Scholars for 9/11 Truth [my job was in WTC7 , bub]
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
by S9/11T associates
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
--------------------------
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg14
| on 9-12-2005 at 03:00 AM Post Number: 1850634 (post id: 1872527) - printer friendly |
So how many of the Professor's points have been addressed in this topic thus far?
Has this one been addressed yet?:
quote: 
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
The First Obvious Physics Problem: Disappearance of Angular Momentum.
First I'll explain the problem, then I'll address a response I expect to receive and show why it's irrelevant before it's even posted.
Upon the initiation of collapse, the towers both exhibited angular momentum in their caps, as seen in the above pic. By this point in the collapse, there has been no vertical collapse. The only movement has been outwards - as the cap was tilting outwards. The tilting lasted for about 2.5 seconds, meaning there was about 2.5 seconds of angular momentum alone. Massive momentum, because that cap was massive. A lot of weight.
So here's the problem: the momentum then disappeared. We all know the cap didn't just fall off the top, as the whole building collapsed from top to bottom into a pile of dust and shards of steel. So where did the momentum go?
Physics provides two possible scenarios for the loss of momentum here:
A) There was an unbalancing force, as per Newton's First Law of Motion. In this case it would necessarily be equal and opposite, as the momentum was totally compromised. No more tilt after 2.5 seconds.
B) The fulcrum was destroyed, thus taking away the pivot from which the cap was tilting.
B is what happened. This is verifiable in several ways: firstly, there was nothing to counter the massive amount of angular momentum, ie, no Superman, and secondly, at the same moment the angular momentum was lost, the vertical collapse began.
And once the vertical collapse began, we all know how symmetrical the rest of the collapse was. In both towers
-----------------
| 11-11-2005 at 06:37 PM Post Number: 1800510 (post id: 1822403) - printer friendly |
I see you are one of those People and I really do not have the Time to Argue with you. You belive what you want to belive, and Ignore every reasearch made, that denys the Offical Story of the 9-11.
Its Your Choice.
Just know, that US Goverment is HIDING 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings.
Why if they do not have ANYTHING to HIDE?
plus the blueprints, tons of 'security cam' confiscated footage....
----------------------
jet fuel is combusted at temperatures typically greater than 2,600 F.
Note: Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones is the fusion physics researcher/teacher that mailed the claimed cold fusion article back in the 80's & 90's. The claim couldn't be proven. Sent the day after the original development was announced by B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah, and Martin Fleishman of Southampton University in England. on March 23, 1989.
[edit on 11-11-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]
---------------------
They were designed to take the impact of a plane just not one the size of a 767 and one full of fuel.
The Towers were designed and built very well for their time. They were created to withstand the impact of 707. Its hard to design the building for a impact of a large 767 when that plane had not even been invented yet. Also they never thought they would have to be dealing with a plane full of fuel. The scenario the builders invisoned of a plane impact was of one heading for a landing at a NYC airport and getting some how lost in adverse weather at night. In that scenario the plane would not be full with jet fuel like in the 9-11 attacks. Planning for a accidental hit on the Towers of a plane talking off from a NYC airport was never planned for because it would never happen in their minds.
The builders couldn't invisoned a terrorist attack with a plane the size of the 767 since a commerical plane of that size wasnt even flying at the time . All the force of impact would have to do is weaken the structure enough to allow the fire that raged to to the rest.
quote: Originally posted by Master Wu
And here is one more question you should ask yourself. Why DIDN'T the towers collapse sideways or in a 'leaning' manner (or even partially sideways or partially leaning)? Maybe coincidentally one tower would fall that way, but TWO? O.K. the odds are already millions to 1 that both would fall that way
And here is one more question you should ask yourself. Why DIDN'T the towers collapse sideways or in a 'leaning' manner (or even partially sideways or partially leaning)? Maybe coincidentally one tower would fall that way, but TWO? O.K. the odds are already millions to 1 that both would fall that way
I dont have to ask myself since I know the answer. Because I know how it was designed and how forces like inertia and gravity work, as you clearly dont. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure designed like the WTC has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
----------------------
| |||
| I too like the skeptics wondered, 'well how did they sneak those bombs in'? hmm, looks like we may have the answer: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/bombs-in-towers-why-and-how.html A lucky break that the head of an IT network forced to help power down the WTC 2 has come forward to say that for 36 hours the WTC 2 was rendered helpless and anyone could come through. This, for the first time in decades. Ouch. And then what about William Rodriguez' testimony, why would a 20 year employee of the WTC lie about explosives going off in the subbasement? Why would so many FBI agents, Firefighter authorities and fighters themselves they believe explosives were used to bring down the WTC? It seems to me that even just to prove these 'theories' inaccurate , the penel would have tried to clear all this up. The WTC 7 anomaly, the controlled demolition theory, etc. !oops! --> This is not the first time this rumor has been passed around. Scott Forbes' existence has yet to be established. I like how both blogs reference a story that is from April 19th 2004, and try to pass it off as news. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm No one has been able to confirm the truth of this story who's only source is Scott Forbes. Unless you believe the author of George Washington's blog who says that he has met the man. Even 9-11 review has called the Forbes story a hoax. http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html |
FEMA claims in their conclusion: The fire-performance of steel trusses with spray-applied fire protection, and with end restraint conditions similar to those present in the two towers, is not well understood, but is likely critical to the building collapse.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
In a Nutshell, FEMA is claiming trusses that supported the floors were not solidly attached to their end supports, the exterior wall and the interior core structure. Just heat from the alleged burning fuel caused the trusses to expand falling off their supports resulting in the 'collapse' of the North Tower. Many have seen warehouses with their steel trusses supporting the roof. These trusses may or may not be attached to their supporting walls. HOWEVER, the North Tower is a 110 story skyscraper not a warehouse!
The design concept of tubular framing (the so-called tube within a tube architecture) has been employed in the construction of many of the world's tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center (1105 ft), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft), the World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft), and the Sears Tower (1450 ft). In fact, most modern skyscrapers use this design, a design which uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The lateral loading (horizontal force) on the building, is mainly due to the wind while the gravity loading (downward force) is due to the weight of the building (i.e., due to gravity).
In the tube within a tube architecture, it is of vital importance that the horizontal forces on one wall be transfered to the other walls, so that the entire structure will bend to the minimum extent possible. It is also of vital importance that these horizontal forces be transfered to the central core so that the entire structure bends uniformly as one unit.
This is achieved by the use of a composite flooring system, which is designed to act (in essence) as one super-large beam. The idea is to connect the steel joists supporting the concrete slab, to the slab,
The combined steel joist-concrete slab, has sufficient strength to transfer the lateral loading to the core and the other walls, so that the building bends as little as possible, but when it does bend, it bends as a unit.
The Sixty State Street Building (Bosten) has solid steel beams spanning the gap (of up to 40 feet) between the central core and perimeter wall.
TO TOPPLE THE TOWER cutter charges would be placed: 1) on the exterior columns, 2) at the intersection of the floor assembly to the wall, and 3) on the inner core support columns and cross beams. Video analysis indicates that one floor was taken out simultaneously with the whole core structure being blasted to pieces.
I have plenty of pictures and diagrams to go with all this, i just don't know how to post them. Any help would be appreciated.
It had a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
Maybe this will help you understand how the floors in the towers were created. Those floors had a 1,300 t design capacitythey could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds.
This might be a bit much for you to take in though
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
--------------
What is it that you wouldn't call extreme?
WTC7 is the building entirely covered with smoke. How can you say that the entire building burning is not extreme damage?
I like that you brought origins into this discussion. It just show that, similar to creation "evidence
.../...
Anyway WMD are another thread.
So how does a 12 inch wide H beam shear width wise, they look cut to me
That smoke isn't coming from Building 7, it's the concrete dust that came the collapse of one of the two WTC towers.
Here's another example of such a dust cloud, from the South Tower's collapse:
Building 7 in your photo only shows some black burn marks and a place here and there where it was impacted by debris, apparently. The actual fires in the building were not so bad:
And so, as I said, all that stuff you see coming from the side of the building is concrete dust, etc. from the collapsing of one of the WTC towers.
WTC2 collapsed first, followed by WTC1. You can see the piece of debris that has hit the top of the Winter Garden and also some damage to SE corner of WFC3. This debris and damage could only have come from the collapse of WTC1, since WTC2 is too far away. Therefore at the time of this photograph, both towers had already collapsed. The only possible way that the cloud could be from a collapse would be if the debris fell and hit those buildings before the dust cloud reached them, which seems unlikely, but not impossible.
However, the photo of the smoke coming out of WTC7 proves nothing, and is actually pathetic when compared to other buildings that have been absolutely gutted by fire until they are virtual skeletons and yet not collapsed.
It's a well-known fact that there were diesel fuel tanks underneath the loading dock in WTC7 that had pipes and day-tanks on various floors.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.
If fire did reach any of the two 6,000 gallon tanks, or they were still pumping fuel up into the building through the generator feed pipes, this would create a huge amount of smoke, disproportionate to the size and intensity of the fire. Diesel makes lots of very dark, very thick smoke when it burns. The volume and thickness of smoke is not necessarily indicative of a raging inferno, as the lack of any awe-inspiring WTC7 fire pictures and the lack of any smoke coming out of the side of the building in the above photo will attest to.
Diesel doesn't explode unless it's a vapor and hot - that's why diesel engines have a "preheat" plug to get the cylinder warm enough to run, and that's exactly why diesel is used in tanks such as those in WTC7 and other buildings. So any claims of exploding diesel tanks is bogus, further supported by the fact that FEMA never mentioned any exploded tanks in their report. 24,000 gallons of petroleum on the other hand would be a disaster waiting to happen.
A look at other buildings in the complex, which sustained enormous damage and were gutted by fire without collapsing will further lead the critical thinker to surmise that there is no reasonable explanation for the symmetrical collapse of WTC7.
That being said, the smoke will be enough to convince the masses, and that is all FEMA/NIST need/want. Throw in something about the effects of diesel fuel chemical constituents on steel and the casual investigator will be convinced. That's why it puzzles me why NIST is taking so long to publish their WTC7 whitewash. It has already been shown how easily the public are convinced of what they already want to believe.
Believing that WTC1 & 2 collapsed on their own I can understand to a certain degree, but anyone who thinks WTC7 collapsed on its own is in hard-core denial.
[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace]
--------------------------------
The following 21 short videos with audio are all of very shocked people who witnessed and felt the bombs, even got blown off their feet by them :
http://www.grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/seven/
quote: Firefighters and press in the area were told to "get back" from WTC 7 because they were going to "pull-it". "Pulling" a building means taking it down with strategically placed demolition charges at the inner support columns so that the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity. It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.(click the same underlined _javascript link on the site)
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use (even though that's what it was built for) and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tentants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use (even though that's what it was built for) and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tentants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.
The IRS is the Internal Revenue Service, the tax people. How many damning tax files from how many corporations were destroyed?
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) : the collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files, on companies such as WorldCom.
01. - http://www.grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/towers/eyewitness.wmv All the talk about explosions in the WTC towers.
02. - http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
""...secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses....""
03. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.1.basement.morelli.wmv
""...The explosion blew me right over..."" and then he goes on telling about many explosions in both towers.
04. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv
""...At ten thirty I tried to get out of the building, but as soon as I get out, I heard a second explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust, and then a firemarshall came in and said if there was a third explosion, this building might not last...""
05. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
""...there was a secondary device going of, and another explosion, and the chief, he thinks there were actually other devices that were planted in the building...""
06. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.another.explosion.wmv
""...It just went Booom, like a bomb went off [...] and we made it to the mezzanine, and another explosion...WHOOOM..right in front of me,whoooom...""
07. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.glass.blew.out.wmv
""...I was standing beside 1 World Trade Center and then I heard rumbling and we all started running, the glass that blew out and threw me on to the sidewalk, I couldn't see for 20 seconds, and then...""
08. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
""...as we made our way to the stairway,..there was a heavy duty explosion...""
09. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
""...When I was 5 blocks away, I heard explosions, 3 thuds, and turned around to see the building we just got out of...it kind of tipped over and folded in itself...""
10. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.lobby.big.explosion.wmv
""...We finally get to the lobby, ...and when we got to the lobby, there was this big explosion....""
11. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.carol.marin.wmv
""... I saw one of the towers blow ... and I saw from street level, I saw it exploded up, a giant rolling ball, a flame ...""
12. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
""...45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was, an explosion, it was way up where the fire was..and the whole building at that point bellied out, in flames, and everybody ran...""
13. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
""...All the sudden, it started like, it sounded like gunfire, you know, pang.pang.pang.pang.pang.pang, and then it was, it was sudden,,,three BIG explosions!...""
14. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.eight.floor.big.explosion..wmv
""... We went down from the 23rd floor...We made it to the eighth...BIG explosion...flew us back into the eigth floor...""
15. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.the.explosion.blew.wmv
""...The explosion blew and knocked everybody over...""
16. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.heard.another.explosion.mark.heath.wmv
""...We just heard another explosion [...] it's to unsafe to go in there...""
17. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.rose.arce.censored.part.wmv (CNN censored the word explosion out!)
""... there was just a huge ... [censored] and enormous pieces of debris is falling - one right after the other...""
18. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.rose.arce.explosionsound.part.wmv (The uncensored real-time part!)
""... [...] and every few minutes you'll hear it like a small sort of a a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street...""
19. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.rose.arce.full.wmv
Full interview with Rose Arce; CNN Producer on 911, broadcasted about 4 hours after the demolition af WTC-1. Again the word explosion censored out. CNN obviously got ordered to get those damning remarks out asap, the same day already.
The Administration was really rallying at topspeed to surpress all, unsafe for them, evidence.
20. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.msnbc.1.wmv
""... And the bottom of that building was going out...""
21. - http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.debris.up.the.stairs.wmv
""...It was just this incredible force of wind and debris that came actually UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground...""
Are, at least in the readers mind now, some or most of these videos in fact very convincing, that these people who were actually there and then, heard and experienced loud, big, huge explosions?
And that these were no jetfuel explosions in shafts just after impact, but most of them explosions with high velocity pressure blast fronts which knocked them off their feet, when they were long after impact trying to get out or were just out.
Any pressure from collapsing "pancaking" building floors would escape immediately up, where the least compression resistance was, there where huge open spaces were created by those broken floors. And eventual downward pressure would not behave like high velocity pressure blast fronts, compressed air from pancaking floors will behave very different from explosively compressed air.
Still any doubts left?
[edit on 14/11/05 by LaBTop
-----------------
| on 14-11-2005 at 10:06 PM Post Number: 1806320 (post id: 1828213) - printer friendly |
Heres some more on that Prof's paper...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Some extremely interesting reads going on in this thread.
Here is an interesting story i found about an unscathed credit card from one of the passengers found at ground zero.
http://rense.com/general68/moremir.htm
Im curious, what do you guys think would happen if the American people found out that their own government was behind 9-11 and not muslims? Interesting to speculate about....
---------------
posted by USSSlavebation @ 2/06/2006 05:17:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home