYBE the damage from the burning paper/wood/plastic/cloth MIGHT have made enough heat, when combined with the kerosene left over from the initial blast (which, by the way, according to MY calculations was no more than HALF of the available jet fuel- leaving the other half to burn inside the building) to melt the welds and bolts in the perimeter columns? In that case, you should be aware that current best conjectures (nobody's ever gonna make a hypothesis, much less a theory, ain't no way to falsify any of this, really) are that those bolts and welds on the perimeter columns only were the failure mode of WTC 2, whereas the single-floor-collapse-escalating-into-pancaking is the best conjecture for WTC 1. Different modes, different videos, different damage, different collapses. You really should look into this a lot more than you have- and I particularly point to Wikipedia as a pretty good source. You might learn a lot there.

QUOTE (Andrew+)

In previous posts, I tried to consider another aspect related to the freefall collapse - the total potential, kinetic and combustion energy of the WTC as a system. I haven't done these calculations - see other web pages referenced in earlier posts and form your own opinion of them. I think it is abundantly clear that those calculations also show that explosives must have been used to explain the energy of the system that was apparent that day.

Well, by now you'll have seen my estimates that well over a kiloton of energy was available. So let's defer this until you've had a chance to respond to that.

QUOTE (Andrew+)

Anyway, let us assume for a moment that you are right about the points 1a) to 1d) that you referenced above - i.e. I am wrong, I think it is still important to offer good answers to points 2-5 that I raised in the same post.

Thanks for reading.

You know, I think I'll apologize for my tone- and take a little more trouble. You are reasonable, or at least you come off that way- so I'll treat you that way unless or until you become otherwise. Compliments on your phlegmatitude- really. Not many people can blow off abuse like that. I tend to come in on attack mode due to the abuse I always seem to get in these discussions. So let's see if you can maintain that calm demeanor after you get the responses for points 2-5. And let's see if you can come up with something that is a little more convincing than someone's estimate of handling something that might or might not be within the tower, followed by a report of many emergencies of one kind or another (most likely fires, from the context) on what absolutely cannot be something in any other building (they weren't 78 stories, except the Towers).

Schneibster

13th October 2005 - 01:03 PM

Worth mentioning that I found this site which has a 10-45 as "Seriously injured or DOA" followed by Code 1 as "person dead" which means the interpretation would be that there were numerous dead persons on the 78th floor, not entirely surprising if a plane had crashed there, but this makes this a fair assessment; however, I'd still like another link.

Houser

13th October 2005 - 03:48 PM

Andrew...thanks for bringing this up!!!!

Have any of you checked out Jim Hoffman's site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

He debunks many of the mis-understandings of the many other collapse theories and his site is the most thorough on the issue of what really happened.

He has a critique/debunking of the 20,000,000 dollar 3 years in the making NIST report.

He has gone to great lengths at debunking many of the myths, such as the seismic measurings where people correlated a spike in siesmic waves to be the waves of a bomb going off in the towers, however, he says it was probably due to massive debris smashing into the ground which caused these spikes. And since multliple bombs were going off to ensure the progressive collapse, this smaller but numerous explosions clould not produce such seismic spikes.

Andrew Johnson, your slideshow is useful in explaining the concept/difference between a controlled demolition and the myth of jet fuel bringing about a total collapse of the twin towers. However, there are many other errors in the collapse theory that Hoffman clarifies.

http://911review.com/errors/index.html

This page is very helpful in recognizing some of these 9.11 Skeptic errors.

Here is his time table of the North Tower Collapse: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ntc_frames.html

As to your original intent of this post, I think that your slideshow/theory makes perfect sense and questions the official story. However, there are many other anomalies (which Hoffman explains) that paint a fuller and deeper picture behind the collapse. I can't argue against your logic, but your theory alone isn't good enough to explain the many other variables that occured during the collapse. You need to put in more supporting evidence to give your theory a stonger case, like if you are trying to convince someone that the official story is a lie.

Otherwise, your theory of the collapse time, to me, comes off as an academic exercise, it needs to have more supporting evidence. By itself, its just not enough to make a complete theory as to what happened.

I would love to hear what you think of Hoffman's site. Please let me know what you think of what I said..where I'm wrong in any way. You seem to be very fair and honest.

Thanks!!!

Andrew Johnson

13th October 2005 - 04:35 PM

Schneibster,

I am sorry, I really can't respond easily to the way you have made your posts. If you want to think that I am merely being evasive because I am lying or being lazy or untruthful, then you are entitled to such an opinion.

I only have a limited time to spend on this activity, so must attend to other things (I am already behind with student report writing and software development, for example). I feel the most, if not all the points you made have been covered in earliers posts in one way or another.

I freely admit that I have not made qualitative or quantitive analyses of ALL of the aspects of the basic physics of the demolition of the Towers - there are many questions. I chose to discuss the free fall issue because it is the most clear cut. And I will simply disagree with anyone who says it was all as result of burning carpet/wood and steel - for all the reasons mentioned in earlier posts (including ones by a structural engineer, who agrees with the freefall collapse/explosives usage).

If others think "Pah - this Johnson guy is just a time-waster", that's fine by me - for all the reasons already stated.

Andrew Johnson

13th October 2005 - 05:06 PM

Houser,

I greatly appreciate your (generally?!?) supportive comments. This whole issue is hugely complex and I would not pretend to understand all of it. If you accept the close-to-free-fall proof (which I do), then you have to accept that the Official Story is incomplete at best, a lie at worst. You then have to ask lots of other awkward and horrible questions.

I put the powerpoint show together and presented it to this forum, so that I could test the reaction to the basic physics. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive analysis - it was an opening, a talking point etc. No one has come on and given a solid argument about why the laws of motion can't be applied in this case, neither have they presented evidence which properly accounts for the aspects of freefall, for the many reasons given.

My opinion is that this is of huge significance and behoves anyone who accepts that the towers did undergo freefall to undertake their own further research.

I haven't studied Jim Hoffman's site in detail and even if I gave you my opinion of it, it wouldn't be worth very much (I am effectively a software developer, but I work in education too). However, the pages of calculations that I referenced in an earlier post seem like good stuff to me, are another important area of study.

There are many areas of details which can be argued, but the basic evidence - video, scientific, much witness testimony, photographs etc show explosives were used to demolish all 3 buildings and this issue must ultimately be dealt with somehow. (I don't know how).

Sorry if this is a crap answer, but there you go - like most if not all the others on this list, doing this stuff isn't my job - but it is very important to me nevertheless.

Andrew

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 05:08 PM

As was suggested I talked to people in my department and to my great surprised many of them think that there was indeed a cover up!

When I think about it makes perfect sense. The US government had EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD to destroy these towers. It sends a powerfull message to the terrorists... Your attempts to bring us down are futile, we can do it ourselves!!

Or maybe it was to get the insurance from the collapse. That would also make sense... Owner: "Hey, lets put explosives into the building (after work hours so that we won't be seen of course) and blow the building down to collect insurance". Other guy : "Yeah, but how are we going to detonate them so it doesnt look suspecious?". Onwer: "Thats a good question, I guess we could simply sit back and wait until a plane crashes into it!". Other guy: "Makes sense to me, afterall airplane crashing into building is such a common event that we can definitly hope to see it happen within our time frame."

@Schneibster
At some place you talked about why the building did not tilted over during the collapse. The paper I mentionned much earlier explain that if the building becomes tilted by no more than 2.4 degree, no additionnal force could be provided by the building to make it tilt further.
/@Schneibster

Guys guys guys, you are hopeless. Do you reaaaally think the american society of civil engineer gives a DAM about what a couple of crackpots (thats you) thinks?? LMAO, let me be very clear on this: NOTHING IS GOING TO "CLOSE" AS A RESULT OF THE CRAP YOU GUYS PUT FORWARD. I guess it must have given you guys great satisfaction to think that what you are advancing is "credible" enough to CLOSE a department. I laugh at you.

Oh and to jump at the obvious counter attack and mention that "I dont have the luxury to think objectively", well I assure you I have all the lattitude I need. If bush can think the earth is 5000 year old and make it president, its pretty safe to assume my thinking is unconstrained by my employer.

Good job Schneibster, give em hell!

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Oct 13 2005, 05:06 PM)

If you accept the close-to-free-fall proof (which I do), then you have to accept that the Official Story is incomplete at best, a lie at worst. You then have to ask lots of other awkward and horrible questions.

So its no longer free-fall now is it, it has changed to "close to free-fall".. Well, I guess we are making process after all, albeit slowly.

Andrew Johnson

13th October 2005 - 06:18 PM

a_ht,

Thanks for your interesting additional posts. As regards the free-fall/close-to-free fall issue, I have generally used some shorthand and have used these terms interchangably. This could be said to be lazy, sloppy etc - I don't mind what you call it - it doesn't particularly change the nature of the proof to a degree whereby the use of explosives (which the other evidence supports) is ruled out, which is the essence of what I have said all along.

Thanks for adding more posts

Andrew

Guest_tony

13th October 2005 - 06:21 PM

A_ht and others,

As far as whether the evidence about what really happened will ever close a department or end a war isn't necessarily everyone's first concern.

I simply want to know the truth.

In addition to the seemingly too-short timeframe it took the towers to fall, there's the question of the i-beams breaking into perfect, symmetrical lengths of steel. It's very hard for me to imagine that "Pancaking" concrete floors would shatter the steel columns into floor-height pieces, as it did. I would think you would have more a records-on-a-spindle effect, where the steel beams would in places remain standing while the concrete and debris fell to the earth. But instead the steel fractured into convenient lengths for the trucks to immediately cart away. Is it a coincidence that Controlled Demolition, Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/), the company hired to clean up after the crime, boasts on its website that when it demolishes buildings it can tear steel supports into whatever longest lengths will fit on the trucks brought to carry them away?

Guest_Way2Sirius

13th October 2005 - 06:52 PM

Watch the videos of the plane hitting the second tower and of the two collapses again. Upon impact the fuel explodes and burns up in a spectacular fireball, so the Kerosine in the planes could not have fueled the fire that supposedly melted steel thicker than a man's torso. If there were a sufficient fuel supply on those floors to do so, you would have seen some mind-blowing flames, not the black smoke indicating poor combustion. And then, by an even greater magic, all of the steel on all sides of the building supposedly became pliable at the exact same moment to allow for the most spectacularly clean yet horrific demolition the world has seen, and with an encore no less.

You can see in the videos where charges are blown on each floor right before that floor collapses all the way down all sides of both towers. Now think back to the first attack on the trade centers in the early 90's... the attackers tried to blow out one side of one of the near ground-level supports! They failed, but this attack wasn't simply brushed aside. Think what may have happened had they toppled the tower... it could have crushed half of the financial district! They knew the buildings were a target and safety measures had to be put in place. The buildings were wired by demo teams with explosives so that if an attacker succeeded, the buildings could be brought down with the least collateral damage possible. This will be made public in 46 years. Now why were they set off on 9/11? The coverup may simply be one of the biggest blunders of all time, or perhaps a very poor judgement call by city officials. It may have been something more, but the videos cannot tell us about any of that. They only tell us about the safety systems installed in the early 90s, and that they worked as planned.

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 05:08 PM)

As was suggested I talked to people in my department and to my great surprised many of them think that there was indeed a cover up!

When I think about it makes perfect sense. The US government had EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD to destroy these towers. It sends a powerfull message to the terrorists... Your attempts to bring us down are futile, we can do it ourselves!!

Or maybe it was to get the insurance from the collapse. That would also make sense... Owner: "Hey, lets put explosives into the building (after work hours so that we won't be seen of course) and blow the building down to collect insurance". Other guy : "Yeah, but how are we going to detonate them so it doesnt look suspecious?". Onwer: "Thats a good question, I guess we could simply sit back and wait until a plane crashes into it!". Other guy: "Makes sense to me, afterall airplane crashing into building is such a common event that we can definitly hope to see it happen within our time frame."

@Schneibster
At some place you talked about why the building did not tilted over during the collapse. The paper I mentionned much earlier explain that if the building becomes tilted by no more than 2.4 degree, no additionnal force could be provided by the building to make it tilt further.
/@Schneibster

Guys guys guys, you are hopeless. Do you reaaaally think the american society of civil engineer gives a DAM about what a couple of crackpots (thats you) thinks?? LMAO, let me be very clear on this: NOTHING IS GOING TO "CLOSE" AS A RESULT OF THE CRAP YOU GUYS PUT FORWARD. I guess it must have given you guys great satisfaction to think that what you are advancing is "credible" enough to CLOSE a department. I laugh at you.

Oh and to jump at the obvious counter attack and mention that "I dont have the luxury to think objectively", well I assure you I have all the lattitude I need. If bush can think the earth is 5000 year old and make it president, its pretty safe to assume my thinking is unconstrained by my employer.

Good job Schneibster, give em hell!

Hmmm...I'm reminded of the classic Derek Trotter quote...

"There're none so blind as them wot wont listen"

A_ht, you really gave me a laugh, thanks.

You attempted to refute the basic facts put forward by Andrew Johnson and many others here on this thread, then having been "dismissed", and disappearing from any further comment, as soon as schniebenstein (or whatever this flippant characters name is) shows up with his "views" that would seem to support your claims, you chime back in again. And with an absolute classic post.

This thread was NOT started to "CLOSE a department" as you stated, come on now.

And scneibentsein (apologies if I have the name wrong), please stick to the facts, and omit any of your "golly gee goshes" and all the other immature comments.

This post was started to challenge the official report on what exactly took place on 9/11, from the standpoint of debunking the official/govt. facts and figures.

This has been done conclusively, and by reading ALL the previous posts you can see clearly that there is sufficient evidence to QUESTION and REFUTE the official "story" - which is all that Andrew was intending to do.

I doubt he was trying to get you fired a_ht.

I have also noted Andrews impeccable manners, so if you reply to his posts, please do so with the respect that he has shown you schneibstener (I'll get it right one of these times, apologies again).

This post is about FACTS - not theories or insults

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 07:28 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 05:08 PM)

Guys guys guys, you are hopeless. Do you reaaaally think the american society of civil engineer gives a DAM about what a couple of crackpots (thats you) thinks?? LMAO, let me be very clear on this: NOTHING IS GOING TO "CLOSE" AS A RESULT OF THE CRAP YOU GUYS PUT FORWARD. I guess it must have given you guys great satisfaction to think that what you are advancing is "credible" enough to CLOSE a department. I laugh at you.

Sorry, forgot to highlight this point in my previous post...

a_ht you said "I laugh at you" in the post I have quoted.

Yes, there is a lot of laughing going on as people read these posts...
...most of it directed at you.

I repeat, FACTS only gents/ladies, no need for the insults, unless of course you do not have a cogent argument, which seems to the case for you a_ht.

WTC7 anyone?

Anyone care to put forward any views (that havent already been addressed previously on this thread) on what happened with WTC7?

3 cases of groundbreaking structural failure all happening on the same day...?
All the debris being illegally removed, under armed guard...?
Perfect symmetrical collapses of three bulidings that sustained assymetrical damage...?

It just doesnt "add up", hence why, over 4 years later the deabte still rages as to exactly what happened etc, and STILL, no-one has been able to successfully dismiss all the physical anomalies that Andrew and others have raised...

...mainly because no-one can dismiss them all.

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 07:46 PM

QUOTE (London to SF+Oct 13 2005, 07:28 PM)

It just doesnt "add up", hence why, over 4 years later the deabte still rages as to exactly what happened etc, and STILL, no-one has been able to successfully dismiss all the physical anomalies that Andrew and others have raised...

yes, the debate RAGES... over the internet

All I hear from you guys is that "If one cares to read ALL the previous post it is UNDENIABLE that its a hoax"...

thats just dodging Sechalkjds's post. He shows pretty clearly how wrong you guys are. So far, no one has replied to is post. All I read is about my crappy post, yet nothing about scehsalhsdls.

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 07:46 PM)

thats just dodging Sechalkjds's post. He shows pretty clearly how wrong you guys are. So far, no one has replied to is post. All I read is about my crappy post, yet nothing about scehsalhsdls.

Hi a_ht.

1, Schneibster's (if thats who you are referring to when you talk about somebody called "Sechalkjds" and/or "scehsalhsdls") posts do not show "how wrong you guys are".

2, Schneibster's posts HAVE been replied to, by Andrew himself.

3, Yes, we have commented about your posts, and with good reason, although I wouldnt go as far as to call them crappy! lol

Again, WTC7???????????????????????????????????????????

"THEY"

13th October 2005 - 08:06 PM

QUOTE (Guest_Way2Sirius+Oct 13 2005, 06:52 PM)

They knew the buildings were a target and safety measures had to be put in place. The buildings were wired by demo teams with explosives so that if an attacker succeeded, the buildings could be brought down with the least collateral damage possible. This will be made public in 46 years. Now why were they set off on 9/11? The coverup may simply be one of the biggest blunders of all time, or perhaps a very poor judgement call by city officials. It may have been something more, but the videos cannot tell us about any of that. They only tell us about the safety systems installed in the early 90s, and that they worked as planned.

This makes perfect sense. But why do we have to wait 46 years to find out if it is true? Well, I guess one answer could be due to the loss of life and the difficult decision made to end those lives (and save the rest of the city). Also the fact that a terrorist could figure out how to tap into the system and drop a building would convince me to keep that info secret... I'll be pretty ancient in 46 years, but hopefully still around to find out if that is true.

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 08:07 PM

I dont feel he commented sufficiently... in fact I dont feel he commented at all. In fact, I dont even think he TRIED to comment. He simply dodges the questions.

Free fall time should be 9.4 seconds.

Observed time is 12-13 seconds.

Thats 3.5 times the heigth of the world trade center that could have felt in that time. THREE AND A HALF.

What andrew doesnt realize is that a VERY SMALL INCREASE over the free-fall time implies HUGE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE TRAVELLED.

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 08:13 PM

QUOTE ("THEY"+Oct 13 2005, 08:06 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Way2Sirius+Oct 13 2005, 06:52 PM)

They knew the buildings were a target and safety measures had to be put in place. The buildings were wired by demo teams with explosives so that if an attacker succeeded, the buildings could be brought down with the least collateral damage possible. This will be made public in 46 years. Now why were they set off on 9/11? The coverup may simply be one of the biggest blunders of all time, or perhaps a very poor judgement call by city officials. It may have been something more, but the videos cannot tell us about any of that. They only tell us about the safety systems installed in the early 90s, and that they worked as planned.

This makes perfect sense. But why do we have to wait 46 years to find out if it is true? Well, I guess one answer could be due to the loss of life and the difficult decision made to end those lives (and save the rest of the city). Also the fact that a terrorist could figure out how to tap into the system and drop a building would convince me to keep that info secret... I'll be pretty ancient in 46 years, but hopefully still around to find out if that is true.

Ya know, I might believe that....

But, 2 reasons that I can think of leads me not to;

1- When the building collapsed, it took quite a lot of other buildings with it. You'd think if this was planned to "save lifes and the city" they would have made it so it would felt in a more controlled way. And besides, crackpots here are arguing WTC7 was also brought down by explosive -its a small building so its not dangerous enough to warrant such a huge conspiracy-, so they blew their best argument up by themselves!

2- The WTC was destined to fall untilted in a straight line as a result of the way it is constructed. Knowing that, the building would be deemed "safe enough" and still, wouldn't warrant a "huge conspiracy".

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 08:25 PM

Hello again a_ht.

Yes Andrew did comment on schneibetentys post, the crux of which I have copied and pasted below for easy reference...

"I feel the most, if not all the points you made have been covered in earliers posts in one way or another"

As for your peurile comments schniebenstein, stick to the facts and leave all the insults/immaturity out if you please, as you (and you should be aware of this already) only damage your own credibility when you belittle, insult and ridicule the other posters on here.

We are all entittled to our opinions, are we not? (Actually, under Bush, we are not, but then that is another issue entirely)

Oh and once again I ask...WTC7...care to comment on that?

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 08:32 PM

So I guess no one here is going to change his mind heh?

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 08:37 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM)

And besides, crackpots here are arguing WTC7 was also brought down by explosive -its a small building so its not dangerous enough to warrant such a huge conspiracy-, so they blew their best argument up by themselves!

Hello again a_ht.

Ok, this will be the last time I address any of the comments in your posts, for reasons which are plainly obvious...

Your quotes have reached an all time low, bottoming out with the gem I have "snipped".

Honestly, saying that...

"its a small building, so its not dangerous enough to warrant such a huge conspiracy"

...shows conclusively that while everyone has something to bring to this forum, from now on, the thing you should bring is SILENCE.

WTC7 is the smoking gun that proves without doubt that the official story is not entirely correct.
How "not entirely correct" is open for debate, which is what we are doing here...

"THEY"

13th October 2005 - 08:37 PM

I don't find the buildings as suspicious as the Pentagon. I emailed my friend (who is a Boeing engineer) the link for the "find the Boeing", and he found that very suspicious. he also knows someone in the military who saw the sonar showing the tracking of a missile shooting down the airplane that "crashed".

Where are the 757 parts at the pentagon? Anybody else see the missile on FAA tapes?

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 08:50 PM

QUOTE (London to SF+Oct 13 2005, 08:37 PM)

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM)

And besides, crackpots here are arguing WTC7 was also brought down by explosive -its a small building so its not dangerous enough to warrant such a huge conspiracy-, so they blew their best argument up by themselves!

Hello again a_ht.

Ok, this will be the last time I address any of the comments in your posts, for reasons which are plainly obvious...

Your quotes have reached an all time low, bottoming out with the gem I have "snipped".

Honestly, saying that...

"its a small building, so its not dangerous enough to warrant such a huge conspiracy"

...shows conclusively that while everyone has something to bring to this forum, from now on, the thing you should bring is SILENCE.

WTC7 is the smoking gun that proves without doubt that the official story is not entirely correct.
How "not entirely correct" is open for debate, which is what we are doing here...

Things needs to be taken in the context in which they were said. You should try to at least respect that when quoting some one. If you cant quote someone in context in this very thread, how can we trust that you will quote in context, stuff about the WTC. What I said makes sense... in the context in which it was said.

I will leave to you to figure out the context I said it... or to dodge the question, which ever you are the most confortable at doing...

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE ("THEY"+Oct 13 2005, 08:37 PM)

I don't find the buildings as suspicious as the Pentagon. I emailed my friend (who is a Boeing engineer) the link for the "find the Boeing", and he found that very suspicious. he also knows someone in the military who saw the sonar showing the tracking of a missile shooting down the airplane that "crashed".

Where are the 757 parts at the pentagon? Anybody else see the missile on FAA tapes?

Precisely "THEY", not only are there numerous physical anomalies surrounding the WTC buildings collapse, as we have touched on here, there are also many other "curious" "happenings" (for want of a better way to put it)...

...one of which being the Pentagon "hit", as you rightly point out.

Also, and this is one that strikes me as being particularly suspicious, NORAD/the military were performing wargames/tests at the same time, on the same day, to defend against enemy air strikes, hence why there was no interception of the "hi-jacked" planes.

Also, why did George W. Bush - the Commander in Chief lest we forget - sit and listen to schoolchildren reading when he had been told, by his own admission that...

"America is under attack"

So, what did he do?
Sit there looking bemused.

Is there anyone else out there that finds this reaction;

a) Suspicious?

Unnaceptable?

There are too many doubts/questions/anomalies that have been either unexplained, or explained so laughably as to warrant further scrutiny, to ever forget about what happened on 9/11.

Guest

13th October 2005 - 09:02 PM

A knowledge of physics is not required to KNOW that the official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a lie. The cumulative evidence is overwhelming, so much so it led to a top Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, publishing the essay linked below.

http://physics911.net/reynolds.htm

Furthermore, for anyone familiar with the construction of the towers common sense alone is sufficient to understand the official version CANNOT be correct. The towers were supported by 47 heavy duty beams running up the core of the buildings, it is simply impossible that gravity alone could effect the type of collapse that occurred.

NEVER in history has a high rise steel framed building collapsed due to fire yet on September 11 two do so in a short space of time after suffering what was in the nature of these things relatively small fires. Apart from the visual evidence of black smoke, meaning inneficient burning, we have the firemens evidence and the survivors from the crash level who would have been literally cooked if the temperature required to critically affect steel had even been approached let alone met.

So not only did these two towers collapse for no apparent reason, they did so in a manner that under normal circumstances could only be achieved by contolled demolition.

OH, and on top of that we have the THIRD building of this type ever in history to collapse a few hours later, a building which even the investigation (cover up) does not even try to explain. As some wag suggested maybe it collapsed in sympathy with the other two.

The pulverisation of the concrete - I am in no position to argue with sniders figures but what I do know is his calculation can have no bearing on what actually happened. The pulverisation happened as the collapse began so the forces involved cannot have been the result of gravity induced crushing.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/48441.php

a ht may have unwittingly, or otherwise, made a relevant point with his would be joke about an insurance scam. The towers were designate a health hazard due to their asbestos content and to remedy this would have been prohibitive so killing two birds ... would not be so far fetched.

[Btw, as the German Manager Magazine revealed in 2001, Larry Silverstein had made a fortune in his early career with the demolition of old sky-scrapers after leasing them. Silverstein leased the WTC a few weeks before 9/11. The whole WTC complex was due to be renovated thoroughly for asbestos anyway. But that would have been way too expensive. --CR]

Anyone unfamiliar with the background to the questions and anomolies surrounding September 11 could inform themselves by reading Dr David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour" which can be read free online at the link below.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php#part2

"It will be painful, and disturbing, to turn the pages of this thoughtful and meticulously researched book. But turn we must. For we owe the truth to those who died, and nothing less." —Colleen Kelly, sister of Bill Kelly, jr., who was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, and co-founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

"THEY"

13th October 2005 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE (London to SF+Oct 13 2005, 08:52 PM)

Also, why did George W. Bush - the Commander in Chief lest we forget - sit and listen to schoolchildren reading when he had been told, by his own admission that...

"America is under attack"

So, what did he do?
Sit there looking bemused.

Is there anyone else out there that finds this reaction;

a) Suspicious?
b.) Unnaceptable?

I don't find that suspicious. I find that a rather "big hearted" decision to be considerate of the children. And don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him. There is absolutely no reason for the president to be in the action, just informed.

Guest

13th October 2005 - 09:29 PM

QUOTE (Guest+Oct 13 2005, 09:02 PM)

a ht may have unwittingly, or otherwise, made a relevant point with his would be joke about an insurance scam. The towers were designate a health hazard due to their asbestos content and to remedy this would have been prohibitive so killing two birds ... would not be so far fetched.

[Btw, as the German Manager Magazine revealed in 2001, Larry Silverstein had made a fortune in his early career with the demolition of old sky-scrapers after leasing them. Silverstein leased the WTC a few weeks before 9/11. The whole WTC complex was due to be renovated thoroughly for asbestos anyway. But that would have been way too expensive. --CR]

Hi guest

Yes, excellent post.

I too find that strange, so have a read of this quote, copied and pasted from Bloomberg News;

"On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease."

Strange co-incidence...?
Maybe, but probably not.

Guest

13th October 2005 - 09:34 PM

THEY

Not only are the Secret Service under strict instructions to remove the President from ANY threat or possible threat WHETHER HE AGREES OR NOT his remaining in the classroom put the children in danger. Reports at the time had as many as eleven aircraft highjacked and his appearance at the school was public knowledge making him a potential and obviously simple target, therefore endangering the children.

The only explanation is that the Secret Service, or the command of the Secret Service KNEW there was no danger, a smoking gun if ever.....

a_ht

13th October 2005 - 09:39 PM

Ever considered they just forget... or the guy was out for a smoke. Or they took 20-30 minute before evacuing the president out. Or the guy in charge didnt think the president was in *that* much danger. Or they were all waching TV baffled at what actualy happened. Or that people may hesitate to take the president away wether he agrees or not, because after all he is the president. Or countless other reasons I cant think right now.

Well I guess you ruled them all out because you said "THE ONLY explanation is that the Secret Service, or the command of the Secret Service KNEW there was no danger, a smoking gun if ever....."

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 09:44 PM

QUOTE ("THEY"+Oct 13 2005, 09:15 PM)

QUOTE (London to SF+Oct 13 2005, 08:52 PM)

Also, why did George W. Bush - the Commander in Chief lest we forget - sit and listen to schoolchildren reading when he had been told, by his own admission that...

"America is under attack"

So, what did he do?
Sit there looking bemused.

Is there anyone else out there that finds this reaction;

a) Suspicious?
b.) Unnaceptable?

I don't find that suspicious. I find that a rather "big hearted" decision to be considerate of the children. And don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him. There is absolutely no reason for the president to be in the action, just informed.

Actually, there is every reason for the president to be informed.

Only the president can give the order to intercept or shoot down a civillian plane, which he did not do, even after he saw - by his own admission - the first plane hit the first tower.

To support this statement I have made, I have inlcuded the follwing article from CNN;

Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet
President would have to make decision

Officials calculated early in the flight that Stewart's plane would crash in a sparsely populated region; therefore no drastic action was required

October 26, 1999
Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this story:

Pentagon monitored flight

'Really tough decisions'

Pentagon rules on 'Derelict Airborne Objects'

RELATED STORIES, SITES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From CNN Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The unusual circumstances surrounding the doomed flight of a private Learjet that crashed and killed professional golfer Payne Stewart and five others has prompted questions about whether the U.S. military is prepared to shoot down a runaway plane if it were headed for a highly-populated area.

That scenario, while possible, it highly unlikely, according to the Pentagon.

For the Air Force to shoot down an unarmed civilian plane, it would require circumstances even more dire, than those surrounding the crash of Stewart's jet.

VIDEO
CNN's Jamie McIntyre looks at the military's regulations for civilian aircraft shoot down
Windows Media 28K 80K

"We would take almost any reasonable action before reaching a point of having to make a decision about destroying an American plane over American air space," Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said.

Pentagon monitored flight

Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel.

And officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center.

Two armed Air Force F-16 air defense fighters were placed on alert at Fargo just moments before the Learjet crashed, but they were never ordered to take off, Bacon said.

"The main issue was figuring out where it was going," Bacon said. Once it was determined that the Learjet was following a consistent path north toward the Dakotas, "We didn't have to deal with other options."

'Really tough decisions'

In this graphic illustration a jet attempts to re-direct a plane by using air pressure to nudge its wing and alter its course

But even if an unguided plane were on a collision course with the center of a major city, military planes could not take aim and pull the trigger unless they received permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down.

So, again I ask, does anyone else find it suspicious that even knowing America is under attack, nothing other than bemused looks came from the so called Commander in Chief?

Have a read of this;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Caught in a Lie
About the 9/11 WTC Attacks
At http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote. (Note: Some readers are reporting that the version of the CNN transcript they see in some parts of the country has been edited to remove the following comment. George Orwell would be proud!)

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

RealVideo of Bush saying he SAW the first plane hit the WTC
hit the World Trade Towers on TV.

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error.

It was known that hijacked commercial aircraft were going to be used to attack important symbols of American culture, and one of the areas of concern was New York...

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals [in July 2001] that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture. [FromTheWilderness]
FBI information [...] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. [President Bush Intelligence Briefing 8/6/2001]

...so if Bush truly made the remark "It must have been a horrible accident" then why didn't someone in the Secret Service inform him that it probably wasn't an accident?

"The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was..." - Vice President *** Cheney [NBC News]

This Washington Times article states he didn't see the impact at the school...

The president entered a holding room at the school and picked up a secure telephone to speak with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at the White House. She was sitting in her office, watching live coverage of the stricken north tower as it belched black smoke into a cloudless sky. "There's one terrible pilot," Mr. Bush muttered. Turning to Mr. Card, he speculated that the pilot must have suffered a heart attack. Mr. Bush, who had yet to see the TV images, drafted a statement pledging federal assistance.

...and this is confirmed by School Principal Gwen Rigell in this Propaganda Matrix posting:

I had the opportunity to talk with Principal Gwen Rigell of Booker Elementary school for about twenty minutes. ... I asked her if in fact the President had been watching the events of 9-11 unfold on TV before he went into that classroom and she told me "Absolutely not". There was no TV in the corridor or anywhere near that classroom

If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time, and he saw it before arriving at Booker Elementary - a closed-circuit live feed in his limo (he was en route to the school when the first plane struck the WTC) is the only way he could have seen that first impact on TV.

It must also be remembered that even after Andy Card informed Bush of the second impact, by his own admission Bush knew America was being attacked, but he continued listening to the reading skills of a classroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

London to SF

13th October 2005 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Guest+Oct 13 2005, 09:34 PM)

THEY

Not only are the Secret Service under strict instructions to remove the President from ANY threat or possible threat WHETHER HE AGREES OR NOT his remaining in the classroom put the children in danger. Reports at the time had as many as eleven aircraft highjacked and his appearance at the school was public knowledge making him a potential and obviously simple target, therefore endangering the children.

The only explanation is that the Secret Service, or the command of the Secret Service KNEW there was no danger, a smoking gun if ever.....

Hi guest

Yes, you are correct.
Also, Cheney was frogmarched to safety, and he wasnt even making a public appearance.

Yet, the CiC was allowed to sit there, saying nothing, DOING nothing while America was under attack...

It just does not add up.

None of it.

So much b/s and disinformation from the govt., that even all these clues are being refuted by many people, still...

Guest

13th October 2005 - 09:51 PM

QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 09:39 PM)

Ever considered they just forget... or the guy was out for a smoke. Or they took 20-30 minute before evacuing the president out. Or the guy in charge didnt think the president was in *that* much danger. Or they were all waching TV baffled at what actualy happened. Or that people may hesitate to take the president away wether he agrees or not, because after all he is the president. Or countless other reasons I cant think right now.

Well I guess you ruled them all out because you said "THE ONLY explanation is that the Secret Service, or the command of the Secret Service KNEW there was no danger, a smoking gun if ever....."

In a previous post, someone remarked that they would not comment on any more of a_hts "posts"...

...now I see why they said that! lol

jon pratt

13th October 2005 - 10:21 PM

A_ht: down in flames. Adios.

QUOTE

Just visiting:"I'm a software engineer and it takes us more than two days to DESIGN a login page, one of the most simple parts of a website".

You are a barefaced liar. I can design build and programme a 20 page website (with login) or a DVD in 24 yours. Adios tambien.

From a information-theorist background, 9-11 is an interesting case-study.

Most of the information deemed more significant was (not suprisingly) given as front-page news, the korans, phone calls, burning passports in the rubble etc. (same modus operandi as london + madrid). What is equally interesting is the absolute complicitness of the mass media in ading and abetting what (without shadow of a doubt) is an illegal war based on knowingly-fabricated false evidence, heightened by their inability make news of what should have been an outragous scandal, the Downing street memo which was an official record of a British cabinet meeting at which MI6 briefed the prime minister and cabinet ministers on what he was told by principals in Washington states quite clearly:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Just visiting:"I'm a software engineer and it takes us more than two days to DESIGN a login page, one of the most simple parts of a website".

You are a barefaced liar. I can design build and programme a 20 page website (with login) or a DVD in 24 yours. Adios tambien.

From a information-theorist background, 9-11 is an interesting case-study.

Most of the information deemed more significant was (not suprisingly) given as front-page news, the korans, phone calls, burning passports in the rubble etc. (same modus operandi as london + madrid). What is equally interesting is the absolute complicitness of the mass media in ading and abetting what (without shadow of a doubt) is an illegal war based on knowingly-fabricated false evidence, heightened by their inability make news of what should have been an outragous scandal, the Downing street memo which was an official record of a British cabinet meeting at which MI6 briefed the prime minister and cabinet ministers on what he was told by principals in Washington states quite clearly:
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY To: DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02 cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

....Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

It is impossible (of course) to prove that only the planes/jet fuel brought the towers down, in the same way it is impossible to prove that it didn´t. CG is not real world, and we don´t live is some hermetically-sealed bubble, so variables are always at play.

Of one thing I am sure, bin-laden (or his fans) whether they were responsible (or not) for 9-11, only managed to do so with the help of a network of people within America, upto (and including) members of the present white house administration. It is proven that they are barefaced liars (downing st memo) that disrepect the lives of everone (iraq etc.), including their own population (katrina). It shouldn´t be a white black or left right thing, but the historcally documented evidence of foul-play is overwhelming and quite damning. Hey, and killing in the name of jesus, too...cool

QUOTE

A massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. There are many indications, and there is a long trail of evidence suggesting US government complicity, but that is all there is. That much is a theory, but the evidence itself is comprised of facts. That evidence can not be dismissed simply because the theories that are wrapped around them are inconclusive. The proverbial baby cannot be thrown out with the bath water.

There is more to 9-11 than meets the eye, I think we are just argueing over who exactly (they) are.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

A massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. There are many indications, and there is a long trail of evidence suggesting US government complicity, but that is all there is. That much is a theory, but the evidence itself is comprised of facts. That evidence can not be dismissed simply because the theories that are wrapped around them are inconclusive. The proverbial baby cannot be thrown out with the bath water.

There is more to 9-11 than meets the eye, I think we are just argueing over who exactly (they) are.

The complexity and efficiency of the physicist's technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by that of the mystic's consciousness - both physical and spiritual - in deep meditation. The scientists and the mystics, then, have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature. A page from a journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records of inquiries into the nature of the universe.
-Franz Capra, physicist and author

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.