Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Question for Louis [more examples of earwitnesses hearing explosions before the WTCs came down]
9 views
Skip to first unread message
News
May 17, 2013, 9:37:49 AM5/17/13
to
"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bs7bp8tm1bbbs4otk...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:32:04 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:1b98p8h7lnr57iebl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:50:26 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's impossible for huge concrete and steel structures to melt to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>ground in a fire, as has been shown numerous times in foreign
>>>>>>countries
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>hotels.
>>>
>>> Those fires burned nowhere near as hot as burning jet fuel which
>>> weakened
>>> the steel at the WTC.
>>
>> Phony/faulty science and propaganda excuse.
>
> Uh no Roy.
Uh yes Sarah.
> Sustained burning jet fuel weakened the WTC steel so that
> when coupled with the damage done by the impact of the airplane, they
> eventually collapsed.
Refuted by the article cited, no matter how many times someone says the
opposite.
The heat generated was simply not high enough to severely weaken the
steel, as documented in the calculations.
The impact of the airplane on the top-most floors didn't cause any
destruction elsewhere except at those specific floors it impacted.
> My father was an engineer. I trained as an engineer.
I don't see any calculations from your father on this specific example,
and that also applies to you.
If you were a mechanical engineer, it wouldn't be relevant.
CIVIL engineering (and PHYSICS) are the most relevant to this
discussion since that specific engineering branch is toward the creating of
buildings (bridges, too) and other structures.
Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, and other branches would be invalid.
Which one were you? Better be CIVIL, and you would have to do the
computations (as the article cited did) or it won't be admissible in court.
<g>
> From the NIST Report:
I don't see any computations on the heat generated, so I'm not
convinced.
(but this one did:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm )
FEMA's report (used by the original article linked above) gave the
parameters in the computations showing the maximum possible heat gain from
the jet fuel was less than 500 F, which was not even close to the heat
needed to weaken the steel by a factor of 2 (one-half as strong). Are you
saying FEMAs numbers were made-up, contradicting this NIST report with no
computations shown or cited?
No cites, period! Stop blindly trusting the Government. They lie about
everything to gain more political power and control over the people. That's
a truth about the nature of government that has been true ever since
governments were invented, which the Founders studied on the nature of them
before they wrote first the Articles of Confederation and then the
Constitution. Both written to severely limit the powers of government, not
the people.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the
upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly
spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be
consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Less than 5 minutes was not close to the 40+ minutes needed for either
tower to weaken enough to collapse.
More quotes from the article quoting survivors that could have not
possibly survived if the heat was anywhere near 1,100 F needed to severely
weaken the steel:
"Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that
the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of
the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been
quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button,
that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember
feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for
maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane
impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my
shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I
can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in
my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive,
and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I
sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by
the jet fuel fire. All three survived."
"Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to
just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with
perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped
this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited
amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature
of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining
the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F)
where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes
of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment
performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the
behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a
simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700°
F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical
temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six
experiments."
And other fires in other solid steel and concrete buildings both in the US
and elsewhere also did not collapse the structure. You can find those
examples by searching the Internet. It's never happened before 9/11/01 or
since. Something else had to have happened to the 2 WTC buildings besides
jet fuel burning for less than 5 minutes at less than 500 F to make them
collapse.
Try this link for actual examples of eye (and ear) witnesses, plus the
Guardian (UK) newspaper report:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/06/bombs-heard-in-twin-towers.html
"Explosions Heard in the Twin Towers BEFORE They Collapsed"
[references inside this link for each person below]
An unknown witness, an astrophysicist, a fire chief in a nearby town, a
paramedic captain, a firefighter, a police officer, a CNN producer, a NYC
firefighter, a Port Authority Police Dept. officer, an MSNBC reporter,
another unknown witness; yes they were all either LYING or did NOT hear what
they say they heard prior to the WTCs collapse.
"...Well, if exploding transformers caused these sounds and the collapse of
the Twin Towers, why didn't we hear the same things and see the collapse of
the the buildings in Madrid, Venezuela, Los Angeles and elsewhere [*] which
burned hotter and longer than the Twin Towers? Didn't those buildings
contain transformers and other sources of combustion? Why were the Twin
Towers the first modern steel-framed buildings to collapse due to exploding
sources of combustion?
Any explanation other than demolition-type explosives SOUNDS false."
[*] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
"Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings" by Peter Meyer
"WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have
collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires
in other such buildings, none of which collapsed."
"...It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975.
It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for
three hours. For more details see The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot
eh?). [**] How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely
collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on
9/11?"
[**]
http://web.archive.org/web/20061104235651/http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/1099_comment.php
"...It may be "obvious" that a heavy plane hitting a skyscraper would
deliver a "tremendous" shock, but it doesn't follow that the building must
therefore collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25
bomber, but it was still standing last time I saw it. "Ah yes, but it was
the impact plus the fires!" Well, when the B-25 hit the Empire State
Building "its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th
floor in flames", as we read at Empire State Building Withstood Airplane
Impact." [***]
[***] http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html
"Ah, but none of the buildings mentioned above were struck by a 390,000
pound aircraft traveling at 350+ m.p.h." Well, each of the Twin Towers was
still standing 50 minutes after being hit, so it was not the impacts which
caused them to collapse. "Ah, but the intense heat of the burning jet fuel!"
Actually, according to NIST's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt
itself out in less than ten minutes. Don't believe it? Read through Reply to
Popular Mechanics re 9/11: Claim #6. [****] Then go to the top and read it
all. Then follow the links to other articles on this website showing that
the official story is bogus. Then follow the links to the many other
websites which demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job. Too busy? Oh, well,
then, if you don't care to know what really happened on 9/11 ...
[****]
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6
"What you have heard ever since 9/11 on network TV and in the mainstream
media such as the New York Times and all the other corporate-controlled
newspapers is simply the official story, [*****] repeated over and over, on
the assumption that if a lie is repeated often enough then people will
believe it. Especially if it is a BIG lie. The idea that elements of the US
government were responsible for planning and carrying out acts which killed
about 3000 people is so outrageous that most people (most Americans, at
least) reject it reflexively. But it is precisely because it is so
outrageous that the perps assumed that no-one except a few fringe thinkers
would ever take it seriously, and that they would get away with this act of
mass murder. What they didn't count on was that thousands of websites would
minutely examine the evidence available (such evidence as was left, mainly
photographic, after New York Mayor Giuliani ordered every scrap of physical
evidence removed from the WTC site as quickly as possible, with nothing but
a token forensic examination, and shipped overseas to be melted down in
blast furnaces).
An examination of the evidence which remains leads inexorably to the
conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job,[******] perpetrated by elements
within the US government (probably going back before Bush came to power in
2001) in order to justify US military aggression against any country which
stands in the way of its aim of global economic, financial and political
domination. Maybe you think that the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the bombing
of any country that the US chooses to bomb, thousands of deaths and injuries
among US soldiers, and the contempt of all other countries for the US, are
worth it to maintain US global domination; but what about the mass murder of
around 3000 people, mostly US citizens, in New York City on 9/11? A small
price to pay? This website presents much of the evidence that elements
within the US government carried out this atrocity, and there are also many
other websites which do so. If you can read then there is now no excuse to
plead ignorance."
[*****] http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm#twin_towers
[******]
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202222328/http://www.911review.org/Wiki/InsideJob.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k
YouTube video, of eyewitnesses who heard explosions (uploaded on Apr. 20,
2006)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/12/expertopinions.charlieporteronmensfashion
"...Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the
structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a "planned
implosion" designed to catch bystanders watching from the street."
> http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
Did you notice this 'leading-the-witness' disclaimer at the end:
"For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the
"probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the
structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."
(deleted the nonsense from NIST, contradicted by earwitnesses, FEMA numbers
and actual computations on amount of heat generated)
news:bs7bp8tm1bbbs4otk...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:32:04 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
>>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:1b98p8h7lnr57iebl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:50:26 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's impossible for huge concrete and steel structures to melt to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>ground in a fire, as has been shown numerous times in foreign
>>>>>>countries
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>hotels.
>>>
>>> Those fires burned nowhere near as hot as burning jet fuel which
>>> weakened
>>> the steel at the WTC.
>>
>> Phony/faulty science and propaganda excuse.
>
> Uh no Roy.
Uh yes Sarah.
> Sustained burning jet fuel weakened the WTC steel so that
> when coupled with the damage done by the impact of the airplane, they
> eventually collapsed.
Refuted by the article cited, no matter how many times someone says the
opposite.
The heat generated was simply not high enough to severely weaken the
steel, as documented in the calculations.
The impact of the airplane on the top-most floors didn't cause any
destruction elsewhere except at those specific floors it impacted.
> My father was an engineer. I trained as an engineer.
I don't see any calculations from your father on this specific example,
and that also applies to you.
If you were a mechanical engineer, it wouldn't be relevant.
CIVIL engineering (and PHYSICS) are the most relevant to this
discussion since that specific engineering branch is toward the creating of
buildings (bridges, too) and other structures.
Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, and other branches would be invalid.
Which one were you? Better be CIVIL, and you would have to do the
computations (as the article cited did) or it won't be admissible in court.
<g>
> From the NIST Report:
I don't see any computations on the heat generated, so I'm not
convinced.
(but this one did:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm )
FEMA's report (used by the original article linked above) gave the
parameters in the computations showing the maximum possible heat gain from
the jet fuel was less than 500 F, which was not even close to the heat
needed to weaken the steel by a factor of 2 (one-half as strong). Are you
saying FEMAs numbers were made-up, contradicting this NIST report with no
computations shown or cited?
No cites, period! Stop blindly trusting the Government. They lie about
everything to gain more political power and control over the people. That's
a truth about the nature of government that has been true ever since
governments were invented, which the Founders studied on the nature of them
before they wrote first the Articles of Confederation and then the
Constitution. Both written to severely limit the powers of government, not
the people.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the
upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly
spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be
consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Less than 5 minutes was not close to the 40+ minutes needed for either
tower to weaken enough to collapse.
More quotes from the article quoting survivors that could have not
possibly survived if the heat was anywhere near 1,100 F needed to severely
weaken the steel:
"Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that
the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of
the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been
quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button,
that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember
feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for
maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane
impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my
shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I
can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in
my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive,
and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I
sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by
the jet fuel fire. All three survived."
"Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to
just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with
perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped
this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited
amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature
of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining
the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F)
where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes
of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment
performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the
behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a
simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700°
F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical
temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six
experiments."
And other fires in other solid steel and concrete buildings both in the US
and elsewhere also did not collapse the structure. You can find those
examples by searching the Internet. It's never happened before 9/11/01 or
since. Something else had to have happened to the 2 WTC buildings besides
jet fuel burning for less than 5 minutes at less than 500 F to make them
collapse.
Try this link for actual examples of eye (and ear) witnesses, plus the
Guardian (UK) newspaper report:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/06/bombs-heard-in-twin-towers.html
"Explosions Heard in the Twin Towers BEFORE They Collapsed"
[references inside this link for each person below]
An unknown witness, an astrophysicist, a fire chief in a nearby town, a
paramedic captain, a firefighter, a police officer, a CNN producer, a NYC
firefighter, a Port Authority Police Dept. officer, an MSNBC reporter,
another unknown witness; yes they were all either LYING or did NOT hear what
they say they heard prior to the WTCs collapse.
"...Well, if exploding transformers caused these sounds and the collapse of
the Twin Towers, why didn't we hear the same things and see the collapse of
the the buildings in Madrid, Venezuela, Los Angeles and elsewhere [*] which
burned hotter and longer than the Twin Towers? Didn't those buildings
contain transformers and other sources of combustion? Why were the Twin
Towers the first modern steel-framed buildings to collapse due to exploding
sources of combustion?
Any explanation other than demolition-type explosives SOUNDS false."
[*] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
"Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings" by Peter Meyer
"WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have
collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires
in other such buildings, none of which collapsed."
"...It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975.
It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for
three hours. For more details see The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot
eh?). [**] How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely
collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on
9/11?"
[**]
http://web.archive.org/web/20061104235651/http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/1099_comment.php
"...It may be "obvious" that a heavy plane hitting a skyscraper would
deliver a "tremendous" shock, but it doesn't follow that the building must
therefore collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25
bomber, but it was still standing last time I saw it. "Ah yes, but it was
the impact plus the fires!" Well, when the B-25 hit the Empire State
Building "its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th
floor in flames", as we read at Empire State Building Withstood Airplane
Impact." [***]
[***] http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html
"Ah, but none of the buildings mentioned above were struck by a 390,000
pound aircraft traveling at 350+ m.p.h." Well, each of the Twin Towers was
still standing 50 minutes after being hit, so it was not the impacts which
caused them to collapse. "Ah, but the intense heat of the burning jet fuel!"
Actually, according to NIST's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt
itself out in less than ten minutes. Don't believe it? Read through Reply to
Popular Mechanics re 9/11: Claim #6. [****] Then go to the top and read it
all. Then follow the links to other articles on this website showing that
the official story is bogus. Then follow the links to the many other
websites which demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job. Too busy? Oh, well,
then, if you don't care to know what really happened on 9/11 ...
[****]
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6
"What you have heard ever since 9/11 on network TV and in the mainstream
media such as the New York Times and all the other corporate-controlled
newspapers is simply the official story, [*****] repeated over and over, on
the assumption that if a lie is repeated often enough then people will
believe it. Especially if it is a BIG lie. The idea that elements of the US
government were responsible for planning and carrying out acts which killed
about 3000 people is so outrageous that most people (most Americans, at
least) reject it reflexively. But it is precisely because it is so
outrageous that the perps assumed that no-one except a few fringe thinkers
would ever take it seriously, and that they would get away with this act of
mass murder. What they didn't count on was that thousands of websites would
minutely examine the evidence available (such evidence as was left, mainly
photographic, after New York Mayor Giuliani ordered every scrap of physical
evidence removed from the WTC site as quickly as possible, with nothing but
a token forensic examination, and shipped overseas to be melted down in
blast furnaces).
An examination of the evidence which remains leads inexorably to the
conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job,[******] perpetrated by elements
within the US government (probably going back before Bush came to power in
2001) in order to justify US military aggression against any country which
stands in the way of its aim of global economic, financial and political
domination. Maybe you think that the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the bombing
of any country that the US chooses to bomb, thousands of deaths and injuries
among US soldiers, and the contempt of all other countries for the US, are
worth it to maintain US global domination; but what about the mass murder of
around 3000 people, mostly US citizens, in New York City on 9/11? A small
price to pay? This website presents much of the evidence that elements
within the US government carried out this atrocity, and there are also many
other websites which do so. If you can read then there is now no excuse to
plead ignorance."
[*****] http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm#twin_towers
[******]
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202222328/http://www.911review.org/Wiki/InsideJob.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k
YouTube video, of eyewitnesses who heard explosions (uploaded on Apr. 20,
2006)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/12/expertopinions.charlieporteronmensfashion
"...Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the
structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a "planned
implosion" designed to catch bystanders watching from the street."
> http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
Did you notice this 'leading-the-witness' disclaimer at the end:
"For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the
"probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the
structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."
(deleted the nonsense from NIST, contradicted by earwitnesses, FEMA numbers
and actual computations on amount of heat generated)
Sarah Ehrett
May 17, 2013, 1:15:29 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:37:49 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:bs7bp8tm1bbbs4otk...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:32:04 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1b98p8h7lnr57iebl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:50:26 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's impossible for huge concrete and steel structures to melt to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>ground in a fire, as has been shown numerous times in foreign
>>>>>>>countries
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>hotels.
>>>>
>>>> Those fires burned nowhere near as hot as burning jet fuel which
>>>> weakened
>>>> the steel at the WTC.
>>>
>>> Phony/faulty science and propaganda excuse.
>>
>> Uh no Roy.
>
> Uh yes Sarah.
Uh no Roy.
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:bs7bp8tm1bbbs4otk...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:32:04 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1b98p8h7lnr57iebl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:50:26 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's impossible for huge concrete and steel structures to melt to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>ground in a fire, as has been shown numerous times in foreign
>>>>>>>countries
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>hotels.
>>>>
>>>> Those fires burned nowhere near as hot as burning jet fuel which
>>>> weakened
>>>> the steel at the WTC.
>>>
>>> Phony/faulty science and propaganda excuse.
>>
>> Uh no Roy.
>
> Uh yes Sarah.
>> Sustained burning jet fuel weakened the WTC steel so that
>> when coupled with the damage done by the impact of the airplane, they
>> eventually collapsed.
>
> Refuted by the article cited, no matter how many times someone says the
>opposite.
argument.
Regarding your comments below : One: You didn't read the cited info I
provided; and TWO: You want to disregard scientists and engineers and
believe conspiracy theories of bloggers and whackos. That's fine for you
but trained engineers and scientists look at hard data and the facts.
A serious discussion is always welcome but I did enough arguing with
conspiracy nuts and whackos after 9/11 to want to revisit it again.
If you want to look at more of the NIST report ....
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_publications.cfm
These should keep you busy for the next 20 years. :)
Message has been deleted
Sarah Ehrett
May 18, 2013, 12:30:13 AM5/18/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:52:31 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>news:djocp85ut80u3aisc...@4ax.com...
> I sure did read that page!
> Why did you say that when it was easy to read it?
> I read it.
> It never cited any outside sources.
> It just said what it said were the facts, with no computations, sources,
>or anything else.
That's because it's titled: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
If you want more info on NIST's report it is available at the link I
previously provided.
> and TWO: You want to disregard scientists and engineers and
>> believe conspiracy theories of bloggers and whackos.
>
> I didn't disregard any scientists/engineers.
Yes you did.
" (deleted the nonsense from NIST, contradicted by earwitnesses, FEMA
numbers and actual computations on amount of heat generated)"
> I actually pointed you to a page that had over half of it with the
>science computations, which you chose to ignore.
I didn't ignore it. I read every reference you gave and when I came to
this one http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm#twin_towers I saw a name I
recognized, "FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett)" .
He's one of your FEMA guys Roy.
I Googled and found a very interesting email conversation between Dr.
Jonathan Barnett and a conspiracy whacko named Elias Davidsson. I'm going
to cite the entire conversation for you. Again, this is your guy answering
the questions of a nutball. Here is Davidsson's biographical information.
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=89
Dr. Barnett's credentials are on the cited link below.
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2038
Here is the text in it's entirety. Remember when I said the NIST report
doesn't say the opposite of the FEMA report but goes beyond it? Pay
particular attention to Dr. Barnett's last comment to Davidsson.
Correspondence w. Prof. Jonathan Barnett
Written by Elias Davidsson / Jonathan Barnett (Dec.2006-Jan. 2007)
17 January 2007 13:42
Correspondence between Elias Davidsson (initiator of the correspondece) and
Dr. Jonathan Barnett regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center
buildings on September 11, 2001.
Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett is a Professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
(WPI). He holds appointments in Fire Protection engineering and mechanical
engineering and is the co-Director and co-founder of the WPI Melbourne
Project Center. Dr. Barnett received his undergraduate, masters and
doctorate from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He is a fellow of the
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the
National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Testing and
Materials Committee E-5, and the International Association of Fire Safety
Science. He has held appointments as the Editor of the SFPE Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering, President of the New England Chapter of the SFPE
and Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Fire
Protection.
His work and research in fire protection engineering is extensive,
including most recently his participation in the Building Performance
Assessment Team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to investigate the collapse of the
World Trade Center Towers after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001.
Barnett has written and published extensively on fire protection
engineering, and his insight, opinions and research have been included in
recent broadcasts by the BBC, the Learning Channel and NOVA, a production
of the Public Broadcasting Service. Dr. Barnett has also been cited
recently in articles in the New York Times and The Boston Globe on ongoing
research to determine how and why the World Trade Center towers collapsed,
and how building and construction rules may change in the wake of those
studies.
His current research centers on the mathematical modeling and computer
simulation of fires in buildings, ships and transit systems with an
emphasis on heat transfer in structures and the use of computers in fire
investigation and fire reconstruction. Recently he has developed a
prototype garment flammability test for the U.S. Navy Clothing and Textile
Research Facility
Here begins the exchange of emails
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the New
York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have
been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would
not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been
partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been
"partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up
this observation?
I would be most grateful for your observations.
Sincerely yours,
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was
completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have
any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained
sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7. Professor
Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the use of
thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully explain these
observations.
What is your take on that?
Elias 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source
of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the
pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle
for the certainty.
As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over
by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky
theory.
[Jonathan] 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I am no specialist. However, the thermite theory does not stand alone on
its own. Over 100 firefighters, as well as many others (including media
people) have testified to have heard, seen or experienced multiple
explosions just prior to the collapse of the buildings. The WTC 1-2 were
practically pulverized into very thin dust which shot out horizontally at
the time of the collapse, a phenomenon not seen in buildings' collapse.
Several employees in the WTC testified to explosions that took place in the
basement of one of the buildings (or both) prior to collapse. I wonder why
have has all of this evidence been ignored in the official studies. Isn't
the role of experts to include ALL evidence into account, not just that
which fits a predetermined theory?
Elias
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no
sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred
exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say.
Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the
original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the
process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as
this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire,
we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.
[Jonathan]
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the numerous explosions' testimonies were not ignored? The reports
do not mention, as much as I know, these multiple testimonies. Nor were the
witnesses invited to testify, as much as I understand.
You say that the collapse of the towers occurred "exactly as one expect
from a fire". Could you refer to examples of other buildings who collapsed
in this way due to fire?
You say that there were no predetermined ideas. Yet the hypothesis of
controlled demolition was not examined in spite of many elements which
suggested this to have happened. Wouldn't a thorough investigation look at
all possibilities and attempt to verify which one fits best to the
observations?
Elias
3 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we did talk to eye witnesses. In our opinion the "explosions" were
local events, not demolitions but rather the sound of structural failures.
As far as collapse mechanisms, these buildings were unique. There were no
other built like them, how can I give you an example of another failure in
identical structures? However, when one looks at structural failures in
fires in unprotected steel structures (which is what we really had as the
fire proofing was knocked off by the impact of the aircraft), you find
exactly this kind of failure. The literature abounds with examples, take a
look at the last 40 years of the NFPA journal and in almost every edition
you'll find an example.
We did meet with and talk to the number one controlled demolition man in
the world; Mark Loizeaux. I don't know where you get the idea we didn't do
these things. If you'd like, we can continue this by phone. I"m in
Australia at the moment and my personal number is +61 ? xxxxxxxx . As you
see, I'm happy to respond.
Jonathan
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,
Could you explain what would occur if you drop a hollow concrete shaft
weighing 200 lbs. from a height of say 10 feet on top of a 800 lbs concrete
shaft, four times longer. Or hollow metallic constructions of the same
respective weights? Or hollow concrete shafts strengthened by steel beams
of the same respective weights?
Elias
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it all depends on the sizes, shapes, strength of steel, concrete,
etc. Perhaps you could give me more of an idea of what you're looking for
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just speculating on the official story which is premised on the
assumption that the 20+ floors including the floor where the aircraft on
9/11 hit, could by their gravitational weight pulverize the lower floors
which were at about four times heavier, and all of that could be achieved
at free-falling speed (which presupposes no resistance whatsoever from the
lower floors) and in a symmetrical manner.
Elias
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, its not the weight, but the momentum. The dynamic load is much
greater than the static load which is why the building collapsed the way it
did. Also, remember that although the columns on the lowest floors were
much stronger than the ones on the upper floors, the transition from less
strong at the top to strongest at the bottom occurs slowly through the
height of the building. So a floor 1 % stronger than the one above needs to
resist the impact of that floor plus all the load above that floor plus the
momentum load.
The roughly symmetric failure (of course the top part of Tower 2 didn't
fall symmetrically), is to be expected as buildings just aren't strong
enough to fall any other way.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,
I know of only two types of total buildings' collapses: One is controlled
demolition and the other is the result of earth-quakes.
Earthquakes shatter the foundations of the buildings which may bring the
entire building to collapse like a card castle. Yet in all cases of
earth-quakes collapses that I have seen pictures of, there are huge piles
of debris. In the debris one finds victims, furniture and other items from
the building. In such collapses one does not observe huge dust clouds
emerging during the collapse, let alone that this dust is forcefully
ejected from the collapsing buildings (as observed with the WTC). Some dust
is caused by debris reaching the ground, but such dust settles in rather a
short time.
Viewing the collapse of the WTC on video, it reminds one primarily of
either controlled demolition or vulcanoes' eruptions, in which enormous
dust clouds are ejected and rise up.
Incidentally, what was the title of the inquiry/investigation in which you
took part and what was your specific role in that task?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, hitting a building with a plane can cause total collapse too. Also,
remember that the WTC buildings used unique construction that has never
been used before. You need to factor that in as well as the height to width
ratio of the structure.
Earthquakes don't just shatter the foundation of a building. The apply a
large lateral load which can destroy a building by causing failure of shear
walls, etc. this is often the cause of collapse, not foundation failure.
Having viewed slow motion close up pictures of the collapse, I don't think
the clouds of dust were unusual, they appear what one would expect as
gypsum wallboard was pulverized. Remember that all of the interior
partitions plus all of the shaft enclosures were made of gypsum.
By the way, the scenario of controlled demolition assumes that explosives
were placed in advance at the impact floors. Allegedly, these explosives
were supposed to have initiated the failure mode that I suggest was caused
by heating of the steel columns on these floors. So the subsequent
collapse, etc is just as would have been caused by the fires. No one is
suggesting that explosives were placed on every floor. If it was, how would
you get that much into the buildings? How could you hide it?
The name of the report is the ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building
Performance Study, FEMA report 403. I was one of the 5 key authors. You can
see in the table of contents what each of us did. There were 25 authors
involved in writing the report.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
In the weekend before 9/11, power was taken down in the South Tower for 36
hours, apparently an unprecedented measure. This meant that all security
was inoperative. At this period many unidentified workers and engineers
came into the building to do work at the upper part of the building. No
official explanation was given what was done during that week-end. The
Commission of Inquiry did not show any interest to know what was done at
that weekend in the Tower.
Have you heard about this?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they still could only have installed explosives in the upper floor as
36 hours is not long enough to install explosives on 200 floors (the two
buildings). Now, let's say they did. Detonating such explosives would only
have caused the upper floors to collapse....you would have had exactly the
same collapse as happened on the day of 9/11. On the day, we know we had
fires and a plane impact that was capable of causing the building to
collapse. Why use explosives when the plane and the fire was all that was
needed? Nothing that occurred on 9/11 needs an explanation other than that
resulting from the plane impact.
So, why explore the explosive issue? One might just as say the Bush is a
Martian. He's an idiot who led us into a war. Only someone not from this
planet would do that. My point is, there is a logical and complete
explanation of what occurred on 9/11. Why do we need explosives?
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons for suspecting that explosives were used to collapse the
WTC is that the aircraft which crashed on the WTC were not piloted by human
beings. The story about the 19 "hijackers" is a fairy tale. There is not
the slightest evidence that any of them boarded the aircraft which crashed
on 9/11. Anyone accusing a person of mass murder better present the
evidence if he wishes to remain credible. The US authorities did not
present any evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the
"hijackers" boarded the aircraft: Their names do not appear on passenger
lists; no person saw them board the aircraft; their bodily remains were not
identified. For all purposes the US government is simply diffaming people
who have disappeared (perhaps murdered).
In addition to the above fact, many other facts refute the official fairy
tale. The collapse of the three WTC buildings remains a mystery, if not for
you, at least for many others.
B.t.w. would you allow me to post our discussion on my webpage?
The psychological impact of 9/11 was dependent on making the WTC collapse.
It was a TV event. But because such buildings never collapsed due to fire,
it was necessary to demolish them by other means, using the aircraft as
distraction.
In the post below you did not tell me whether you had heard about this
power down. It is also puzzling why nobody paid any attention to this
unusual event, just two days before 9/11.
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may post our discussion.
1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity,
etc.
2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as
someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel
structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11.
The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by
someone with my background.
I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I
reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the
collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis
would predict.
Finally, I don't see why you need to have explosives present to prove or
disprove your theories. Why don't you just assume that the buildings
collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your
conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove
that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of
your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are
incorrect on.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your kind permission. I appreciate your conviction. Does your
analysis about the buildings' collapses extend to WTC7 which was not hit by
an aircraft? Does your analysis conclude that all high-rise steel buildings
built in the 60s and 70s are at risk of collapsing if fire would occur? If
so, why did nobody warn against such a possibility before, if an
"engineering analysis would predict" such an outcome? Why did various other
high-rise steel buildings not collapse even after a much longer and fiercer
fire?
B.t.w the powerdown was reported by Scott Forbes, a Senior Database
Administrator for Fiduciary Trust whose office was at the 97th floor of the
South Tower. He went public with his report and contacted the Commission of
Inquiry. There is no reason to distrust him. I even talked to him on the
phone. He says many of his co-employees (those who survived) can
corroborate his account. He does not claim to explain what all these
unidentified workers did on that weekend. He only reported an event which
he never experienced during his 3 years at that location and which happened
just two days before 9/11. He said that we he saw the buildings collapse,
he had a uneasy feeling that the collapse was somehow related to what was
going in the weekend. You can find interviews with him by googling his
name.
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between Towers 1 and 2 and all other steel construction is
that the fire proofing was knocked off the steel by the aircraft. This left
the steel vulnerable to ordinary office fires. We have lots of examples of
bare steel structures which have collapsed due to a fire. This contrasts
with protected steel structures where such a collapse had never been seen
in the past (this is why you can rest assured about the safety of other
high rise buildings).
Tower 7 is another issue. I was under the impression that the fires were
unusual in that diesel fuel in large quantities became involved in the
mid-afternoon. This would exceed the protection provided by the fire
proofing. Of course the mechanism of collapse is still an unknown. There
were large transfer trusses in the building, so perhaps those we
compromised. I don't pretend to have the answer to tower 7. But I anxiously
await NIST's final report on that tower.
Another building of interest is Tower 5 where there was interior collapse
but no impact near the collapse. I'm currently doing a study of this to see
what happened.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the aircraft "knocked off" the fire proofing. Isn't this merely a
guess? Moreover how can one assess how much of the fire proofing was
knocked off and whether the bared areas were those most subject to the
fiercest fire? Aren't these merely conjecture? More generally, isn't the
official explanation of the collapse based mainly on speculation rather
than on observations and forensic evidence?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We examined hundreds of beams. In no case did we find the fire proofing
still on the beams. This type of fire proofing material is easy to dislodge
by hand, let alone by the disintegrating plane. By knowing the adhesive
properties of the fire proofing and by looking at the scenario of aluminum
and other plane parts traveling well over 100 miles/hour, we determined
that the fire proofing had to be dislodged. As little as 30% missing fire
proofing would be enough to cause failure in an individual member. This
isn't guesswork. Its engineering analysis based on observations,
calculations, an understanding of material behavior and of structural
behavior.
On the other hand, guessing that there was an explosion is just that, a
guess.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** This is Dr. Jonathan Barnett's last comment ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing, NIST's analysis included an assessment of how much fire
proofing would be knocked off by the impacting plane. They did careful
computer simulations of the breakup of the aircraft. They reached the same
conclusion we did. So two different sets of engineers reached the same
conclusion using two different approaches. Sounds pretty convincing don't
you think?
Jonathan 17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------END
The NIST engineers reached the same conclusions as the FEMA engineers.
> You never did answer my question below: what branch of
>engineering/science are you or were in? Why did you refuse to answer?
credentials would be pertinent to the discussion.
I didn't so it isn't.
Cheers.
>x-no-archive: yes
>news:djocp85ut80u3aisc...@4ax.com...
> Why did you say that when it was easy to read it?
> I read it.
> It never cited any outside sources.
> It just said what it said were the facts, with no computations, sources,
>or anything else.
That's because it's titled: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.
If you want more info on NIST's report it is available at the link I
previously provided.
> and TWO: You want to disregard scientists and engineers and
>> believe conspiracy theories of bloggers and whackos.
>
Yes you did.
" (deleted the nonsense from NIST, contradicted by earwitnesses, FEMA
numbers and actual computations on amount of heat generated)"
>science computations, which you chose to ignore.
I didn't ignore it. I read every reference you gave and when I came to
this one http://www.serendipity.li/wtc2.htm#twin_towers I saw a name I
recognized, "FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett)" .
He's one of your FEMA guys Roy.
I Googled and found a very interesting email conversation between Dr.
Jonathan Barnett and a conspiracy whacko named Elias Davidsson. I'm going
to cite the entire conversation for you. Again, this is your guy answering
the questions of a nutball. Here is Davidsson's biographical information.
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=89
Dr. Barnett's credentials are on the cited link below.
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2038
Here is the text in it's entirety. Remember when I said the NIST report
doesn't say the opposite of the FEMA report but goes beyond it? Pay
particular attention to Dr. Barnett's last comment to Davidsson.
Correspondence w. Prof. Jonathan Barnett
Written by Elias Davidsson / Jonathan Barnett (Dec.2006-Jan. 2007)
17 January 2007 13:42
Correspondence between Elias Davidsson (initiator of the correspondece) and
Dr. Jonathan Barnett regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center
buildings on September 11, 2001.
Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett is a Professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
(WPI). He holds appointments in Fire Protection engineering and mechanical
engineering and is the co-Director and co-founder of the WPI Melbourne
Project Center. Dr. Barnett received his undergraduate, masters and
doctorate from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He is a fellow of the
Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the
National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Testing and
Materials Committee E-5, and the International Association of Fire Safety
Science. He has held appointments as the Editor of the SFPE Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering, President of the New England Chapter of the SFPE
and Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Fire
Protection.
His work and research in fire protection engineering is extensive,
including most recently his participation in the Building Performance
Assessment Team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to investigate the collapse of the
World Trade Center Towers after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001.
Barnett has written and published extensively on fire protection
engineering, and his insight, opinions and research have been included in
recent broadcasts by the BBC, the Learning Channel and NOVA, a production
of the Public Broadcasting Service. Dr. Barnett has also been cited
recently in articles in the New York Times and The Boston Globe on ongoing
research to determine how and why the World Trade Center towers collapsed,
and how building and construction rules may change in the wake of those
studies.
His current research centers on the mathematical modeling and computer
simulation of fires in buildings, ships and transit systems with an
emphasis on heat transfer in structures and the use of computers in fire
investigation and fire reconstruction. Recently he has developed a
prototype garment flammability test for the U.S. Navy Clothing and Textile
Research Facility
Here begins the exchange of emails
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the New
York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have
been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would
not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been
partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been
"partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up
this observation?
I would be most grateful for your observations.
Sincerely yours,
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was
completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have
any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained
sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7. Professor
Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the use of
thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully explain these
observations.
What is your take on that?
Elias 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source
of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the
pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle
for the certainty.
As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over
by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky
theory.
[Jonathan] 2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I am no specialist. However, the thermite theory does not stand alone on
its own. Over 100 firefighters, as well as many others (including media
people) have testified to have heard, seen or experienced multiple
explosions just prior to the collapse of the buildings. The WTC 1-2 were
practically pulverized into very thin dust which shot out horizontally at
the time of the collapse, a phenomenon not seen in buildings' collapse.
Several employees in the WTC testified to explosions that took place in the
basement of one of the buildings (or both) prior to collapse. I wonder why
have has all of this evidence been ignored in the official studies. Isn't
the role of experts to include ALL evidence into account, not just that
which fits a predetermined theory?
Elias
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no
sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred
exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say.
Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the
original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the
process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as
this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire,
we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.
[Jonathan]
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the numerous explosions' testimonies were not ignored? The reports
do not mention, as much as I know, these multiple testimonies. Nor were the
witnesses invited to testify, as much as I understand.
You say that the collapse of the towers occurred "exactly as one expect
from a fire". Could you refer to examples of other buildings who collapsed
in this way due to fire?
You say that there were no predetermined ideas. Yet the hypothesis of
controlled demolition was not examined in spite of many elements which
suggested this to have happened. Wouldn't a thorough investigation look at
all possibilities and attempt to verify which one fits best to the
observations?
Elias
3 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we did talk to eye witnesses. In our opinion the "explosions" were
local events, not demolitions but rather the sound of structural failures.
As far as collapse mechanisms, these buildings were unique. There were no
other built like them, how can I give you an example of another failure in
identical structures? However, when one looks at structural failures in
fires in unprotected steel structures (which is what we really had as the
fire proofing was knocked off by the impact of the aircraft), you find
exactly this kind of failure. The literature abounds with examples, take a
look at the last 40 years of the NFPA journal and in almost every edition
you'll find an example.
We did meet with and talk to the number one controlled demolition man in
the world; Mark Loizeaux. I don't know where you get the idea we didn't do
these things. If you'd like, we can continue this by phone. I"m in
Australia at the moment and my personal number is +61 ? xxxxxxxx . As you
see, I'm happy to respond.
Jonathan
2 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,
Could you explain what would occur if you drop a hollow concrete shaft
weighing 200 lbs. from a height of say 10 feet on top of a 800 lbs concrete
shaft, four times longer. Or hollow metallic constructions of the same
respective weights? Or hollow concrete shafts strengthened by steel beams
of the same respective weights?
Elias
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it all depends on the sizes, shapes, strength of steel, concrete,
etc. Perhaps you could give me more of an idea of what you're looking for
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just speculating on the official story which is premised on the
assumption that the 20+ floors including the floor where the aircraft on
9/11 hit, could by their gravitational weight pulverize the lower floors
which were at about four times heavier, and all of that could be achieved
at free-falling speed (which presupposes no resistance whatsoever from the
lower floors) and in a symmetrical manner.
Elias
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, its not the weight, but the momentum. The dynamic load is much
greater than the static load which is why the building collapsed the way it
did. Also, remember that although the columns on the lowest floors were
much stronger than the ones on the upper floors, the transition from less
strong at the top to strongest at the bottom occurs slowly through the
height of the building. So a floor 1 % stronger than the one above needs to
resist the impact of that floor plus all the load above that floor plus the
momentum load.
The roughly symmetric failure (of course the top part of Tower 2 didn't
fall symmetrically), is to be expected as buildings just aren't strong
enough to fall any other way.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,
I know of only two types of total buildings' collapses: One is controlled
demolition and the other is the result of earth-quakes.
Earthquakes shatter the foundations of the buildings which may bring the
entire building to collapse like a card castle. Yet in all cases of
earth-quakes collapses that I have seen pictures of, there are huge piles
of debris. In the debris one finds victims, furniture and other items from
the building. In such collapses one does not observe huge dust clouds
emerging during the collapse, let alone that this dust is forcefully
ejected from the collapsing buildings (as observed with the WTC). Some dust
is caused by debris reaching the ground, but such dust settles in rather a
short time.
Viewing the collapse of the WTC on video, it reminds one primarily of
either controlled demolition or vulcanoes' eruptions, in which enormous
dust clouds are ejected and rise up.
Incidentally, what was the title of the inquiry/investigation in which you
took part and what was your specific role in that task?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, hitting a building with a plane can cause total collapse too. Also,
remember that the WTC buildings used unique construction that has never
been used before. You need to factor that in as well as the height to width
ratio of the structure.
Earthquakes don't just shatter the foundation of a building. The apply a
large lateral load which can destroy a building by causing failure of shear
walls, etc. this is often the cause of collapse, not foundation failure.
Having viewed slow motion close up pictures of the collapse, I don't think
the clouds of dust were unusual, they appear what one would expect as
gypsum wallboard was pulverized. Remember that all of the interior
partitions plus all of the shaft enclosures were made of gypsum.
By the way, the scenario of controlled demolition assumes that explosives
were placed in advance at the impact floors. Allegedly, these explosives
were supposed to have initiated the failure mode that I suggest was caused
by heating of the steel columns on these floors. So the subsequent
collapse, etc is just as would have been caused by the fires. No one is
suggesting that explosives were placed on every floor. If it was, how would
you get that much into the buildings? How could you hide it?
The name of the report is the ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building
Performance Study, FEMA report 403. I was one of the 5 key authors. You can
see in the table of contents what each of us did. There were 25 authors
involved in writing the report.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
In the weekend before 9/11, power was taken down in the South Tower for 36
hours, apparently an unprecedented measure. This meant that all security
was inoperative. At this period many unidentified workers and engineers
came into the building to do work at the upper part of the building. No
official explanation was given what was done during that week-end. The
Commission of Inquiry did not show any interest to know what was done at
that weekend in the Tower.
Have you heard about this?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they still could only have installed explosives in the upper floor as
36 hours is not long enough to install explosives on 200 floors (the two
buildings). Now, let's say they did. Detonating such explosives would only
have caused the upper floors to collapse....you would have had exactly the
same collapse as happened on the day of 9/11. On the day, we know we had
fires and a plane impact that was capable of causing the building to
collapse. Why use explosives when the plane and the fire was all that was
needed? Nothing that occurred on 9/11 needs an explanation other than that
resulting from the plane impact.
So, why explore the explosive issue? One might just as say the Bush is a
Martian. He's an idiot who led us into a war. Only someone not from this
planet would do that. My point is, there is a logical and complete
explanation of what occurred on 9/11. Why do we need explosives?
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons for suspecting that explosives were used to collapse the
WTC is that the aircraft which crashed on the WTC were not piloted by human
beings. The story about the 19 "hijackers" is a fairy tale. There is not
the slightest evidence that any of them boarded the aircraft which crashed
on 9/11. Anyone accusing a person of mass murder better present the
evidence if he wishes to remain credible. The US authorities did not
present any evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the
"hijackers" boarded the aircraft: Their names do not appear on passenger
lists; no person saw them board the aircraft; their bodily remains were not
identified. For all purposes the US government is simply diffaming people
who have disappeared (perhaps murdered).
In addition to the above fact, many other facts refute the official fairy
tale. The collapse of the three WTC buildings remains a mystery, if not for
you, at least for many others.
B.t.w. would you allow me to post our discussion on my webpage?
The psychological impact of 9/11 was dependent on making the WTC collapse.
It was a TV event. But because such buildings never collapsed due to fire,
it was necessary to demolish them by other means, using the aircraft as
distraction.
In the post below you did not tell me whether you had heard about this
power down. It is also puzzling why nobody paid any attention to this
unusual event, just two days before 9/11.
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may post our discussion.
1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity,
etc.
2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as
someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel
structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11.
The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by
someone with my background.
I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I
reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the
collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis
would predict.
Finally, I don't see why you need to have explosives present to prove or
disprove your theories. Why don't you just assume that the buildings
collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your
conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove
that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of
your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are
incorrect on.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your kind permission. I appreciate your conviction. Does your
analysis about the buildings' collapses extend to WTC7 which was not hit by
an aircraft? Does your analysis conclude that all high-rise steel buildings
built in the 60s and 70s are at risk of collapsing if fire would occur? If
so, why did nobody warn against such a possibility before, if an
"engineering analysis would predict" such an outcome? Why did various other
high-rise steel buildings not collapse even after a much longer and fiercer
fire?
B.t.w the powerdown was reported by Scott Forbes, a Senior Database
Administrator for Fiduciary Trust whose office was at the 97th floor of the
South Tower. He went public with his report and contacted the Commission of
Inquiry. There is no reason to distrust him. I even talked to him on the
phone. He says many of his co-employees (those who survived) can
corroborate his account. He does not claim to explain what all these
unidentified workers did on that weekend. He only reported an event which
he never experienced during his 3 years at that location and which happened
just two days before 9/11. He said that we he saw the buildings collapse,
he had a uneasy feeling that the collapse was somehow related to what was
going in the weekend. You can find interviews with him by googling his
name.
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between Towers 1 and 2 and all other steel construction is
that the fire proofing was knocked off the steel by the aircraft. This left
the steel vulnerable to ordinary office fires. We have lots of examples of
bare steel structures which have collapsed due to a fire. This contrasts
with protected steel structures where such a collapse had never been seen
in the past (this is why you can rest assured about the safety of other
high rise buildings).
Tower 7 is another issue. I was under the impression that the fires were
unusual in that diesel fuel in large quantities became involved in the
mid-afternoon. This would exceed the protection provided by the fire
proofing. Of course the mechanism of collapse is still an unknown. There
were large transfer trusses in the building, so perhaps those we
compromised. I don't pretend to have the answer to tower 7. But I anxiously
await NIST's final report on that tower.
Another building of interest is Tower 5 where there was interior collapse
but no impact near the collapse. I'm currently doing a study of this to see
what happened.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the aircraft "knocked off" the fire proofing. Isn't this merely a
guess? Moreover how can one assess how much of the fire proofing was
knocked off and whether the bared areas were those most subject to the
fiercest fire? Aren't these merely conjecture? More generally, isn't the
official explanation of the collapse based mainly on speculation rather
than on observations and forensic evidence?
Elias
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We examined hundreds of beams. In no case did we find the fire proofing
still on the beams. This type of fire proofing material is easy to dislodge
by hand, let alone by the disintegrating plane. By knowing the adhesive
properties of the fire proofing and by looking at the scenario of aluminum
and other plane parts traveling well over 100 miles/hour, we determined
that the fire proofing had to be dislodged. As little as 30% missing fire
proofing would be enough to cause failure in an individual member. This
isn't guesswork. Its engineering analysis based on observations,
calculations, an understanding of material behavior and of structural
behavior.
On the other hand, guessing that there was an explosion is just that, a
guess.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** This is Dr. Jonathan Barnett's last comment ***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing, NIST's analysis included an assessment of how much fire
proofing would be knocked off by the impacting plane. They did careful
computer simulations of the breakup of the aircraft. They reached the same
conclusion we did. So two different sets of engineers reached the same
conclusion using two different approaches. Sounds pretty convincing don't
you think?
Jonathan 17 January 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------END
The NIST engineers reached the same conclusions as the FEMA engineers.
> You never did answer my question below: what branch of
>engineering/science are you or were in? Why did you refuse to answer?
>> "My father was an engineer. I trained as an engineer."
If I'd offered my own analysis without backup cited material then my
credentials would be pertinent to the discussion.
I didn't so it isn't.
Cheers.
Message has been deleted
Sarah Ehrett
May 18, 2013, 1:09:50 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:11:41 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:i2vdp8p0jeic4ltgf...@4ax.com...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
You cited FEMA sources as *your* supporting evidence, Roy.
> But the computations were from that source, which is from Government,
>that you always believe their story no matter how many discrepancies show
>up.
Math is math Roy.
>(deleted invalid e-mails which prove absolutely nothing)
The emails prove that the scientist/engineers from both FEMA and NIST all
agree on what caused the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. You chose to ignore
their findings instead believing crazy conspiracy theories. That is your
choice but as Dr. Jonathan Barnett stated, " [ you are ] fighting an
engineering battle that you are incorrect on. "
Cheers.
Message has been deleted
Sarah Ehrett
May 18, 2013, 3:22:24 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:56:12 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:icdfp85oibit64ml9...@4ax.com...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Sarah Ehrett" <nine...@cox.net> wrote in message
> It wasn't *my* supporting evidence.
> I thought you read my initial post?
> It was used by that writer who used FEMA's numbers in his
>computations on the heat.
You used the source for *your* heat argument , what would you call it?
A stepping stone to claims the WTC's were brought down by controlled
demolition?
>>> But the computations were from that source, which is from Government,
>>>that you always believe their story no matter how many discrepancies show
>>>up.
>>
>> Math is math Roy.
>
>generated was NOT enough to weaken the steel to cause the WTCs to collapse.
Which is what I've said, FEMA engineers have said, and NIST engineers have
said.
You want to find a conspiracy and there is not one bit of credible evidence
to back up any of the conspiracy theories.
> Government is government, Sarah. Who are you going to believe,
>>>(deleted invalid e-mails which prove absolutely nothing)
>>
>> The emails prove that the scientist/engineers from both FEMA and NIST all
>> agree on what caused the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. You chose to ignore
>> their findings instead believing crazy conspiracy theories.
>
>HEARD explosions.
There was zero explosive material found in the debris of WTC 1 & WTC2.
The cite I've given you addresses that problem for you conspirowhacky
folks. [Dr. Jonathan Barnett.]
> The question up for your answer is: HOW MANY OF THEM ARE CONSPIRACY
>THEORISTS?
Again, addressed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett.
When you are a scientist, when you are an engineer, you don't deal in wild
eyed theories, dreams, visions, or guesswork.....you deal with facts,
evidence, mathematics, etc..
1. There is no evidence found of any explosive material from WTC1 or WTC 2.
2. According to FEMA and NIST engineers WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell exactly as
expected considering the damage done by the airplane strikes and the
sustained fires which burned and weakened the exposed steel beams.
>COMPARED TO WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT "SAYS" IS THE TRUTH MONTHS (or years)
>LATER IN THEIR "OFFICIAL" FINDINGS OF WHATEVER THE PROBLEM WAS?
> Emphasis for you so your bad eyes won't overlook it, again--for at
>least the 3rd time.
>
>
>[*] Anyone could just as well say that anything ever said from the
>government in giving its version of events as automatically a Disreputable
>Propaganda Source for Naive People (thereby automatically invalid, and
>ignored).
>> That is your choice but as Dr. Jonathan Barnett stated, " [ you are ] fighting an
>> engineering battle that you are incorrect on. "
>
>Government says, no matter how many people see its flaws, discrepancies, and
>usual propaganda spin.
Again, you didn't read the NIST report or FEMA's report. All the testing,
maths, computer models, etc are in the full reports. In your case it must
be paranoia which leads you to believe wild eyed fairy tales and ignore
proven scientific facts and hard science.
Your comments are exactly why I stopped arguing with foolish conspiracy
whacko's.
Cheers.
>> Cheers.
>
> Cheers, but don't drink too much and hurt your liver! <g>
Message has been deleted
Sarah Ehrett
May 19, 2013, 2:04:47 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:59:03 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> Those NIST engineers didn't investigate why WTC 7 building collapsed,
>which was NOT hit by any airplanes
It was hit from falling debris from the other towers.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the
bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the
building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology."
>or had any burning fuel in it.
Up to 42, 000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in WTC7, Roy. Didn't you
know that?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+much+diesel+fuel+was+stored+in+wtc7++on+9%2F11%3F++&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=how+much+diesel+fuel+was+stored+in+wtc7+on+9%2F11%3F+&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=
Stop reading 9/11 truther nonsense and read the facts on the FIST and FEMA
reports.
> Those NIST engineers didn't investigate why WTC 7 building collapsed,
>which was NOT hit by any airplanes
It was hit from falling debris from the other towers.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the
bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the
building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology."
>or had any burning fuel in it.
Up to 42, 000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in WTC7, Roy. Didn't you
know that?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+much+diesel+fuel+was+stored+in+wtc7++on+9%2F11%3F++&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=how+much+diesel+fuel+was+stored+in+wtc7+on+9%2F11%3F+&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=
Stop reading 9/11 truther nonsense and read the facts on the FIST and FEMA
reports.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages