| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30
|
 Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: WTC construction manager - towers okay for multiple impacts |
 |
|
Something for the critics to ponder:
WTC CONSTRUCTION MANAGER STATES TOWERS WOULD
SURVIVE MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS.
The following is a quote from the WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it.
That was the largest plane at the time.
I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS
because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,...
this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
IT REALLY DOES NOTHING
You can listen to Frank A. DeMartini, the WTC Construction and Project Manager, saying this in this video:
WTC Construction Manager states Towers would survive Multiple Airplane Strikes.(0.8M WMV3 320x240) Copy 1 2.
Note that a Boeing 707 is roughly the same size as the Boeing 767s that hit the towers.
This is from Alex Jones web page:
WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes.
DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse even if multiple jetliners hit it.
Unfortunately, DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11.
From http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/
and http://guardian.150m.com/
Last edited by TheTruth on Wed May 30, 2007 4:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you saying that it is suggested that the aircraft impact alone brought either building down? Although I am not an exponent of believing the planes brought the buildings down - this is just a part of the equation.
Or maybe I should rephrase in the form of a question;
Were the resulting fires from fully fuelled passenger jet aircraft factored in to the 'SURVIVE MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS'?
Last edited by telecasterisation on Fri May 18, 2007 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clearly not.
It is my understanding that the "fully loaded Boeing 707" was in fact referring to the glider variant, popular at the time with the transatlantic greens.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understood it to mean should any airliners, in the process of being installed by crane in any theoretical neighbourhood museums that may be founded during the Towers lifetime accidentally bump into the Towers inadvertantly, (in a high wind for instance) the safety of the WTC was assured.
John Skilling, the designer of the WTC was understandably worried by the spread of museums incorporating aviation sections, and allowed for the possibility accordingly.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe they used cowboy builders?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
They did survive the impact. That's why most people got out alive.
Please try harder next time.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Frank De Martini did say that, but in fact he was not involved in the design of the towers, he was brought in after the 1993 attack, by Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer responsible for the engineering design. Leslie Robertson said something rather different, "The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." (LINK)
So as far as he was concerned, the impact considered was for a partially loaded 707, travelling at slow speed. Nevertheless, the towers did prove strong enough to survive the impacts, it was the combination of the damage sustained and the fires that brought them down, and that was not considered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Leslie Robertson said something rather different, "The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
So as far as he was concerned, the impact considered was for a partially loaded 707, travelling at slow speed. Nevertheless, the towers did prove strong enough to survive the impacts, it was the combination of the damage sustained and the fires that brought them down, and that was not considered. |
I suppose it was very gracious that WTC junior engineer and latterly Official Investigation consultant (various OCT bodies) even deigned to mention in passing that the WTC was anything to do with John Skilling.
We might even be forgiven for getting the impression that it was all Robertson's own work.
But then, we're meant to, aren't we?
This interview with Leslie Robertson (with analysis) highlights some of the contradictions in Robertson's re-writing of history, now that Skilling (died 1998) is out of the way.
"An analysis of contradictions in statements by Building Designer Leslie Robertson
By Arabesque[1]
Update: 03/12/2007
Another Quotation from John Skilling added about the possibility of controlled demolition destroying the World Trade Center buildings in 1993.
Before 9/11
“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”[2]
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):
“However, O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[3]
1993
“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]
“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC  traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]
“Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[6]
2001
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[7]
[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[8]
[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[9]
Sept 3-7, 2001—just before 9/11
“The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.”[10]
After 9/11
“The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said. ‘We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,’ said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates. ‘We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on.’”[11]
“The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[12]
“[The] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2005 state that it has been ‘unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.’”[13]
“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”[14]
“[Leslie Robertson:] I support the general conclusions of the NIST report… The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it… Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. Molten—Molten means flowing—I’ve never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was.” Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson [MP3] by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006
Analysis:
Robertson has made some glaring contradictions in his statements.
· Robertson claims that the building was designed to only survive plane crashes at speeds of 180 mph. Interestingly he made this claim only a few days before 9/11.[15] A quote by Building Designer Skilling indicates that “A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.[16] Robertson must resolve this apparent contradiction. It is a very suspicious statement given the fact that it would be reasonable to consider the maximum speed of a plane flying into the Twin Towers. Is it possible that Robertson was asked to leak this “deliberately misleading information” just before 9/11? However, this is just speculation. Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”[17]
· Robertson says that the building was not designed to survive jet fuel fires: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire”. This claim is suspicious for two reasons: why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the jet fuel? And more importantly, John Skilling claimed in 1993 that they did consider the jet fuel when they designed the buildings.[18] Given this fact, which statement is more likely to be correct about jet fuel fires being considered?
· NIST is also contradicted when they claim that there was no “evidence to indicate consideration of… thousands of gallons of jet fuel”. This statement is clearly false. See John Skilling’s statement: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.”[19]
· In interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[20]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[21]
· Robertson is also incorrect when he says that “if they had seen [Molten Steel, they had not] performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was. This statement is false. FEMA analyzed samples of the molten steel.[22] However, NIST did not even mention the molten steel and called it “irrelevant to [their] investigation.”[23] This could have simply been a mistake by Robertson.
Is Robertson being pressured to lie and make false statements? Was he asked to leak a false statement just before 9/11 about the speed of the planes having an impact on their destruction? Are these contradictions by accident or mistake?
A news report stated that he wanted to give his opinion to the FBI before making his comments public. This in itself is not overly suspicious—but his contradictions are. No clear answers to these and similar questions can be obtained through speculation alone—Leslie Robertson must account for these himself. If another 9/11 investigation is obtained, it is clear that Leslie Robertson will have to answer these and other relevant questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
[1] http://www.911blogger.com/blog/877
[2] Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)
[3] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson
See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]
[5] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]
[6] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]
[7] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]
[8] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
[9] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake .htm
[10] [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366]
[11] “Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire”
By JAMES GLANZ
http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/believed_tobe_safe.htm
[12] [US Congress, 3/6/2002; Associated Press, 3/7/2002]
[13] [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13]
[14] [Robertson, 3/2002]
[15] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] These articles the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: “Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany”.
[16] Complete 9/11 Timeline: (see February 27, 1993)]
[17] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson
See here: [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
[18] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]
[19] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]
[20] [SEAU News, 10/2001] This fact was observed by David Ray Griffin and Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline.
[21] http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-meta l-under.html
[22] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1
“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.
[23] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13 "
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyu0zuxo5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYMDsBN3t80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-byshtnq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBfkAzWbnvM
im intrested in critics opinons to the arguement demonstrated in these video's, the arguement being it was impossible for the collapse to accelerate(which it did).
the only thing being used is basic physics to argue the point, is he wrong?
if so why?
can you demonstrate or prove him wrong?
just pointing out the arguement isnt that the buildings would'nt fail just that they could not of accelerated, it should of been a much slower collapse if indeed explosives were not used.
im not intrested in insults just your opinons, i will take insults to mean your car'nt explain. |
He is wrong in two particular ways. Firstly, he keeps repeating that at the stage when the top part of the building falls on to to lower section, because the fire floors have collapsed, the net force is zero. He corrects himself at one point, and realises that the top section has velocity and therefore momentum, and can crush the lower section, but then reverts to claiming that the net force is zero, and writes NF=0 alongside his diagram. Secondly, he treats the building as though it is a solid object, whereas it is essentially hollow, and disintegrates with the impact of the upper floors on the lower. He repeats that NF=0 (which is incorrect, unless the falling top section comes to rest on the bottom) and says that no further force is added in the official theory. This ignores the debris from the destroyed lower section, which is also falling on the remainder. To explain further, although the top section falling on the lower was so many floors at first, say 13, by the time it had destroyed a further floor, it had become 14 floors weight of debris, and so on down the building. Of course some spilled over the sides, so that the entire weight of every floor was not added, but the falling mass certainly increased on the way down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Despite Arabesque's claim, there is little actual contradiction between the statements made by De Martini, Robertson and Skilling. Although their memories of the assumed speed of the 707 differ, that is a minor matter and their conclusions are the same, the towers would survive, and indeed they did when it came to it. De Martini does not mention fires, Skilling says thay would be the main problem, and Robertson says thay had no knowledge of the effects of fire from an aircraft and that was not specifically allowed for. The main point of contention is that Skilling said "the building structure would still be there" Quite what he meant by that is unclear, he may have been considering only the initial fireball. He could not have meant indefinitely, any fire protection system delays the effect of fire, it does not avoid it completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyu0zuxo5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYMDsBN3t80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ-byshtnq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBfkAzWbnvM
im intrested in critics opinons to the arguement demonstrated in these video's, the arguement being it was impossible for the collapse to accelerate(which it did).
the only thing being used is basic physics to argue the point, is he wrong?
if so why?
can you demonstrate or prove him wrong?
just pointing out the arguement isnt that the buildings would'nt fail just that they could not of accelerated, it should of been a much slower collapse if indeed explosives were not used.
im not intrested in insults just your opinons, i will take insults to mean your car'nt explain. |
He is wrong in two particular ways. Firstly, he keeps repeating that at the stage when the top part of the building falls on to to lower section, because the fire floors have collapsed, the net force is zero. He corrects himself at one point, and realises that the top section has velocity and therefore momentum, and can crush the lower section, but then reverts to claiming that the net force is zero, and writes NF=0 alongside his diagram. Secondly, he treats the building as though it is a solid object, whereas it is essentially hollow, and disintegrates with the impact of the upper floors on the lower. He repeats that NF=0 (which is incorrect, unless the falling top section comes to rest on the bottom) and says that no further force is added in the official theory. This ignores the debris from the destroyed lower section, which is also falling on the remainder. To explain further, although the top section falling on the lower was so many floors at first, say 13, by the time it had destroyed a further floor, it had become 14 floors weight of debris, and so on down the building. Of course some spilled over the sides, so that the entire weight of every floor was not added, but the falling mass certainly increased on the way down. |
i dont think he's argueing about building failure, just that the hollow top section could'nt accelrate through the hollow upward force of the bottom section which still had 47 steel beams attached to the ground as well as the rest of the structure(walls ect). no extra weight is being added that the towers were not built to hold up anyway, if anything the load was getting lighter, the only thing affecting the collapse was momentum which when faced with resistance should slow not gain speed.
yes the towers were not solid objects and the bottom section was hollow, but so was the top section, and the lower section held all the weight for decades so accumilating debris would not add weight unless they came from somewhere else, debris were spilling over the sides all the time making the weight the buildings needed to hold up lighter.
if i weighed an egg then cracked it and weighed it again it would still weigh the same unless i removed some of the shell, so how did the weight get heavier????
only momentum/velocity was at play here, and should of slowed due to resistance of the upward force of the lower section not accelrate as though the lower section was not there.
thanks for taking the time to give your opinon, if you think im wrong or missing something please say so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I think you are missing is that although some debris spills off the sides of the towers, most of the debris falls inside and keeps increasing as more floors are destroyed. A large part of the towers fell within their own footprint, as conspiracists like to remind us.
There is no question that the towers were obviously strong enough to hold up the static load of the floors above them, it was the dynamic load that destroyed them, ie the momentum of the falling floors above. Momentum is made up of velocity and mass; as the top section first fell on the lower floors, it must have lost some velocity initially as it encountered resistance, so its momentum would drop, but then it was joined by all the mass of the destroyed floor, and its momentum was increased by this mass more than it was decreased by the initial small loss of velocity, and it would therefore accelerate. This process continued downwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
ok thanks for your opinon, i dont know how possible it is but it gives me something to consider even if it dos'nt or does explain the whole collapse/speed of collapse etc.
what i get from what you said is the extra weight on each floor comes from the outer walls as some of these debris/chunks fall inward adding more weight and velocity to the downward momentum which happens floor after floor all the way to the bottom causing the collapse to accelrate each time more weight is added to the momentum.
please correct me if i'm wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | "it was the dynamic load that destroyed them" |
Where the hell have you been? Living under a rock?
Explosives were used -- this couldn't be more obvious -- didn't you see/read this article:
Premature Detonations of Explosives Caught on
Video of the World Trade Center Demolitions.
Click below for an animated graphic showing premature detonations of explosives during the demolition of the North Tower.
http://arizona.indymedia.org/uploads/premature-detonations.gif
Two of the largest of premature detonations have been circled in red.
The animated graphic was produced from this video footage:
Premature Detonations Marked (North Tower) (Codec: DivX3.11a, 2.3M, Size 688x472).
In the second video many of the numerous detonations have been marked and the frame-rate reduced to aid viewing.
Here are four frames from this video (at about quarter actual size).
 
 
The following video also captures some of the above mentioned predetonations.
More Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition (Codec: DivX3.11a, 1.4M, Size 696x472).
Here are still shots of the four most visible predetonations in the video.
 
It is possible that this video has been deliberately blurred to hide these premature detonations.
The visible detonations in the south tower demolition are less numerous. Here is one that was caught on video:
Premature Detonations Marked (South Tower) (Codec: DivX3.11a, 0.4M, Size 704x480)
In this video the predetonation has been marked and the frame-rate reduced to aid viewing.
Here are two still shots from the video.
 
Predetonations can also been seen in this video (Codec: SVQ3=Quicktime, Size 320x240)
Here is a still shot from the video with two predetonations marked.
And click here for an animated graphic:
To my knowledge the first site to deal with the premature detonations was bombsinsidewtc.dk.
From http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/
and http://guardian.150m.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, I have not been living under a rock, why would I do that?
And why would anyone think that puffs of smoke, with no resulting effect on the structure, indicate premature detonations? Even on the baseless assumption that explosives were used, why should there be premature detonations? Explosives placed to be invisible to the towers occupants and be computer controlled to ripple down the towers as though they were collapsing naturally would be a highly skilled and professional job - do you ever get premature detonations in commercial demolitions? How would that happen?
No, these puffs of smoke are almost certainly the result of the collapsing floors pressurising the air in the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | ok thanks for your opinon, i dont know how possible it is but it gives me something to consider even if it dos'nt or does explain the whole collapse/speed of collapse etc.
what i get from what you said is the extra weight on each floor comes from the outer walls as some of these debris/chunks fall inward adding more weight and velocity to the downward momentum which happens floor after floor all the way to the bottom causing the collapse to accelrate each time more weight is added to the momentum.
please correct me if i'm wrong. |
Yes, exactly so, the part of the outer walls that fall in, the floors, contents and the inner columns all adding to the falling mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, these puffs of smoke are almost certainly the result of the collapsing floors pressurising the air in the building. |
So why some windows and not others? How was this air pressure able to consciously decide to skip many floors altogether in some cases? In one image the puff occurs well below the collapse wave. In other cases one window would blow while all of the others on the same exact floor remained intact. It seems awfully suspect that all of this supposed air pressure being generated from the collapsing floors was able to somehow isolate and focus itself in to such highly specific areas while simultaneously ignoring so many others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you pull a chain until it breaks, does that mean all the force concentrated on the one link that broke and skipped all the other links? Is that "suspicious"?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheTruth
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | So why some windows and not others? How was this air pressure able to consciously decide to skip many floors altogether in some cases? In one image the puff occurs well below the collapse wave. In other cases one window would blow while all of the others on the same exact floor remained intact. It seems awfully suspect that all of this supposed air pressure being generated from the collapsing floors was able to somehow isolate and focus itself in to such highly specific areas while simultaneously ignoring so many others. |
Exactly,... and why did the "compressed air" choose to blow out the walls of the mechanical equipment floors (these floors had no windows), while choosing not to blow out any of the windows on the still intact floors just above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheTruth wrote: | | Me wrote: | | So why some windows and not others? How was this air pressure able to consciously decide to skip many floors altogether in some cases? In one image the puff occurs well below the collapse wave. In other cases one window would blow while all of the others on the same exact floor remained intact. It seems awfully suspect that all of this supposed air pressure being generated from the collapsing floors was able to somehow isolate and focus itself in to such highly specific areas while simultaneously ignoring so many others. |
Exactly,... and why did the "compressed air" choose to blow out the walls of the mechanical equipment floors (these floors had no windows), while choosing not to blow out any of the windows on the still intact floors just above? |
If you are right that the smoke came from mechanical equipment floors that just reinforces my point, such floors normally have vents rather than windows, where the smoke would naturally exhaust.
As for Me's point, that has been well answered by Pepik, the air pressure will affect the weakest points.
I notice that although you were the thread starter, you have not pursued your original point. Presumably you were satisfied with the explanations given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As for Me's point, that has been well answered by Pepik, the air pressure will affect the weakest points.
|
Yes, the air would follow the path of least resistance, namely the glass windows. What’s the difference between the windows that broke and those that didn’t? I don't really see an explanation there.
| Quote: |
If you pull a chain until it breaks, does that mean all the force concentrated on the one link that broke and skipped all the other links? Is that "suspicious"? |
Not a workable analogy. You're describing the weakest link phenomenon. You have to explain why some windows would've been so much weaker than the others. And if you really believed that the pressure was so powerful, it shouldn’t have made much of a difference anyway. After all, it's just glass........
If I take the same baseball, and throw it with the same velocity in the same spot of a dozen of the same kinds of windows and all of them survive just fine except for one that shatters…that’s suspicious. Either the other surviving windows were specially reinforced or there was another factor at play. In the case of the towers, there’s no reason to believe that some of the windows were specially reinforced while others weren’t. What would be the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | Quote: | As for Me's point, that has been well answered by Pepik, the air pressure will affect the weakest points.
|
Yes, the air would follow the path of least resistance, namely the glass windows. What’s the difference between the windows that broke and those that didn’t? I don't really see an explanation there.
| Quote: |
If you pull a chain until it breaks, does that mean all the force concentrated on the one link that broke and skipped all the other links? Is that "suspicious"? |
Not a workable analogy. You're describing the weakest link phenomenon. You have to explain why some windows would've been so much weaker than the others. And if you really believed that the pressure was so powerful, it shouldn’t have made much of a difference anyway. After all, it's just glass........ |
It is actually a very good analogy, the links of the chain are all made in just the same way, the same tension is applied to all, but one will give out before the others, they will not all fail simultaneously, some tiny difference in strength will mean that one goes first. With the windows in the towers, there will similarly be small manufacturing differences, and perhaps more importantly they would have been installed manually, and there will be subtle differences arising through that.
Also of course, there would be major differences in the ease with which the pressurised air could even reach the windows. it will have had to travel down lift shafts, stair wells, and private stairs put in by tenants between their floors, so whether doors are open or not would make a crucial difference. Similarly to when one chain link breaks, the tension on the others is relieved, when one window breaks the air pressure drops, so others nearby do not suffer the same pressure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? 
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It is actually a very good analogy, the links of the chain are all made in just the same way, the same tension is applied to all, but one will give out before the others, they will not all fail simultaneously, some tiny difference in strength will mean that one goes first. With the windows in the towers, there will similarly be small manufacturing differences, and perhaps more importantly they would have been installed manually, and there will be subtle differences arising through that.
|
It’s a bad analogy because for one, there is no “link” between any of the windows as would be in the case of chain so it’s an entirely different situation. Those windows were not directly applying a force on one another. Secondly, glass is much more fragile than say a steel chain. Defective or not, there’s no reason to believe that multiple windows on the same floors wouldn’t have broke if exposed to the amount of air pressure that is being suggested. Whether a given window already has a small crack in it or it is in perfect condition, whether it has been poorly framed or not, I still ought to be able to through a baseball through it regardless. The air pressure theory is just too selective and assumes too many things.
| Quote: |
Also of course, there would be major differences in the ease with which the pressurised air could even reach the windows. it will have had to travel down lift shafts, stair wells, and private stairs put in by tenants between their floors, so whether doors are open or not would make a crucial difference. Similarly to when one chain link breaks, the tension on the others is relieved, when one window breaks the air pressure drops, so others nearby do not suffer the same pressure. |
Fine but most rooms have more than one window in them. You'd expect to see groups of windows shattering. Windows sharing the same room. I don’t see any of the (in your own words) “subtle” differences that you’ve described being enough to account for the dramatic amounts of air pressure that have been suggested. Look at the sheer force being exerted in those photos. Projectiles and debris being tossed large distances. Glass is glass, it breaks very easily. We all know that. Trying to compare a thin, very fragile pane of glass with the link of a steel chain is worse than comparing apples to oranges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? |
We're supposed to believe that those just so happened to be all of the well designed windows. Built so well that they could actually endure the extreme forces being described. Fragile, thin, easily breakbale glass that amazingly seems to run the gamut in what it can or can't withstand at any given time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Also, as far as doors being left open. When you had large groups of people hastily evacuating a building amidst a calamity I doubt that they took the time to close the doors and turn out the lights behind them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | How come there were "puffs" of dust ejected 20-30 floors below the collapse zone? |
Because that was where the pressurised air escaped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | Quote: | It is actually a very good analogy, the links of the chain are all made in just the same way, the same tension is applied to all, but one will give out before the others, they will not all fail simultaneously, some tiny difference in strength will mean that one goes first. With the windows in the towers, there will similarly be small manufacturing differences, and perhaps more importantly they would have been installed manually, and there will be subtle differences arising through that.
|
It’s a bad analogy because for one, there is no “link” between any of the windows as would be in the case of chain so it’s an entirely different situation. Those windows were not directly applying a force on one another. Secondly, glass is much more fragile than say a steel chain. Defective or not, there’s no reason to believe that multiple windows on the same floors wouldn’t have broke if exposed to the amount of air pressure that is being suggested. Whether a given window already has a small crack in it or it is in perfect condition, whether it has been poorly framed or not, I still ought to be able to through a baseball through it regardless. The air pressure theory is just too selective and assumes too many things.
| Quote: |
Also of course, there would be major differences in the ease with which the pressurised air could even reach the windows. it will have had to travel down lift shafts, stair wells, and private stairs put in by tenants between their floors, so whether doors are open or not would make a crucial difference. Similarly to when one chain link breaks, the tension on the others is relieved, when one window breaks the air pressure drops, so others nearby do not suffer the same pressure. |
Fine but most rooms have more than one window in them. You'd expect to see groups of windows shattering. Windows sharing the same room. I don’t see any of the (in your own words) “subtle” differences that you’ve described being enough to account for the dramatic amounts of air pressure that have been suggested. Look at the sheer force being exerted in those photos. Projectiles and debris being tossed large distances. Glass is glass, it breaks very easily. We all know that. Trying to compare a thin, very fragile pane of glass with the link of a steel chain is worse than comparing apples to oranges. |
Compare it with any sort of chain you like, a thin gold chain for instance; it will never break in a number of places simultaneously. Why do you assume the glass is thin? Perhaps more than one window in a room did break, you cannot tell from the video, and you cannot really see what is coming out, any sudden depressurisation will cause loose items to blow out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | Also, as far as doors being left open. When you had large groups of people hastily evacuating a building amidst a calamity I doubt that they took the time to close the doors and turn out the lights behind them. |
Have the lights got anything to do with it? As for the doors, you are right, people evacuating could not be expected to close doors behind them, that is why such buildings always have door closers as part of their fire safety arrangements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
