Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: 9/11 EVIDENCE of PAINFUL DECEPTIONS!
If you want evidence regarding 9/11 these links I have listed below are exceptional . After careful research, expert testimonies, and hearing personal experiences at ground zero, I have found great sites/links with some of the best video evidence relating to the 9/11 tragedy.
If you want to know the Truth, you will visit these links.
Here's the best videos I've seen with the most recent evidence to corroborate what I and others have found. You'll be thankful you visited these links, because they're filled with important facts from expert testimony (Physics experts, Structural engineer experts, Demolition experts, Firemen, Police officers, WTC occupants, Eye witnesses, etc.) and many other valuable facts, info. too.
9/11 Mysteries, is the government using weapons of deception?
I watched this and it was great. I cannot believe that people actually believe the 911 commission report. Where did these idiots get their facts? The back of a cereal box? People accept this because they don't want to believe that their country could actually do something like this. Wake up people... Look at the evidence...
_________________ Ned G. Bass
Kings and Queens
Prophets and Dreams
All is not what it seems
Joined: Nov 05, 2001
Posts: 5739
Location: Canada - True North Strong and Free
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:53 am Post subject:
NedNos, IAM1, have you read the 911 Commission report or are you taking Eric Hufschmid's word for it as to what it says?
First error in this video occurs when the narrator states part of the official 'stoey' is that the steel frame of the building melted and caused the building collapse. NO ONE , much less the 911 Commission report states that the steel melted.
Next is that 110 stories fell and pulverized into dust. This is gross exaggeration.
Next is the characterization that the 767 was not loaded with a full load of fuel. It was indeed loaded with most of a full load, for a transcontinental flight. They may not have been at maximum take off weight but the narrator neglects to say that the building was also NOT designed to take the impact of a 707 at max take off weight. Although they quote Robertson saying that the 707 impact design was for one that was lost in fog trying to find the airport they neglect what this implies , a much slower craft with much less fuel than the 767 had. The 707 senario means that the plane is at the end of its flight and would have used most of its fuel load. THAT is why the impact is stated to have been from a much heavier craft and one must note that although kinetic energy increases in direct proportion to an increase in mass it ocreases proportional to the square of an increase in velocity. A plane lost in fog might be doing 200 MPH, it would have a certain amount of KE due to its mass and velocity but if it was doing 400 MPH instead then it would have 4 times as much KE than it had at half that velocity. So the 767 was both heavier AND faster. Odd that this video does not bother to explain that.
Next they make much about the "two isolated pockets of fire" but these were on the 78th floor. That is the lowest floor with any fire involvement. They may have to fight them FIRST before going higher to ensure an escape route for FF's. At any rate the fact that the lowest fire floor had two fires burning says absolutly squat about what was going on throughout the rest of both buildings.
Next , "smoke is sign of an oxygen starved fire". No it is not. One need only watch video of a forest fire to know that there is a lot of smoke even though a forest fire has no problem with oxygen supply. In fact there are few fires that do not smoke, even gasoline burning in a pool will smoke!
"Smoldering but not flaming", is grossly inaccurate. Flames are ceratinly visible through many windows but even that cannot mean that there is no intense fire further back from the windows. The buildings were such that a fire could be burning 100 feet from any window. Note that the much bally-hooed Windsor building was only as wide as the core structure of the WTC towers.
"Imagine building expressly for airplane impact but never thinking of the fuel", yes I can imagine that. The aircraft impact was an add on to satisfy some people who did not want the towers built at all. The structural engineers would be responsible for designing a building that could take an impact BUT fire passive and active suppression is a completely different responsibility. The PANYNJ had , instead of designing for massive fires, negotiated a sweetheart deal as far as fire codes go. Basically they made their own rules in this regard, they did not have to follow the NYC fire code. This sweetheart deal is what should be investigated!!
"No steel building has collapsed due to fire", true but none has had to deal with the damage of a fast heavy aircraft AND a fire either, ever!
BTW the Windsor building had a CONCRETE core structure. It is NOT an example of a steel building on fire in the way that the towers are. Besides as I mentioned, the Windsor building could fit within the footprint of the WTC tower's core.
Well that's all the time I have for this piece of crap. So many errors and misleading statements and only 10 minutes into the video............ I gotta go back to work.
_________________ "Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham
Joined: Nov 05, 2001
Posts: 5739
Location: Canada - True North Strong and Free
Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:58 am Post subject:
In the part that starts with "why build buildings out of steel" the narrator states that steel stands up to fire better. Well it does compared to wood but in fact concrete withstands fire better than steel. In fact the Windsor building had a concrete core column structure that kept the building from suffering the partial collapses for much longer than would a steel core columned structure. The concrete core columns of that building are credited with keeping it from total collapse.
"Rock like steel grid", oh come on a gross misrepresentation of the structure. In a normal post and beam structure any failure would see the extra load taken up by several nearby members in 4 direction from the failed column. In a tube in tube design such as the WTC towers a failure in the perimeter can only result in nearby columns in 2 directions taking up the bulk of the extra load. It also results in horizontal forces much greater than in a normal post and beam structure because of the long span between perimeter and core.
"tall indestructible core", more self serving exaggreation. The core could simply not have stood on it own. It was too narrow for it own height. Couple that with the extreme buffeting by falling debris and the weakening of the steel by heating and you get the core columns failing at the fire floor levels. Once all that mass is falling you have that mass impacting the lower floor structural members with force and in directions the srtuctur was never designed to withstand.
"sounded like explosions", what would it sound like when a floor truss gives way and large parts of one floor impact the next one down? A whisper? a whine? a whoosh? or a BOOM? No one saw an explosion!
What would one expect to hear just as the tower is giving up and about to collapse? The view of the south tower in the "sound was heard before collapse started" segment is misleading. The south tower leaned over first, then started it collapse but in the video shown it is leaning away from the camera. Smoke prevents us from seeing the debris being thrown out from the side the top is leaning towards and the collapse on the side facing the camera does not start for a second or two later. Hufschmid knows this but chooses to omit this in favor of a slant that he
wants you to swallow.
"red-orange flames are what we saw on Sept 11". Does no one recall that just 10 minutes earlier in this video we were told there were no flames, just smoldering?
"stoves and pots and pans don't melt" well no one has ever said that the steel columns of the towers melted so what's the beef? Furthermore although the flame of your stove is hot enough to weaken the steel of the stove or pot , that stove or pot is not supporting any vertical load at all. That is quite unlike the columns of a large building. Also the stove is supplying enough heat to cook with, the flame area is small compared to the steel surface it is impinging upon, again unlike a structural column that is in the midst of an office fire. You could leave your stove top burners on all day and make the room uncomforatbly warm but would be in little danger of setting the house on fire. However, if a few pieces of furniture are burning in your house the room will quickly heat up to the point at which other items not in close proximity to the flames will ignite. The burning couch is not any hotter than your stove burner but its much larger!
"would fire have the strength to eject such huge chunks of metal?", more misdirection, the material ejected garnered it horizontal velocity from the bending and snapping due to enormous pressure from falling mass NOT from the fire. The statement itself is ,,,, well,,, stupid.
"Wht did the south tower fall first?", it was hit more assymetrically, it was hit on the side that is half the distance to the core than the adjacent sides(which is where the north tower was hit) thus more impact to the core columns in the south tower, there was a very hot and large fire in one corner likely the result of a large amount of office and aircraft debris being in that area, the corner experiencing that fire was on the same side of the building as the corner most affected by the impact, this plane was not travelling downward as the north tower plane was and thus it pieces hit less of the floor thus more debris reached the core and was travelling faster.
Gee a quick read of a few reports gives one all of this. Didn't Eric read anything concerning the towers?
The top part of the south twoer sinks into the dust cloud of the collapse and the narrator excliams that the top section has turned to dust right before our eyes. My eyes see that it sank behind an obscuring cloud of dust.
"Watch the buildings collapsing straught down", which is exactly the direction that gravity would be pulling , " into the path of most resistance, "now you can determine why material was ejected so strongly, it is moving down and hits the rest of the building, where does its energy go? into furthering the collapse and into changing the direction of the falling pieces.
"Seismic data" puts the north tower collapse at 8 seconds. Well obviously the seismic data must not be an accurate way to measure this since unless one has strapped rokets on the building and powered it down there is no possible way to bring it down in 8 seconds. Now , the same seismic data shows heavy vibrations of collapse for WTC 7. In that case it shows it lasting 16 seconds. I wonder how Eric feels about the collapse of #7 and how long he says it took?
"Free fall speed", nope, at least 10% and some measures put them at 50% greater than free fall time of collapse('speed' is an incorrect term here BTW)In order for this to have occured at the same rate as free fall , all the floors would have to start falling at the same time. THAT did not occur, therefore it was NOT free fall. In many photos one can easily see that falling debris outside the footprint of the towers is far in advance of the collapse point, thus the collapse did not occur at a free fall rate.
"96 seconds for a true pancake collapse", Sorry,, Judy Woods' calculations(that's her graphs shown in the film) require that each floor collapse onto the one below it and come to a complete halt before that floor also collapses. That's a ridiculous comparison. "In a true pancake collapse the collapse would lose speed never gain speed", why the hell not? I am truly asking that question since Eric doesn't deem it worth his time to actually explain why. As long as it has some acelleration it will indeed gain speed. It came down at LESS than the acelleration due to gravity but at an acelleration greater than zero.
I'm done with this video, less than half way through it and its incorrect and (what must be deliberate) misleading statements have completely turned me off.
_________________ "Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham
Joined: Nov 05, 2001
Posts: 5739
Location: Canada - True North Strong and Free
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:48 am Post subject:
okiejack wrote:
Very interesting JayDees. Thanks for taking the time to debunk this "Crap" as you so accurately described it.
But as you can see the anti-authority crowd is unaffected by reality.
Gee I wonder why?
Why deal in reality or facts when you have
"The Truth"
Now I am sure that someone is thinking, "but Jaydees did not watch the whole thing. What about xxxx?".
So if there is any particular thing mentioned in this video that you believe is a smoking gun, that cannot be refuted, that is not misdirection or a lie (including lies of ommission) then let me know the specific topic and the approx time on the video in which it is dealt with.
Let's look at what the very mainstream mechanical engineer, Dr. Judy Wood has to say, upon examination of the math and physics:
Very shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government proclaimed its certitude concerning who the attackers were 19 Arabs suicide bombers under the guidance of one Osama bin Laden. What followed in quick succession were ‘authoritation’ pronouncements, through NOVA and a few academicians, about what brought the WTC towers down. This early public authoritative consensus was that the buildings could not withstand the horrific onslaught of the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Since that time questions have arisen about the veracity of the Official Government Theory of the events of 9/11. One area of particular interest has been the issue of the WTC tower “collapses”.
The purpose of this paper is to look at that question from a single, simple perspective -- that of the timing of those “collapses”. Absent other forces, gravity alone must have generated them. We will examine whether that was possible, from the perspective of the law of gravity and the visual record.
According to the "Official Story," how long did it take the WTC towers to collapse?
Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report states, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, .... The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud." (Chapter 9. html, pdf)
The height of the South Tower (WTC2) is 1362 feet, and the height of the North Tower (WTC1) is 1368 feet, which are nearly the same.
Columbia University's Seismology Group recorded seismic events of 10 seconds and 8 seconds in duration, which correspond to the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1, respectively.
Event origin time (EDT)
(hours:minutes:seconds) Magnitude
(equivalent seismic) Duration
Impact 1 at North Tower 08:46:26±1 0.9 12 seconds
Impact 2 at South Tower 09:02:54±2 0.7 6 seconds
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds
Do these values seem reasonable? Let's calculate a few values we can use as a reference.
For the following, I used the height of WTC1 as 1368 feet and considered each floor to be a height of 12.44 feet. (1368/110 =12.44 ft/floor). I assumed gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2 or 9.81 m/sec2.
Simplicity
What can you prove with simple models of an enormously complex situation?
Let's say you tell me that you ran, by foot, to a store 10 miles away, then to the bank (5 more miles), then to the dog track (7 more miles), then to your friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.
To disprove your story, I would present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3 minutes and 43.13 seconds. So, it does not seem possible that you could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for you to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if I gave you the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world record pace, it would not have been possible for you to have done so in two minutes.
Remember, the proof need not be complicated. I don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken you to run that distance. Nor do I need to prove how much longer it would have taken if you stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove your story, I only need to show that the story you gave me is not physically possible.
Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.
Case 1: Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum
Let's consider the minimum time it would take the blue billiard ball to hit the pavement, more than 1/4 mile below (see below). Start the timer when the ball is dropped from the roof of WTC1. We'll assume this is in a vacuum, with no air resistance. (Note, large chunks of the building will have a very low surface area-to-mass ratio, so air resistance can be neglected.)
From the rooftop of WTC1, drop one (dark-blue) billiard ball over the edge. As it falls, it accelerates. If it were in a vacuum, it would hit the pavement, 1368 feet below, in 9.22 seconds, shown by the blue curve in the figure, below. It will take longer if air resistance is considered, but for simplicity, we'll neglect air resistance. This means that the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.
Figure 1. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.
Notice that the billiard ball begins to drop very slowly, then accelerates with the pull of gravity. If in a vacuum, the blue ball will hit the pavement, 1368 ft. below, 9.22 seconds after it is dropped. That is, unless it is propelled by explosives, it will take at least 9.22 seconds to reach the ground (assuming no air resistance).
Let's consider the "Pancake Theory"
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse."
Model A: The floors remain intact and pile up like a stack of pancakes:
Model B: The floors blow up like an erupting volcano from the top down:
Which of the two models, above, best matches the images below?
The left picture, WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the "collapse wave," and the right picture shows a layer of uniform dust left by the "collapse."
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.
Images illustrating what really happened that day:
To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence. This is analogous to assuming pulverization is instantaneous and does not slow down the process. In reality, this pulverization would slow down the "pancake" progression, so longer times would be expected. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.
Case 2: ‘Progressive Collapse’ in ten-floor intervals
To account for the damaged zone, let’s simulate the floor beams collapsing every 10th floor, as if something has destroyed 9 out of every 10 floors for the entire height of the building. This assumes there is no resistance within each 10-floor interval. i.e. We use the conservative approach that there is no resistance between floor impacts. In reality there is, which would slow the collapse time further. Also, there was only damage in one 10-floor interval, not the entire height of the building. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be. Refer to the figure below.
The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor). Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, ... etc. Notice that the red ball (at floor 100) cannot begin moving until the blue ball reaches that level, which is 2.8 seconds after the blue ball begins to drop.
This approximates the "pancaking" theory, assuming that each floor within the "pancaking" (collapsing) interval provides no resistance at all. With this theory, no floor below the "pancake" can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. For example, there is no reason for the 20th floor to suddenly collapse before it is damaged.
With this model, a minimum of 30.6 seconds is required for the roof to hit the ground. Of course it would take longer if accounting for air resistance. It would take longer if accounting for the structure's resistance that allows pulverization. The columns at each level would be expected to absorb a great deal of the energy of the falling floors. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be.
Minimum time for the collapse, if nine of every ten floors have been demolished prior to the "collapse".
Case 3: ‘Progressive Collapse’ in one-floor intervals
Similar to Case 2, above, let's consider a floor-by-floor progressive collapse. Refer to the figure below:
Figure 6. Minimum time for the collapse, if every floor collapsed like dominos.
Now, let's consider momentum
Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.
Now, recall the physics demonstration shown below. (I believe everyone who has finished high school has seen one of these momentum demonstrations at some point in their life.)
Figure 7. Images of (a) Physics demonstration, (b)-(h) disintegration of building during "collapse."
Note, if some part must stop and then restart its descent every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, anyway. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.
Now, let's consider reality.
QUESTIONS:
How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time?
If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint?
What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?
Case 4: ‘Progressive Collapse’ at near free-fall speed
Now, consider the chart below.
Figure 8. Minimum Time for a Billiard Ball dropped from the roof of WTC1 to hit the pavement below, assuming no air resistance.
Let's say that we want to bring down the entire building in the time it takes for free-fall of the top floor of WTC1. (Use 9.22 seconds as the time it would take the blue ball to drop from the roof to the street below, in a vacuum.) So, If the entire building is to be on the ground in 9.22 seconds, the floors below the "pancaking" must start moving before the "progressive collapse” reaches that floor, below. To illustrate this, use the concept of the billiard balls. If the red ball (dropped from the 100th floor) is to reach the ground at the same time as the blue ball (dropped from the 110th floor), the red ball must be dropped 0.429 seconds after the blue ball is dropped. But, the blue ball will take 2.8 seconds after it is dropped, just to reach the 100th floor in free fall. So, the red ball needs to begin moving 2.4 seconds before the blue ball arrives to "trigger" the red ball's motion. I.e., each of these floors will need a 2.4 second head start. But this creates yet another problem. How can the upper floor be destroyed by slamming into a lower floor if the lower floor has already moved out of the way?
Case 2, above, shows the red ball being dropped just as the blue ball passes that point.
Remember, I'm assuming the building was turning to dust as the collapse progressed, which is essentially what happened.
So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence.
Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.
In the picture (at right), notice that WTC2 is less than half of its original height, yet has no debris that has fallen ahead of the demolition wave.
Figure 9. WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the "collapse wave."
So, how could the ground rumble for only 8 seconds while WTC1 "disappeared?"
I don't think this part of the building made a thud when it hit the ground.
Figure 10. Dust from "collapse."
This part of the building surely took a lot longer to hit the ground as dust than it would have if it came down as larger pieces of material. We know that sheets of paper have a very high surface-area-to-mass ratio and will stay aloft for long periods of time, which is why paper is an excellent material for making toy airplanes. The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did. In the above picture, there are a few tire tracks through the dust, but not many, so it was probably taken shortly after one (or both) of the towers were down. Also, the people in the picture look like they've just come out of hiding, curious to see what just happened and to take pictures. If there had been a strong wind blowing the dust around, it would blow the paper away before it would have blown the dust onto the paper. So, the fact that much of the randomly-oriented paper is covered with dust indicates the relative aerodynamic properties of this dust.
Also, notice the dark sky as well as the haze in the distance. This was a clear day with no clouds in the sky... except for the dust clouds. This overcast appearance as well as the distant haze can only be explained by dust from the "collapse" that is still suspended in the air.
In a conventional controlled-demolition, a building's supports are knocked out and the building is broken up as it slams to the ground. In a conventional controlled-demolition, gravity is used to break up the building. Here, it seems that the only use of gravity was to get the dust out of the air.
Video clips courtesy of 911review.org
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The "collapse" of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.
References
9/11 Commission Report
Page 305, 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 9.
The height of the South Tower (WTC2) is 1362 feet, and the height of the North Tower (WTC1) is 1368 feet.
Seismology Group, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Wayne Trumpman (September 2005)
Jim Hoffman
D.P. Grimmer, June 20, 2004
Having checked Clemson University I see that is in fact the person in question and she specialized in composite and biological materials so her offering her opinion on this is pretty much the equivilant of me offering my opinions on neurosurgery.
Which is to say not relevant in the slightest... unless of course your suggesting that the WTC buildings were in fact constructed of tooth enamel, dentine and carbon fibre composites.
_________________ Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Posts: 3586
Location: Land o´ Lincoln
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:06 am Post subject:
Actually, Judy Wood really does not have a good understanding of structural engineering. It is actually possible to have rigid structures fall as fast as free fall if the supports are damaged. The central steel beams of the WTC towers held a large portion of the structures weight by a suspension system from the tops of the buildings if the central steel beams softened to the point of rupture, the whole thing could collapse.
This according to the architectural engineer who designed the towers. PBS special.
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 2680
Location: Texas North - Alberta
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:07 am Post subject:
dangermite wrote:
Actually, Judy Wood really does not have a good understanding of structural engineering. It is actually possible to have rigid structures fall as fast as free fall if the supports are damaged. The central steel beams of the WTC towers held a large portion of the structures weight by a suspension system from the tops of the buildings if the central steel beams softened to the point of rupture, the whole thing could collapse.
Thanks Dangermite.
That softening is exactly what occured. The NTSC report on the collapse actually has an entire section dedicated to nothing but the physics of what the contents of the WTC towers contributed to the fires.
Right down to the kilojoule content of brown paper lunch bags.
And that fire was long enough and hot enough to reduce the structural strength of the beams enough to succumb to collapse from the mass of the floors above the impact points.
But... what does that have to do with anything right?
_________________ Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: 9/11
Thanks Nednos and ThomasP! It's good to know that you've viewed the entire video, and I'm sure some other's also, and have come to a logical conclusion after taking all statement's from the experts and witnesses in this video into consideration. Some people illogically focus on one or two areas and erroneously dismiss, and or, neglect the overall evidence provided in the video.
Have faith, IAM1. Lots of people are on to this treason, especially New Yorkers. The sheep can bleat all they want, but it won't cover up the crime. The perps are gonna go down for this one. Even Bush made an interesting statement, a couple of weeks ago. He told reporters at a presser that explosives were set to go off, in the WTC, in such a way that the people above them could not escape. Now, is he so stupid that he let something slip, or are he and cronies trying to adjust the official story to match what the pubplic is catching on to, and a hundred Google videos show so clearly? Time will tell.
. After careful research, expert testimonies, and hearing personal experiences at ground zero, I have found great sites/links with some of the best video evidence relating to the 9/11 tragedy.
