More 9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Evidence: SEISMIC SPIKES
TRUTH
NEW SEISMIC DATA REFUTES OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Two unexplained “spikes” in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate
huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center’s
twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
Exclusive to American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the
base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the
energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New
York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused
unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have
literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to
collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support
columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel”
were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and
intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved
environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP
that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris
from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
(CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI
calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled
demolition and implosion of structures.”
Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the
clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”
These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator
shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the
rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also
found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800
degrees Fahrenheit.
Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, “Think of the
jet fuel.”
Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by “paper,
carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the
tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.”
However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying
kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found
in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel,
especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.
Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful
Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other
combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably
be “a smoky smoldering pile.”
Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.
This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be
reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F.
Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black
smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.
The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was
available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.
Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging
Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of
the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.
This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the
basement.
The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47
huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity
load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were
four inches thick.
Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling
first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at
the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, “Everything went
simultaneously.”
“At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from
the base and began falling down,” Hufschmid writes. “If the first event
was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of
hundreds of columns?”
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections
between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer
with the FEMA assessment team said, “That’s the $64,000 question.”
Loizeaux said, “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put
explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help
collapse the structure.”
SEISMIC ‘SPIKES’
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic
activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant
earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each
collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the
10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during
the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a
huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the
ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the
collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained “spikes” in the seismic data lend credence to the
theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the
collapses.
A “sharp spike of short duration” is how seismologist Thorne Lay of
University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear
explosion appears on a seismograph.
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the
other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the
East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers
actually hit the ground.
Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of
Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP,
“This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being
investigated.”
Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a
100-fold increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,”
reflect “the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,”
according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.
“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at
a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,” the Palisades
Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.
One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades
seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles
away.
These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause
local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb
at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not
coupled” to the ground.
“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was
converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that
resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”
Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy
of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring
structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other
damage—but not causing significant ground shaking.”
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was
many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the
falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous
eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in
the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the
fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City
bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC
collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of
steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show
if an explosion had affected the steel.
“I am not a metallurgist,” Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of
Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu
Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company,
sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than
50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for
$120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian
ports.
Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading
firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia.
* Painful Questions (Item# 1051, $20, 160 pages, softcover) Is available
from First Amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100,
Washington D.C. 20003. Call 1-888-699-6397 to order by Visa or
MasterCard.
P. Fritz
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9747823...@130.81.64.196...
> http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
>
>
>
> NEW SEISMIC DATA REFUTES OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
>
> Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate
> huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's
> twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
Not new, its been debunked........only delusional fools like yourself
keep this crap up.
What the fools believe
http://tinyurl.com/amqm3
Then there is reality
http://tinyurl.com/dqp4f
Watch out for those
> However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a
> damage-but not causing significant ground shaking."
TRUTH
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in
news:11s7tsa...@corp.supernews.com:
Phil Scott
>
>
>
> NEW SEISMIC DATA REFUTES OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
>
> Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11
> indicate
> huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World
> Trade Center's
> twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
>
>
>
> Exclusive to American Free Press
>
> By Christopher Bollyn
>
>
>
> American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel"
> found at the
> base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse.
> Although the
> energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be
> explained, New
> York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which
> caused
> unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each
> collapse.
>
> These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may
> have
> literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing
> them to
> collapse.
Bzzzzzzzttt. while the IS some disturbing evidence re the
molten steel and simultaneous destruction of columns in WTC 7
(the 7th building in the complex)... and lack of engine
penetration at the pentagon etc.... the foundations were the
last to go, not the first.... as any idiot can see looking at
the collapse... the collapse sequences began from the top
down, pancake style.
advocates of the crap about prior destruction of the
foundations make themselves look entirely nutz on their other
claims... you could stand to accumulate some brain cells
bud...and become less attached to proving your point by
stretching...
just stay with the facts...those are interesting enough as
they stand
Phil Scott
> However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the
> collapses began-a
> damage-but not causing significant ground shaking."
Erik Kline
I don't see that your revised graphs disprove Mr. TRUTH's contentions.
The "Dominant Period" for the first collapse lasted 0.8 sec. magnitude 2.1
The "Dominant Period" for the second collapse lasted 0.9 sec magnitude 2.3
I think Mr. Truth would like a complete investigation that doesn't ignore
inconvenient facts.
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:11s7tsa...@corp.supernews.com...
Erik Kline
are spreading the rumor that no planes hit the Twin Towers in spite of the
photographic evidence.
Some of these may be genuine crackpots but some of them are deliberately
spreading disinformation. There's no better way to make everybody who
questions 911 events look like a crackpot.
There are several occurrences that are undeniably suspicious:
1. The collapse of the Twin Towers look like controlled demolition.
a. The symmetry and completeness of the collapse.
b. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt structural steel.
c. Speed of the collapse.
d. Conversion of concrete into pebbles and dust. Total conversion!
e. Evidence of explosive "squibs" visible on video.
f. Firemen and others reported the sight and sound of sequenced
explosions.
2. Collapse of Bldg 7. even more fantastic.
3. Norad did not intercept any of the hijacked planes. Not shoot down, just
intercept.
a. SOP was disregarded that day.
4. Warnings from FBI, CIA, German Intel, Russian Intel, Mossad,etc. ignored.
a. Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled NY visit scheduled for 9/11/01 at
last minute.
5. Very fishy scenario for plane crash into Pentagon.
a. Multiple problems with this story including no 757 plane wreckage.
Here's a very well researched paper that describes some of these Unanswered
Questions:
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/unanswered_questions_911.html
"Phil Scott" <phil...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:dq12up$hl5$1...@news.tdl.com...
P. Fritz
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck off fantasy land kook
The response of a tin foil hatter when confronted with facts
LMAO
P. Fritz
"Erik Kline" <erik_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:djWwf.15975$oW.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Mr. Fritz,
>
> I don't see that your revised graphs disprove Mr. TRUTH's contentions.
>
> The "Dominant Period" for the first collapse lasted 0.8 sec. magnitude
> 2.1
> The "Dominant Period" for the second collapse lasted 0.9 sec magnitude
> 2.3
>
> I think Mr. Truth would like a complete investigation that doesn't ignore
> inconvenient facts.
You and "truth" are ignoring the inconvient facts. There was no "dominant
spike" There was a series lasting for fifteen seconds.
P. Fritz
> There ARE a lot of unbelievable opinions out there. For example, some
> people are spreading the rumor that no planes hit the Twin Towers in spite
> of the photographic evidence.
>
> Some of these may be genuine crackpots but some of them are deliberately
> spreading disinformation. There's no better way to make everybody who
> questions 911 events look like a crackpot.
>
> There are several occurrences that are undeniably suspicious:
> 1. The collapse of the Twin Towers look like controlled demolition.
Free hint for the clueless......any total structural failure will look like
controlled demolition.
> a. The symmetry and completeness of the collapse.
WRONG! The two towers did not fail in the same ways, nor did they fall the
same way
> b. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt structural steel.
Structural steel does not need to melt to fail.
> c. Speed of the collapse.
Gravity does that. The failure of progress floors was instantaneous due to
the extreme loads.
> d. Conversion of concrete into pebbles and dust. Total conversion!
That happens under extreme loads.
> e. Evidence of explosive "squibs" visible on video.
No evidence, just conjecture. Compressing a volume of air equivalent to
the floor space of one of the towers in more than enough to creat the plume.
> f. Firemen and others reported the sight and sound of sequenced
> explosions.
Wrong again.......sounded like is not the same as is
> 2. Collapse of Bldg 7. even more fantastic.
Considering the damage to the structure and the ensuing fire and the unique
structural design, nope.......
> 3. Norad did not intercept any of the hijacked planes. Not shoot down,
> just intercept.
> a. SOP was disregarded that day.
Urban myth.
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48
states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North
American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air
Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,"
says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center,
one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities,
called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am
EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the
agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had
hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously)
identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking.
The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175
had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower.
Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two
F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from
Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got
anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off
the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to
search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's
busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the
continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a
doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11,
flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't
prepared to track them.
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane
over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With
passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost
radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so,
it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in
effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.
Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air
Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic
ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA
increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command
centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased
its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the
continent
> 4. Warnings from FBI, CIA, German Intel, Russian Intel, Mossad,etc.
> ignored.
> a. Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled NY visit scheduled for 9/11/01 at
> last minute.
The Dots were not connected thanks to Clinton policies
> 5. Very fishy scenario for plane crash into Pentagon.
> a. Multiple problems with this story including no 757 plane wreckage.
Nope,
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall,
Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE
Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20
minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole
on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged.
Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing
jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced
concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of
structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the
ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the
Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the
behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the
structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected
the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't
happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was
made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to
arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency
response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says
Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the
marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of
the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail
section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness
account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the
building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my
hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Freedom Fighter
news:11s8e57...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9747883...@130.81.64.196...
>> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck off fantasy land kook
>
> The response of a tin foil hatter when confronted with facts
>
> LMAO
Your statement above means nothing. You haven't even made an attempt to
rationally refute the claims made by TRUTH, or the documentation he cited,
but you just attacked him like a name-calling child. Ad-hominem attack is
the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that can't refute an opinion
with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly attacking the person that
holds the opinion.
clintonG
indisputable fact that the US government removed police and firemen from the
scene, put armed guards onto the grounds and prevented anybody from
inspecting the steel which was shipped to China as scrap before the last
bodies were even found. The US government did the same thing when the
Fredrick P. Murrah building was blown up in Oklahoma.
Fellas, everything we have been told by the US government is a lie. The
government's version of 911 is Arlen Specter and his "magic bullet" theory
all over again.
<%= Clinton Gallagher
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
"Phil Scott" <phil...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:dq12up$hl5$1...@news.tdl.com...
>
Erik Kline
> Free hint for the clueless......any total structural failure will look
> like controlled demolition.
1. What, in your opinion, caused the "total structural failure"? Each tower
had damage to only a maximum of 3 floors from the airplane impact.
> WRONG! The two towers did not fail in the same ways, nor did they fall
> the same way
2. How, in your opinion, did the fall of the two towers differ?
>
> Structural steel does not need to melt to fail.
>
3. Please read the statement from UL Engineer Kevin R Ryan:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank...@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to
contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components
used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information
from
both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that
they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one
thing
- that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all
be
patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests
would
continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including
performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these
tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the
thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how
the
WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC
construction
crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the
steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane
fuel
. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area
melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released
preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology
study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time
temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to
temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel
applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree
that
even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures
of
nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-
grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear
things
up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the
Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a
contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation
and
spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples
available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that
the
steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which
is
what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as
it
suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's
steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that
the
perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
perimeter
panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the
purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6).
However,
this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able
to
not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid
structural
collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften
or
melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel
fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That
fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
contention
that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the
majority
of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion
should
be of great concern to my company.
...
> FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane
> > over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.
> With > passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane
> lost > radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed.
> Even so, > it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken
> jet. Rules in > effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic
> flight on intercepts. > Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were
> limited to offshore Air > Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11
> there was no domestic > ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After
> 9/11, NORAD and the FAA > increased cooperation, setting up hotlines
> between ATCs and NORAD command > centers, according to officials from both
> agencies. NORAD has also increased > its fighter coverage and has
> installed radar to monitor airspace over the > continent4. Not a "FACT".
> There were 67 scrambles just in the period from Sept. 2000 to June
> 2001.http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html
> Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic eventsLESLIE
> MILLER; Associated Press Writer...From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled
> jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often
> as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said. ..."P.
> Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
> news:11s8eqt...@corp.supernews.com...> "Erik Kline"
Erik Kline
This Columbia University Seismographic website describes a "Dominant Period"
lasting less than 1 second and occurring in the time center of the whole
episode. That seems like a spike to me.
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:11s8edl...@corp.supernews.com...
P. Fritz
"clintonG" <csgal...@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:iIYwf.30825$Dk.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
P. Fritz
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:rnYwf.449642$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oh the irony.....LMAO
TRUTH
based on his "black helicopter" remarks, he is obviously out of touch
with reality. Nothing can help him now :-(
P Fritz: how are things, over the rainbow? (I always wondered...)
"Erik Kline" <erik_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:UtZwf.54016$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
bill allemann
again?
why don't you take your meds and relax?
"clintonG" <csgal...@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:iIYwf.30825$Dk.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
P. Fritz
"bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
news:zM_wf.58040$q%.30601@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> gee, are you guys in the nutcase ward sneaking onto the orderlies
computers
> again?
>
> why don't you take your meds and relax?
There will always be a few kooks that have the ludicrous fantasies of vast
guvmint conspiracies.
Hell, besides the stained blue dress, they couldn't even keep the
wiretapping secret, and they koos want us to believe that thousands of
people have maintained the supposed secretcy of the WTC demolition........it
is comical
Erik Kline
The people who think there's more to the 911 story present evidence.
The naysayers make bold statements based on nothing or just issue insults.
"bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
news:zM_wf.58040$q%.30601@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Erik Kline
He does read the posts and his insulting comments help make our point.
When your opponent descends to threats and personal insults you know he's
out of ammo.
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/unanswered_questions_911.html
From Unanswered Questions of 9/11:
For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11
tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist
alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears.
The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and
completion - especially given the corporate media's high praise of the
report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question
the US government's version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This
resistance is rooted in our tendency toward the inability to conceive of
people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike
ourselves.
"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9747D7C...@130.81.64.196...
Matt Barrow
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
>
> "Erik Kline" <erik_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XIWwf.15988$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> 1. The collapse of the Twin Towers look like controlled demolition.
>
> Free hint for the clueless......any total structural failure will look
> like controlled demolition.
Which is what a controlled demolition is trying to create: concurrent total
structural failure.
Matt Barrow
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:rnYwf.449642$zb5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> news:11s8e57...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9747883...@130.81.64.196...
>>> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck off fantasy land kook
>>
>> The response of a tin foil hatter when confronted with facts
>>
>> LMAO
>
> Your statement above means nothing. You haven't even made an attempt to
> rationally refute the claims made by TRUTH, or the documentation he cited,
> but you just attacked him like a name-calling child.
Crips, that's most of what he's been doing for the past couple
weeks...getting nowhere with the clueless twit.
>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
>can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
>attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>
Stick it in your ear, brickbrain.
P. Fritz
"Matt Barrow" <mattb...@site-fill.com> wrote in message
news:Fi8xf.2$Jz....@news.uswest.net...
I don't think reading comprehension is one of their strong points.
The real comical thing about all of this is that these clueless twits
dismiss the eye witness accounts of the planes crashing into the WTC and the
Pentagon, but maintain the credibility of thost that claim they heard
"explosions" later on. It just goes to show how twisted they must be to
make a conspiracy claim.
>
>
P. Fritz
> I'll be happy to address some of your objections:
>
>> Free hint for the clueless......any total structural failure will look
>> like controlled demolition.
>
> 1. What, in your opinion, caused the "total structural failure"? Each
> tower had damage to only a maximum of 3 floors from the airplane impact.
The building failed due to a combination of structural damage from the
impact and sturcutrual weakening from the uncontroled fires.
>
>> WRONG! The two towers did not fail in the same ways, nor did they fall
>> the same way
>
> 2. How, in your opinion, did the fall of the two towers differ?
One tower failed toward toward the outer structrual members as evidenced by
the photos, the other tower failed at it central core. Once intial
failure had started, total structural failure was inevitable
UL preforms tests and certifies for complete assemblies, Unless they could
spefically recreate the exact conditions.......i.e.
>
> There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how
> the
> WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC
> construction
> crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting
> the
> steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane
> fuel
> . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor
> area
> melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released
> preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology
> study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
One person, one quote....and no reference to when the quote was made or what
evidence he had availible. There was plenty of speculation early on as to
the cause of the failure.
>
> We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time
> temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to
> temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the
> steel
> applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree
> that
> even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot
> temperatures of
> nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the
> high-
> grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
And neither matters since simply heating to a 1000F will cause strength
loss.
>
> The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear
> things
> up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the
> Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a
> contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation
> and
> spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples
> available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that
> the
> steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C),
> which is
> what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
Note the word "suggest" which makes the rest of the sentence
meaninless......gut that is the sort of quote that the kkoks thrive on.
>
> However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings,
> as it
> suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's
> steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states
> that the
> perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
> perimeter
> panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for
> the
> purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6).
Another half truth- "most" is not all. It would only take a few critical
components to initiate a total failure.
> However,
> this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able
> to
> not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid
> structural
> collapse.
>
> This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften
> or
> melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet
> fuel
> fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
> That
> fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
> contention
> that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the
> majority
> of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion
> should
> be of great concern to my company.
He is totally ignoring the super imposed loads caused by the impact damage.
His analysis is what is not holding up. Simple fact- buildings are
designed for specific loads (with a safety factor) The designs are based on
an entire building system and the load paths involved. When you remove
some elements of that system, the loading is absorbed by other components
up to the failure point for that member. Add fire to the mix and the
failure point is reduced.
I note you ignored all the facts below.
P. Fritz
The only points you have made is that you are clueless.
"Erik Kline" <erik_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a0xf.5133$fb4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
bill allemann
your "evidence" looks like psychotic fantasy to everyone else.
"Erik Kline" <erik_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i%%wf.5131$fb4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Erik Kline
of quote, etc.
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html
Not a "FACT". There were 67 scrambles of military aircraft to investigate
commercial flights just in the period from Sept. 2000 to June 2001.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html
Both towers fell the same way. They completely collapsed in a very short
period of time with the concrete turning to dust in mid-air. You're right
that the falls were not identical in detail. They were very similar.
"P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message
news:11sa90b...@corp.supernews.com...
Erik Kline
Where'd you get that from? You're the one who brought up craziness and
psychosis. Are you afraid that you're going crazy?
Your fixation on mental illness is very revealing. Have you ever heard of
projection?
Projection: Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud
and still acknowledged today. According to Freud, projection is when someone
is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these
impulses to someone else. For example, a person in psychoanalysis may insist
to the therapist that he knows the therapist wants to rape some women, when
in fact the client has these awful feelings to rape the woman.
"bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
news:78axf.5211$fb4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
P. Fritz
"bill allemann" <custo...@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote in message
> yeah, right, the rest of the world is crazy.
>
> your "evidence" looks like psychotic fantasy to everyone else.
They have no evidence, just wishful thinking, and most of them have no
clue WRT what they are reading about or how building stand up....they would
better spend their time searching the night sky for the black helicopters
circling their houses.
Freedom Fighter
Who denied that planes crashed into the WTC towers? Not us. What we state is
the fact that America's air defenses, the best in the world, took no
action - because they were ordered to "stand down."
Most comical of all is this concerted effort by psychologically blocked
deniers of obvious domestic terrorism to discredit those calling for a new
investigation. ALL YOU DO IS ACT LIKE FRUSTRATED CHILDREN - calling names,
etc., while obviously incapable of maturely debating the facts.
Like it or not the truth will emerge, and the fascist terrorists will be
imprisoned. Then America can be free again, no longer the vicious Nazi-like
regime it has become
PipeDown
type newsgroups. The topics are typically 9/11 related stuff.
Please stop cross posting to these groups. Keep this narrow interest stuff
in your own NGs.
While this may be important to you, It is grossly off topic to these other
groups. We come here for advice on building structures not to debate a
political minority viewpoint.
I'm just one reader and do not want to speak for everyone but if others (in
*.building.*) feel like I do please post. Prove me right or prove me wrong.
If you disagree, please also post, we need a fair referendum or it will just
snowball.
I don't want to be rude to TRUTH and Freedom Fighter but many of us really
don't want to read these posts ( they are inflammatory to some) and those
that do (including structural engineers) can easily join one of the other
ON-topic groups you did post to.
Thanks for your consideration, now I'll get off my soap box if you get off
yours (or at least move it someplace else)
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:ungxf.248031$qk4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
TRUTH
demolition at the WTC, which is definitely on topic. (And this topic is
definitely not narrow interest, as you said.) Because of the extreme
importance of this matter, I will continue the posting. However, I will
limit it to controlled demolition topics only, and not other 9/11 issues.
I agree that those do not belong here.
"PipeDown" <now...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:3Rhxf.1594$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
RicodJour
> I started posting in the alt.building.* groups regarding controlled
> demolition at the WTC, which is definitely on topic. (And this topic is
> definitely not narrow interest, as you said.) Because of the extreme
> importance of this matter, I will continue the posting. However, I will
> limit it to controlled demolition topics only, and not other 9/11 issues.
> I agree that those do not belong here.
Thanks.
R
PipeDown
>I started posting in the alt.building.* groups regarding controlled
> demolition at the WTC, which is definitely on topic. (And this topic is
> definitely not narrow interest, as you said.) Because of the extreme
> importance of this matter, I will continue the posting. However, I will
> limit it to controlled demolition topics only, and not other 9/11 issues.
> I agree that those do not belong here.
>
>
concern. I am a Failure Analyst, though not structural, the discipline does
share a common method of thinking across the board.
In any catastrophic failure (from the tiniest in semiconductors to the
grandest like WTC and the space shuttle) a preponderance of the evidence is
simply destroyed never to be observed. This forces those analyzing the
situation to use other means to fill in the details. Normally we look for
precedence and compare the failure to another by analogy. WTC was
completely unprecedented, because of this, some conclusions may be wrong but
not intentionally or negligently.
In the case controlled demolition, what we know is based on prepared
hollowed out shells of buildings. WTC is completely unique, no other
failure is similar. As such I would expect clusters of observations to go
unexplained for some time. Things like seismic readings and pools of melted
metal are just unexplained features of the event, not evidence that some
other intentional nefarious activity is at hand (like hidden bombs or
unidentified secondary terrorist attacks).
In the majority of your posts, you have simply posted lists of lengthy
articles and asked what we think. This is a very open ended question. What
I think is that there are a lot of editors out there willing to make a buck
(or just fill pages) by allowing questionable journalism (hinting at
unstated conclusions or cherry picking information are not very good
journalistic habits) to make it to print simply because the controversial
nature of the claims made within. I think WTC should be continued to be
investigated for the sake of the science and history but to hold up reports
of incomplete or flawed investigations as evidence of domestic terrorism or
(US) government involvement (in an undefined cover-up) I strongly object to.
What you really believe is still not clear. You have failed to clearly
state a question. What concisely are you fishing for? Do you have a
theory? There is more to learn but it will not teach us anything more about
who is responsible, only more details about how. Was this your intention?
The tone of the posts led me to think they were leading and accusatory but
perhaps I have jumped to a conclusion, have I?
Freedom Fighter
news:uJyxf.1808$Hd4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I understand your viewpoint and appreciate your response here.
The 9/11 event was exploited by the government as a new "Pearl Harbor" so
swiftly and effectively that the political implications are unavoidable.
> What you really believe is still not clear. You have failed to clearly
> state a question. What concisely are you fishing for? Do you have a
> theory? There is more to learn but it will not teach us anything more
> about who is responsible, only more details about how. Was this your
> intention? The tone of the posts led me to think they were leading and
> accusatory but perhaps I have jumped to a conclusion, have I?
I can only speak for myself, but what I seek is a new and totally
independent Congressional AND private investigation of ALL aspects of the
9/11 attacks. No stone must be left unturned. Let the facts be brought out,
made known to the public, and let justice be done.
Personally I believe we are on the brink of a scandal that will make
Watergate look like a kindergarten party. It will hopefully lead to
appropriate treason and war crimes trials, and restore America to democracy
and governmental ethics.
PipeDown
> I understand your viewpoint and appreciate your response here.
> The 9/11 event was exploited by the government as a new "Pearl Harbor" so
> swiftly and effectively that the political implications are unavoidable.
>
IMHO, thats' what needed to be done. The Taliban was arguably the worst
government that recent times have seen (and partly our fault). Our
tinkering in that country 20 years ago (which contributed to the end of the
cold war) left Afganistan without humane order. We had to fix that mess, it
was our ultimate responsibility.
Iraq is a similar but seperate war.
>
> I can only speak for myself, but what I seek is a new and totally
> independent Congressional AND private investigation of ALL aspects of the
> 9/11 attacks. No stone must be left unturned. Let the facts be brought
> out, made known to the public, and let justice be done.
>
Justice for what? Don't put the cart before the horse. Could you be
satisfied by a conclusion that shows no culpability on behalf of our
leadership.
> Personally I believe we are on the brink of a a scandal that will make
> Watergate look like a kindergarten party. It will hopefully lead to
> appropriate treason and war crimes trials, and restore America to
> democracy and governmental ethics.
>
The only scandals I foresee are the ones where hindsight reveals that a
leader might have taken different action not ones where they took secret
illegal actions. These "crimes of omission" are often forgivable.
RicodJour
>
> I understand your viewpoint and appreciate your response here.
> The 9/11 event was exploited by the government as a new "Pearl Harbor" so
> swiftly and effectively that the political implications are unavoidable.
Political implications, and the desire for swift retribution, are not
the same as controlled demolition and the murder of thousands of one's
own people.
Pearl Harbor was the galvanizing effect that brought the US into WWII
and there apparently was information that there was some advance
warning of the attack. No one is/was claiming that US operatives
destroyed the Pacific Fleet to further their agenda. Your WTC claim of
controlled demolition is making a similar huge leap...and falling
short.
> I can only speak for myself, but what I seek is a new and totally
> independent Congressional AND private investigation of ALL aspects of the
> 9/11 attacks. No stone must be left unturned. Let the facts be brought out,
> made known to the public, and let justice be done.
No argument there.
> Personally I believe we are on the brink of a scandal that will make
> Watergate look like a kindergarten party. It will hopefully lead to
> appropriate treason and war crimes trials, and restore America to democracy
> and governmental ethics.
That may very well be true. Extrapolating from some people's desire to
go to war into controlled demolition of the WTC is far from a logical
prgression. It's that sort of grasping at straws that earns people
labels and dismissal of their argument.
R
Erik Kline
people (including myself) who have posted to the alt.building.engineering
group were hoping for. I'm an engineer myself, but in computers. For myself,
I wanted to alert structural engineers to the issues since engineers can be
some of the most stubborn people in the world when dealing with technical
issues. They tend to make up their own minds on technical issues and are
resistant to being swayed by rhetoric to change a technical view.
When I first heard about the theory that explosives brought the WTC
buildings down, I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until Dr. Jones from BYU
wrote his paper that I looked at the proposition seriously.
You make some good points that the WTC collapse is unprecedented and thus
will exhibit unexpected anomolies. However, these anomalies will never
violate the laws of physics. Concrete does not turn to dust in midair
without a huge energy input. Steel cannot be melted into pools of liquid
when it falls from a height. Steel cannot be melted by an open jet fuel
fire, no matter how long the fire lasts.
The 911 Commission, FEMA, and NIST have all stated that the Twin Towers were
felled by fires which heated the structural steel to the point that it
failed. They all agree that the plane impact was not enough to significantly
weaken the buildings. However, other steel framed buildings had much more
extensive fires and the buildings did not fail. Controlled demolition HAS
caused many buildings to fall down, and in a very similar manner to which
the WTC buildings fell.
My questions are:
1. What melted the steel into puddles, still molten 3 weeks later?
2. What caused the concrete to turn to fine dust in midair?
3. Why did most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40' in
length?
4. Why did the buildings fall at near the rate of freefall?
5. Why do photographic records show "demolition waves" occurring just ahead
of the collapsing floors?
6. Why did firemen report hearing sequences of explosions as the buildings
collapsed?
7. Why did seismological events occur immediately prior to collapse?
8. Why did the buildings collapse virtually straight down into their own
"footprints"?
9. Why did the buildings collapse so completely, leaving virtually no steel
support columns standing?
These are all anomalies if you accept that plane collision and subsequent
fire destroyed the buildings. If you think that controlled demolition
destroyed the buildings, then they aren't anomalies at all. They're expected
characteristics of controlled demolition.
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and
satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct. The simplest suggestion
here, given the physical evidence, is that the buildings were blown up.
If in your failure analysis work, someones comes up with a melted metal
assembly and states that it failed because it was dropped from a tall
building, you would tell them that metal doesn't melt when dropped. It might
break, it would probably bend, but it doesn't melt. It doesn't matter who
tells you that it melted because it was dropped. If your Mother told you
that it melted after being dropped, you still wouldn't believe her. It
violates the laws of physics.
"PipeDown" <now...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uJyxf.1808$Hd4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Erik Kline
controlled demolition:
It might be blamed on Bush and his neo-con friends.
It might be blamed on the Mossad.
It might be blamed on a hitherto unknown Al Queda cabal.
It might be blamed on Bill and Hillary.
It might be blamed on (INSERT YOUR ANSWER HERE).
It's not valid to decide to ignore the evidence of controlled demolition
because of the implications. The question of what group was responsible is
totally irrevelant to the question of whether the buildings were demolished
using pre-planted explosives.
If I have a party and somebody craps in the fireplace, I don't deny the
existence of the turd because I just know that none of my friends would
commit such a heinous act. I still have to clean up the mess.
"A turd by any other name still stinks as bad."
--Anon.
"PipeDown" <now...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jACxf.1993$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
RicodJour
I don't think so. I deleted the ones that I don't frequent and just
this one post will have to suffice.
Erik Kline wrote:
> Pipedown, thank you for your thoughtful post. I think that this is what
> people (including myself) who have posted to the alt.building.engineering
> group were hoping for. I'm an engineer myself, but in computers. For myself,
> I wanted to alert structural engineers to the issues since engineers can be
> some of the most stubborn people in the world when dealing with technical
> issues. They tend to make up their own minds on technical issues and are
> resistant to being swayed by rhetoric to change a technical view.
You wanted to alert structural engineers... How often does your
dentist alert you to "breaking news" in computer engineering? Not
often, I'd gather. If he does share information with you, it's going
to be something you've known about for ages, or something that you can
quickly see is just wrong. You can trust me that every structural
engineer on the planet did plenty of reading on the WTC failures.
> When I first heard about the theory that explosives brought the WTC
> buildings down, I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until Dr. Jones from BYU
> wrote his paper that I looked at the proposition seriously.
>
> You make some good points that the WTC collapse is unprecedented and thus
> will exhibit unexpected anomolies. However, these anomalies will never
> violate the laws of physics. Concrete does not turn to dust in midair
> without a huge energy input. Steel cannot be melted into pools of liquid
> when it falls from a height. Steel cannot be melted by an open jet fuel
> fire, no matter how long the fire lasts.
Other than the concrete and steel, you feel the buildings were empty?
You must, as those are the only two things you mention in any of your
posts. This is one of those things where you (the dentist) are telling
me something that I can immediately dismiss as wrong.
> The 911 Commission, FEMA, and NIST have all stated that the Twin Towers were
> felled by fires which heated the structural steel to the point that it
> failed. They all agree that the plane impact was not enough to significantly
> weaken the buildings. However, other steel framed buildings had much more
> extensive fires and the buildings did not fail. Controlled demolition HAS
> caused many buildings to fall down, and in a very similar manner to which
> the WTC buildings fell.
>
> My questions are:
> 1. What melted the steel into puddles, still molten 3 weeks later?
I'd imagine heat and pressure in some combination, but as there haven't
been any similar failures to establish a precedent, I can't say for
sure.
> 2. What caused the concrete to turn to fine dust in midair?
Again with the concrete. You do realize that drywall is one of the
most common building materials in construction and notorious for
producing huge amounts of very fine dust, right? Everyone is aware of
it, so why are you ignoring it? Other materials that created the large
amount of dust include fireproofing and ceiling tile in enormous
quantities.
> 3. Why did most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40' in
> length?
>From what I've read, the steel failed at or near the bolted
connections. This is not an unusual occurrence.
> 4. Why did the buildings fall at near the rate of freefall?
Did you ever witness a fight where someone delivered a haymaker and the
announcer says something about the vanquised opponent like, "He went
down like a ton of bricks?" How slowly do you feel the building should
have fallen?
> 5. Why do photographic records show "demolition waves" occurring just ahead
> of the collapsing floors?
Because structural transmission of sound, a common problem in
acoustics, can also be modeled as transmission of vibrations and force.
> 6. Why did firemen report hearing sequences of explosions as the buildings
> collapsed?
Ever been on a ladder or plank that cracked? Sometimes it can sound
like a gunshot. Now multiply that by thousands of times. Things make
noise when they fail.
> 7. Why did seismological events occur immediately prior to collapse?
See structural transmission of sound and force above.
> 8. Why did the buildings collapse virtually straight down into their own
> "footprints"?
I'd imagine it had to do with the configuration of the building, the
location of impact, and a bunch of other factors. There's never been a
building like the WTC, the height and structural system was quite
unusual. To expect it to fail like another building is illogical.
> 9. Why did the buildings collapse so completely, leaving virtually no steel
> support columns standing?
Because of millions of tons dropping on top of them. This isn't a Road
Runner cartoon.
> These are all anomalies if you accept that plane collision and subsequent
> fire destroyed the buildings. If you think that controlled demolition
> destroyed the buildings, then they aren't anomalies at all. They're expected
> characteristics of controlled demolition.
They are not anomalies, except for the main one, the unusual height and
structure of the building. Since they aren't anomalies, why assume
that an army of demolition experts worked their way through the
building, weakening the structure with cutting torches (you've never
been near one, have you?) and planting explosives, all connected by
miles of det-wire, and all of this in perfect secrecy and while the
building was occupied?
> Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and
> satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct. The simplest suggestion
> here, given the physical evidence, is that the buildings were blown up.
Read that last sentence I wrote above, and apply Occam's razor to that.
> If in your failure analysis work, someones comes up with a melted metal
> assembly and states that it failed because it was dropped from a tall
> building, you would tell them that metal doesn't melt when dropped. It might
> break, it would probably bend, but it doesn't melt. It doesn't matter who
> tells you that it melted because it was dropped. If your Mother told you
> that it melted after being dropped, you still wouldn't believe her. It
> violates the laws of physics.
It wasn't "dropped" in a vacuum, or by itself. There were other forces
acting on it.
You ignore what is inconvenient to your theory. An engineer, of any
type, should know better.
Now, it's your turn. Please point out where any of the things I listed
above is wrong. Scratch that, omit wrong and insert implausible - I
won't hold you to too high of a standard as you're an amatuer.
R
P. Fritz
> Pipedown, thank you for your thoughtful post. I think that this is what
> people (including myself) who have posted to the
alt.building.engineering
> group were hoping for. I'm an engineer myself, but in computers.
A fake engineer in other words.
> For myself,
> I wanted to alert structural engineers to the issues since engineers can
be
> some of the most stubborn people in the world when dealing with
technical
> issues.
The "I know better than you arguement" very convincing.....NOT.
>They tend to make up their own minds on technical issues and are
> resistant to being swayed by rhetoric to change a technical view.
Engineers tend to deal with facts, not delusional conspiracy theories.
>
> When I first heard about the theory that explosives brought the WTC
> buildings down, I thought it was crazy. It wasn't until Dr. Jones from
BYU
> wrote his paper that I looked at the proposition seriously.
ROTFLMAO
>
> You make some good points that the WTC collapse is unprecedented and
thus
> will exhibit unexpected anomolies. However, these anomalies will never
> violate the laws of physics. Concrete does not turn to dust in midair
> without a huge energy input. Steel cannot be melted into pools of liquid
> when it falls from a height. Steel cannot be melted by an open jet fuel
> fire, no matter how long the fire lasts.
>
> The 911 Commission, FEMA, and NIST have all stated that the Twin Towers
were
> felled by fires which heated the structural steel to the point that it
> failed. They all agree that the plane impact was not enough to
significantly
> weaken the buildings.
Cripes, how long are you going to keep up this lame arguement. Neither
event by itself created the collapse, the two combined did.
>However, other steel framed buildings had much more
> extensive fires and the buildings did not fail.
<YAWN> Because the lacked the structural damage.
>Controlled demolition HAS
> caused many buildings to fall down, and in a very similar manner to
which
> the WTC buildings fell.
Nope..........but just keep playing the fool
>
> My questions are:
> 1. What melted the steel into puddles, still molten 3 weeks later?
Provide the proof of molten metal.....not
> 2. What caused the concrete to turn to fine dust in midair?
Concrete is a very brittle substance, it does not take that much energy
to cause it to fail. The concrete used in high rises is what is poured on
the metal floor decking........I would hazard a guess that it was light
weight concrete to begin with.
> 3. Why did most of the beams and columns fell in sections of 30' to 40'
in
> length?
Cripes, that is a simple one.......that is the length they were delivered
to the job site, since that is the length easily trucked. Anybody with a
half ounce of intelligence understands that the weak point of any assembly
is the connections, whether they be welded, bolted etc.
> 4. Why did the buildings fall at near the rate of freefall?
Gravity does that. The extreme loading caused by the pancaking caused an
instantaneous failure.
> 5. Why do photographic records show "demolition waves" occurring just
ahead
> of the collapsing floors?
Provide proof.
> 6. Why did firemen report hearing sequences of explosions as the
buildings
> collapsed?
Ask any group of people about any accident and you will get almost as many
varing stories as there are people. Human nature causes people to relate to
the familiar. People often hear explosions, they don't often hear
buildings collapsing.
> 7. Why did seismological events occur immediately prior to collapse?
The "spike" didn't happen the way you wished it did.
> 8. Why did the buildings collapse virtually straight down into their own
> "footprints"?
They didn't. Have you ever seen the damage done to surrounding
buildings?
> 9. Why did the buildings collapse so completely, leaving virtually no
steel
> support columns standing?
Super imposed loads will do that. I you knew ANYTHING about high rise
construction, you would know that the majority of the structure involved is
there to resist wind loading of the sides of the building. The gravity
loads are secondary. When the failure started, the entire struture was
overloaded floor by floor, almost instantaneousy
>
> These are all anomalies if you accept that plane collision and
subsequent
> fire destroyed the buildings. If you think that controlled demolition
> destroyed the buildings, then they aren't anomalies at all. They're
expected
> characteristics of controlled demolition.
>
> Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and
> satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct. The simplest
suggestion
> here, given the physical evidence, is that the buildings were blown up.
You have problems connecting the dots don't you? You and the othe kooks
out there ignore the facts WRT why controlled demolition is the least simple
conclusion.
>
> If in your failure analysis work, someones comes up with a melted metal
> assembly and states that it failed because it was dropped from a tall
> building,
Provide proof that ANYONE of any credibility has claimed that there was
melted metal because it dropped from a tall building.
you would tell them that metal doesn't melt when dropped. It might
> break, it would probably bend, but it doesn't melt. It doesn't matter
who
> tells you that it melted because it was dropped. If your Mother told you
> that it melted after being dropped, you still wouldn't believe her. It
> violates the laws of physics.
Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? You are gullible enough.
P. Fritz
>A few posters have been cross posting to two building and home
improvement
> type newsgroups. The topics are typically 9/11 related stuff.
>
> Please stop cross posting to these groups. Keep this narrow interest
stuff
> in your own NGs.
> While this may be important to you, It is grossly off topic to these
other
> groups. We come here for advice on building structures not to debate a
> political minority viewpoint.
>
> I'm just one reader and do not want to speak for everyone but if others
(in
> *.building.*) feel like I do please post. Prove me right or prove me
wrong.
> If you disagree, please also post, we need a fair referendum or it will
just
> snowball.
>
> I don't want to be rude to TRUTH and Freedom Fighter but many of us
really
> don't want to read these posts ( they are inflammatory to some)
And just plain stupid to others. Maybe we can sell them the Brooklyn
Bridge......they are that gullible.
P. Fritz
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1137119165....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
He's already ignored the posts where I disproved most of the conspiracy
allegations. As you said, he ignores what is inconvenient to the kook
theory.
>
> R
>
Erik Kline
1. A computer engineer is not a fake engineer.
2. I don't know your level of education, but judging from all the
misspellings and grammatical errors in your posts, I doubt you got past the
6th grade.
3. Your ideas are about as well formed as your sentences.
4. I'm wasting my time replying to your posts. I should remember the old
farmer's advice:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You're bound to get dirty, and the pig enjoys
it."
"P. Fritz" <paulfrit...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:11se4om...@corp.supernews.com...
TRUTH
you could provide some real educated opinions.
Below I provide what is considered some of the real evidence:
WTC Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper, collapsed at 5:20ET PM on 9/11.
The government claims it collapsed because of fire. The collapse was near
symetrical, near free fall speed, and into it's own footprint.
Video clip from CBS news:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc-7_cbs_demolition.mpg
WTC 7 leaseholder says on PBS documentary WTC 7 was "pulled":
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Building 7, the Untold Story:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html
NIST Report Critique:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
9/11 Commission Report Critique:
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
FEMA Report (With Critique Comments):
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
NEW YORK TIMES 'ORAL HISTORIES' - WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEWS:
[Twin Towers]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF
I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110001.PDF
All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up.
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of
the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when
they show you those implosions on TV.
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
: Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was
an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major
explosion…
"PipeDown" <now...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:uJyxf.1808$Hd4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
TRUTH
Ten members of the Bush Regime (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) are
members of an organization called the Project For The New American
Century (PNAC): http://www.newamericancentury.org
from website: "Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New
American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is
to promote American global leadership."
Their paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" states: Further, the process
of transformation [into a one world government], even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Rebuilding America's Defenses Paper:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
ABC NEWS:
In 1998, eighteen members of PNAC (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) wrote
President Clinton and recommended "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
from power".
ABC News Nightline, Ted Kopel, called 9/11 the New Pearl Harbor:
"And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to
power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless
there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl
Harbor."
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice
president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at
the Pentagon. "
Full Article Archived Here: http://tinyurl.com/da23y
Our government is just as evil (if not worse) than the 40s-50s
PRESCOTT BUSH WAS A NAZI WHO FINANCED HITLER:
LONDON GUARDIAN:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Scanned copies of the National Archives & Library of Congress documents:
http://www.debatecomics.org/BushFamilyFortune
http://hnn.us/articles/1810.html
Investigative Journalist John Buchanan explains finding the documents in
this 10 min video: http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-
family.wmv
Radio Talk Show Host Alex Jones Interviews John Buchanan:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/092704buchanan.htm
Prescott & George were both investing in the same Nazi company, Brown
Bros Harriman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Youth.2C_education
George H W Bush was an employee at Dresser Industries, a company that
merged with Halliburton, whose former CEOs include Dick Cheney:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Postwar:
_Yale.2C_family.2C_oil_business
Freedom Fighter
>I note a pattern here.
> The people who think there's more to the 911 story present evidence.
> The naysayers make bold statements based on nothing or just issue insults.
Absolutely true - thank you.
Freedom Fighter
news:78axf.5211$fb4....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> your "evidence" looks like psychotic fantasy to everyone else.
Also note that, as is typical with the unintelligent or antisocial, they
speak in broad generalizations such as "everyone else."
-------
Freedom Fighter
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord
on the Internet. He or she slanders others and seeks to cause
conflicts and upset people. Trolls are malicious, antisocial,
and often mentally ill. They crave attention, and care not
whether it is positive or negative. The Internet is a
convenient venue for their bizarre, misanthropic games - a
means to abuse others without fear of retaliation. Trolls are
cowards - lacking the courage to be overtly hostile towards
people, they hide behind their computers and the anonymity of
the Internet. The troll is a less intelligent version of the
malicious hacker or virus writer.
Trolls are impervious to meaningful dialogue. You CANNOT reason
with them and you CANNOT cause them to feel shame or
compassion. Trolls do not feel bound by rules of courtesy or
social responsibility. They are simply not playing with a full
deck. It is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession.
Trolls are irrational and not accessible through any sane approach.
Established posters may leave a newsgroup/message board because
of troll-created conflicts, and lurkers (readers that do not
post) may not want to expose themselves to abuse and therefore
never speak up. Thus they unwisely allow the troll to violate
their rights of free speech and expression. The Internet is a
vital resource - and probably the last stand for free speech.
Being antisocial, trolls hate this and try to subvert it.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you curse at
a troll, he wins. If he succeeds in angering you, he's succeeded.
THE ONLY THING THE TROLL CAN'T HANDLE IS BEING IGNORED -
having NO EFFECT on his intended targets!
So the best way to deal with trolls is to IGNORE THEM and
occasionally (and ONLY occasionally) remind others not to
respond to them either.
Hard to ignore? You can set up your computer to AUTOMATICALLY
ignore the troll by using your KILLFILE. Just go to the
offensive message, and bring your pointer to the "MESSAGE" tab
near the top of your screen. Click, and a menu opens. Go to and
click on "BLOCK SENDER." You will no longer see any of the
sender's posts from that account. This is called "plonking" the troll.
Ignored, these children will have to find another game to play.
RicodJour
How about when the troll changes their account to defeat the killfile
filters? Like this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.building.construction/msg/843893087e8c3201?dmode=source
What's your advice then, Mr. Wizard?
R
Artemis
>
> How about when the troll changes their account to defeat the killfile
> filters? Like this:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.building.construction/msg/843893087e8c3201?dmode=source
> What's your advice then, Mr. Wizard?
>
> R
>
Do not feed the trolls. No matter how much they scream.
--
Art
RicodJour
>
> heh heh heh heh heh. First, for you to call me a troll is slander, so
> I'll need to report you to your ISP. Second, if you can't handle a few
> usenet "disruptions", then I'd be the least of your problems and you
> should look more carefully at yourself. But I'll tell you what: I know it
> disturbs you, so I'll cease doing it, just for you! How about that? Maybe
> now you can stop whining
Disturbed. Yes - that's exactly how I would classify you if asked.
You're not mentally retarded, you're not incoherent, you're disturbed.
I hope you won't take it personally if I tell you that I don't believe
anything you write. Your track record is less than stellar.
You wrote this:
11. TRUTH Jan 12, 7:48 am
I started posting in the alt.building.* groups regarding controlled
demolition at the WTC, which is definitely on topic. (And this topic is
definitely not narrow interest, as you said.) Because of the extreme
importance of this matter, I will continue the posting. However, I will
limit it to controlled demolition topics only, and not other 9/11
issues.
I agree that those do not belong here.
...and then you ignored it. This is evidence of a compulsion. You
can't stop your behavior as you are not truly in control.
Then you posted this:
TRUTH Jan 13, 12:16 am
"RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in
> TRUTH wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>> I posted the message below. ("Kramer" was used to thwarf plonkers.)
> That little tidbit is being sent to your ISP. I will do that for every
> post of yours that I can find on the internet. I hope you have a lot
> of computers with different internet addresses to post from, as you are
> about to get booted.
> R
You could send this to them too: "RicodJour, you're a fucking idiot."
I can assure you, Verizon does not care if Truthful people bother you
assholes. If you think Verizon is gonna "boot" me you're out of your
silly
brainwashed mind
...and then you have the conveniently selective memory to write
something like this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.building.construction/msg/54cc04f767f6c944?dmode=source
You described yourself and your actions perfectly.
This whole thing started with your silly 9/11 contention. I don't
doubt there are political machinations behind almost everything, but to
extrapolate that into hidden parties doing a controlled demolition at
the WTC is ludicrous. Engineers, architects and builders with many,
many decades of experience refuted your claim. Yet you ignore them as
they do not allow you to believe what you wish to believe. Isn't that
the definition of delusional?
I hope you find what you're looking for, because you do seem fairly
intelligent and everyone deserves some peace of mind. Good luck.
R
sanjian
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> HOW TO DEFEAT THE TROLLS
>> Ignored, these children will have to find another game to play.
>
> How about when the troll changes their account to defeat the killfile
> filters? Like this:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.building.construction/msg/843893087e8c3201?dmode=source
> What's your advice then, Mr. Wizard?
Generally, I find Sig Arms makes the best solutions.
P. Fritz
He described himself pretty well, don't you think?
P. Fritz
But he made the "Top 10"
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
Right up there with.......
"Dinosauroid-like Alien Reptiles are dominating the World "
"Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA"
"Barcodes are really intended to Control people"
"U.S. military caused the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami"
and
"Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent "
What will "truth" and "freedomfight" do?????
>
Freedom Fighter
You simply keep killfiling him, and if justified file a complaint with his
ISP.