THE MYSTERY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE
Napalm Deaf
news:10606460...@irys.nyx.net:
>
> Title: THE MYSTERY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE Source: SKYDRIFTER URL Source:
> http://N/A Published: Aug 9, 2003 Author: SKYDRIFTER Post Date:
> 2003-08-09 23:54:39 by SKYDRIFTER
>
> THE MYSTERY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE
>
> The more one reads about the WTC collapse, the more skeptical they
> should become of the "official" account. The following presentation
> is speculation, but well worth thinking about.
>
> WHY?
>
> Because the investigators at the WTC site were hampered to the
> maximum, documentation efforts were equally hampered; and the debris
> was too quickly - and profitably - disposed of; overseas.
>
> Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of a
> steel-framed building, allegedly from fire. BUT - there were three
> such occurrences; not just one. That's asking too much from
> 'coincidence,' just by virtue of two separate architectural styles;
>
> within a ten-hour period of time. Most spectacularly, no 'official'
> questions were asked. WHY?
>
> COVERUP is the unique legacy of ALL of the 9-11 events, as is true
> of subsequent events. That leaves the obvious question, "SO, what's
> being covered up? The planes hit the buildings, they burned &
> collapsed. What's the big deal?"
>
> Originally, that was my question.
>
> "Christine" recently insisted that I buy the book, "Painful Questions."
> She was adamant that there was something which she believed that I
> would see. She didn't know what, but she was sure that I could
> "...pick the sand out of the pepper," as the saying goes. That
> "woman's intuition" again.
>
> The book centers on the flaws in the "official" accounts of 9-11.
> The color illustrations and the photographs are worth the price of
> the book. It took about five minutes to see that something was
> something very badly wrong in the "official" account. Nothing new,
> when it comes to anything associated with 9-11. I was slow; Christine
> was correct - she knew! Don't ask me how; she just knew.
>
> One must first go to the reports and descriptions of the molten
> steel at the base of all three buildings, including 7-WTC. Those
> reports are too strange to ignore; particularly given the associated
> thermal imagery of the post-collapse WTC site. Those reports are
> not limited to a single individual, or any "group." The 'pools of
> molten steel' descriptions quickly lead the military mindset to
> something on the order of massive Thermite charges. Try to imagine
> that the mechanical energy of the collapse could "melt and pool"
> any steel. Forget it!
>
> Bending steel with horrendous energy is one thing, melting it is
> another. For those uninformed, Thermite charges can be either
> 'passive' (melt-down only) or dynamic, in the form of "shape charges."
>
> Yes, such would be one hell of an undertaking; no argument.
>
> Forty-seven center-core steel columns (or a high percentage) would
> have to be rigged. But, just the obvious and well-documented
> "official" deceptions of 9-11 were massive undertakings. Thus, the
> term 'impossible' is not particularly appropriate, here
>
> Steel will do all kinds of "tricks," but melting requires the basic
> melting temperature - or greater. To obtain melting temperature,
> one needs the external temperature of approximately 2,700 degrees
> (F) with enough time for the metal to convert from a solid to a
> liquid.
>
> The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher temperature
> - such as Thermite - approximately 4,000 degrees (F). All the jet
> fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel -
> under any conditions.
>
> The center-section supporting structure of the buildings broke apart
> as it collapsed. An argument for 'mechanical energy transmission'
> doesn't hold up. It's not the same as hitting a nail with a
> sledge-hammer. A 'shattering' sledge-hammer would not carry the
> force to strike, deform and 'heat' a nail.
>
> The south WTC tower is most representative of the collapses. Remember
> that it lost it's "cap" - - therefore the energy from the structure
> above would - in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce
> a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the
> structure. In theory, the "cap" should have torn loose and
independently
> fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly
> simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue -
> vertically. The "cap" tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did
> not fall off; it collapsed - in "formation" - with the rest of the
> structure. The simultaneous "fall"
>
> of the two sections tells a story, by itself.
>
> The mechanical tilt of the "cap" should have relieved a major portion
> of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency
> for the immediate lower structure to "pancake;" as was witnessed.
>
> With the outer walls being vertically self-supporting, any interior
> dynamics would be hidden from view. Remember that the shattering
> of the outer walls followed the collapse of the building core.
>
> By all that's sensible, the individual floor "plates" might have
> been able to let go ("peeling" from around the columns and the outer
> walls), but - as a minimum - the lower (ground level) segments of
> the inner columns should have been left standing, somewhat vertically,
> like stray swizzle-sticks. Yet, clearly something major also happened
> at the very base of the building.
>
> Given that the lower columns were radically thicker steel, and
> obviously stronger, some of the columns should have still been
> standing - in some significant number. Yet, from the post-collapse
> photographs, the outer walls appeared to be the strongest vertical
> sections; which they were not. Yet, the lower outer walls were left
> standing; not the more massive "core" columns.
>
> Depending on the size descriptions of the "molten steel," available,
> the suggestion goes to the idea that there might have been 'over-kill'
> Thermite charges at the very bottom, guaranteeing the total vertical
> collapse. Strictly as a guess, one might estimate an eight-foot
> section abruptly melted down - or was taken down by Thermite "shape
> charges."
>
> In the videos & pictures of the collapsing segments, it is clear
> that the lower windows were exploding significantly below the
> collapsing section above. That could only be a "plunger" effect,
> expelling the air as the core collapsed - independently of the outer
> shell. In simple terms, those images represent the differential
> between gravity accelerating the core, versus the outer walls,
> resisting collapse, with their independent vertical support. As the
> core collapsed, the shell segments let go from the lateral forces,
> which they were not stressed for.
>
> An interesting effect is seen in many images of the collapse. As
> the entirety of the buildings' mass accelerates downward, the effect
> of "Bournili's Principle" is illustrated. A low pressure is created,
> causing the respective column of dust and smoke to be briefly sucked
> inward, above the collapsing structure.
>
> In the overall mechanics of such a collapse, the lowest floor would
> only have traveled the distance of the missing "basement" segment.
>
> [For the sake of argument, again, let's call that eight feet.] The
> lower floor would have traveled eight feet, then stopped. However,
> with that collapse (transmitted the full length of the core - to
> the very top of the building) the upper segment would experience
> an acceleration effect in the classic 'mass-times-acceleration'
> equation. Thus, with the impact and fire damage, at the top, the
> weakened and 'segmented' upper portion would be dynamically converted
> into a "plunger." Gravity did the rest.
>
> To keep such an operation simple, it's necessary to entertain the
> idea also that ONLY the base of the columns were rigged with Thermite
> charges. With enough induced force (collapse), the upper "core"
>
> column attachment joints could conceivably shear/shatter in a domino
> effect from the downward accelerating mass.
>
> Beyond the mechanics of the collapse, it should be noted that ANY
> mechanics which approach this description betray an extensive and
> remarkable engineering and operational feat; make no mistake about
> it. Such an effort couldn't possibly have come from the caves of
> Afghanistan!
>
> It's more than just "interesting" that nobody wants to go near the
> "coincidence" of the 7-WTC collapse, not even FEMA, in their WTC
> report. The video captures of 7-WTC display every characteristic
> of a commercial demolition collapse. Once again, the core of the
> building led the collapse of the outer walls.
>
> FEMA's association with the WTC should be instantly regarded in a
> jaundiced light - period. That statement is inspired by their
> "influenced" report on the Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City.
>
> The report was based on a blast crater of 28 feet. The photographic
> evidence shows an 18-foot crater; clearly far too small to account
> for the damage. The seismic data demonstrated two blasts, not one.
>
> The argument of the secondary "reflected" (echo) signal doesn't
> hold up, as the magnitude of a "reflected" signal would have been
> diminished, which it was not. Two seismic stations show identical
> timing between the blasts. A reflected" signal would have shown an
> increased time differential; between the close-in station, and the
> distant station (20 miles away).
>
> The one unexplained WTC issue is the continuing fire from below the
> collapsed debris. That was NOT jet fuel, just by virtue of the smoke
> color. Any residual liquid fuel would have been burned or dispersed
> - essentially evaporated, on the way down. There would not have
> been enough remaining liquid fuel to account for the subterranean
> temperatures; jet fuel doesn't "smolder." By all evidence, and
> pragmatic thinking, the smoke was smoldering debris and escaping
> residual heat. BUT the post-collapse temperatures were radically
> too high to be just smoldering "building debris;" even with any
> remaining jet fuel being factored. However, the residual heat from
> the required Thermite charges would account for the temperatures
> recorded.
>
> Again, this presentation is speculation. I don't have "hard"
>
> evidence. Yet, the description above goes to the core issue, that
> the "official" account is far too inadequate.
>
> As to "Motivation" -
>
> Documented history leaves no doubt that the Afghan war was pre-planned,
> by approximately a year. The money trail instantly answers the "que
> bono" question - who benefits? The cover-ups serve to certify the
> remaining conclusions. The history leading to the Iraq War leaves
> not one, but two invasions as nothing less than international War
> Crimes. The Geneva Conventions and the binding effect of the U.N.
> Charter leave no doubt.
>
> The Viet Nam War leaves a pre-existing model of the cold-blooded
> Texas "corporate" greed. Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and
> Iraq - always with the uninterrupted theme of "blood-for-oil." Any
> denials are wasted energy; the documentation is far to clear.
>
> Given the billions - if not trillions - in profit potential and the
> indicators of history - before and after 9-11 - the above account
> should NOT be taken - or dismissed - as mere "Conspiracy Theory."
>
> Yet there is the usual expected question, "WHY should ANYBODY buy
> into this rubbish?" Because there is NO "theory" associated with
> the non-investigations of the pandered "failures" which lead to
> 9-11. The "whistle-blowers" who tried to prevent what was to become
> 9-11 were hammered - and remain hammered. Their expertise is crucial,
> regardless of the alleged politics. Those facts alone point to the
> terrible truth of an obvious Inside-Job; whatever the relevant
> details may be - OR; not be.
>
> * * * * *
>
>
Great post. Stick around for all the disinfo people to argue you into the
ground with inane comments...
--
Can I borrow a feeling?
http://www.mp3.com/gortician
Bass for your anus:
http://www.mp3.com/manticore
http://www.mp3.com/meterversusyard
http://www.mp3.com/highc
http://www.mp3.com/measurerecords
"[The artwork of Andrew Penland] is REAL...what I mean by "real" is that
it made NEW THOUGHTS occur in my head, which would have never otherwise
occurred." --Full Force Frank
Harry MF Teasley
> Great post.
You mispelled "boring and unfunny".
> Stick around for all the disinfo people to argue you into the
> ground with inane comments...
You mispelled, "Hey, let's post this to AFU where everyone now wants to
ram an airplane up Napalm Deaf's ass and then form a conspiracy to make it
look like Naplam just has an overabundance of Boeing in his diet and died
during an attack of acute gastric distress."
Harry "have a nice day, don't visit again too soon" Teasley
--
"And why do we need to see your favorite quote after your name? Why do we
need a whole closing to-do? Get in and get out." -LF
Visit the AFU archives at www.urbanlegends.com
Filth Estate
news:bh9s4e$81c$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> In alt.folklore.urban Napalm Deaf <spamsp...@spam.spam> wrote:
>
>> Great post.
>
> You mispelled "boring and unfunny".
>
>> Stick around for all the disinfo people to argue you into the
>> ground with inane comments...
>
> You mispelled, "Hey, let's post this to AFU where everyone now wants
> to ram an airplane up Napalm Deaf's ass and then form a conspiracy to
> make it look like Naplam just has an overabundance of Boeing in his
> diet and died during an attack of acute gastric distress."
>
> Harry "have a nice day, don't visit again too soon" Teasley
>
Thanks for proving my point nicely, Harry.
King Azzy I
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:09:49 GMT, Napalm Deaf <spamsp...@spam.spam>
> wrote:
>
> <snip - o/t crossposted shit>
>
Who asked you to do this? Chill with the ego, monkeyboy. This is a
free forum.
King Azzy I
> > Yet there is the usual expected question, "WHY should ANYBODY buy
> > into this rubbish?" Because there is NO "theory" associated with
> > the non-investigations of the pandered "failures" which lead to
> > 9-11. The "whistle-blowers" who tried to prevent what was to become
> > 9-11 were hammered - and remain hammered. Their expertise is crucial,
> > regardless of the alleged politics. Those facts alone point to the
> > terrible truth of an obvious Inside-Job; whatever the relevant
> > details may be - OR; not be.
> >
> > * * * * *
> >
> >
>
> Great post. Stick around for all the disinfo people to argue you into the
> ground with inane comments...
>
Hey Gortican--
1) You are brain damaged and morally retarded to quote a 300 line
article with just two lines of non-comments to make.
2) What happened to Flight 77?
Lorrill Buyens
<spamsp...@spam.spam> stubbed their toe on a rock and hollered:
>Was 9-11 a more complex version of Operation Northwoods? If so, what
>happened to the passengers?
Maybe they sprouted wings and flew off to La-La Land. Maybe little
green men abducted 'em. Maybe they spontaneously combusted.
(followups set: sci.skeptic)
--
"No collection of individuals is less vindictive than
an audience at amateur theatricals."
- P. G. Wodehouse, _The Intrusion of Jimmy_
Blue Coast Wolf
> anon...@nyx10.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote in
> news:10606460...@irys.nyx.net:
>>Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of a
>>steel-framed building, allegedly from fire.
Even if true, so what? It was also the first time a steel-framed
building that large had been subjected to a fire that powerful, so what
if it was the first? (Personally, I doubt it was.)
>>The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher temperature
>>- such as Thermite - approximately 4,000 degrees (F). All the jet
>>fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel -
>>under any conditions.
And yet, strangely enough, coal (or coke) will.
Even if it's true that the airline fuel couldn't, by itself, have
produced sufficient heat to cause the buildings to collapse (which I
doubt), you haven't ruled out the possibility that other materials in
the building caught fire and might well have produced such heat.
[remainder of long post snipped]
Hit1Hard
> Napalm Deaf wrote:
> > anon...@nyx10.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote in
> > news:10606460...@irys.nyx.net:
>
> >>Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of a
> >>steel-framed building, allegedly from fire.
>
> Even if true, so what? It was also the first time a steel-framed
> building that large had been subjected to a fire that powerful, so what
> if it was the first? (Personally, I doubt it was.)
You doubt a lot, to have such confined opinions.
> >>The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher
> >>temperature - such as Thermite - approximately 4,000 degrees (F).
> >>All the jet fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce
> >>molten steel - under any conditions.
>
> And yet, strangely enough, coal (or coke) will.
Hmmm, I missed someone shoveling coal (or coke) into the fuel tanks last
time I flew in a plane.. (Apples and Oranges.)
> Even if it's true that the airline fuel couldn't, by itself, have
> produced sufficient heat to cause the buildings to collapse (which I
> doubt)
What do you doubt, that it could, or that it couldn't?
>, you haven't ruled out the possibility that other materials in
> the building caught fire and might well have produced such heat.
Might? And secondly.. Produced heat in what amounts for how long?
Then you still have to explain why one building that is hit first face on
with all fuel entering the building falls _after_ the building that
is hit second, and (as the pictures proof) had most fuel exiting the building thru
the closest side..
--
Hit1Hard
An Osho Zen Tarot rated email :
Courage
Major Arcana VIII
http://www.osho.com/magazine/tarot/TarotCardNew.cfm?All=Yes&Nr=09
http://www.osho.com/magazine/tarot/picCards/zen009Courage.jpg
Now those people were regarded as madmen or lunatics and criminals or
whatever, but of course they were the only sane people around. --Noam
Chomsky, (From a debate between Chomsky and Foucault), 1971
<Spam Shredder Block>
ct2 8pt tabIndex 1 (some lates) (no lates) (collection) Poor selected>P
oor (bankruptcy) 275 Requested: webbot bot=Validation B-Value-Required=
<Spam Shredder Block>
Clintok
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:01:28 -0400, Blue Coast Wolf wrote:
>
> > Napalm Deaf wrote:
> > > anon...@nyx10.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote in
> > > news:10606460...@irys.nyx.net:
>
> > >>Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of a
> > >>steel-framed building, allegedly from fire.
> >
> > Even if true, so what? It was also the first time a steel-framed
> > building that large had been subjected to a fire that powerful, so what
> > if it was the first? (Personally, I doubt it was.)
Allegedly from fire ? What about the impact of a plane going 500 MPH ?
Doesn't that add in somehow ? I am not an engineer, but it seems as
though all factors would add up to a sum which includes more than
fire.
Strangle More Gay Priests
news:25a17cc1.03082...@posting.google.com:
If they say that, then they have to admit there was no reasonable cause
for WTC 7 to collapse...
Gary G. Taylor
> cmcc...@email.com (Clintok) wrote in
> news:25a17cc1.03082...@posting.google.com:
>
>> Hit1Hard <Hit.On...@iaehv.nl> wrote in message
>> news:<bibntq$ekig$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:01:28 -0400, Blue Coast Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> > Napalm Deaf wrote:
>>> > > anon...@nyx10.nyx.net (Name withheld by request) wrote in
>>> > > news:10606460...@irys.nyx.net:
>>>
>>> > >>Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of a
>>> > >>steel-framed building, allegedly from fire.
>>> >
>>> > Even if true, so what? It was also the first time a steel-framed
>>> > building that large had been subjected to a fire that powerful, so
>>> > what if it was the first? (Personally, I doubt it was.)
>>
>> Allegedly from fire ? What about the impact of a plane going 500 MPH ?
>> Doesn't that add in somehow ? I am not an engineer, but it seems as
>> though all factors would add up to a sum which includes more than
>> fire.
>>
>
> If they say that, then they have to admit there was no reasonable cause
> for WTC 7 to collapse...
>
There was a NOVA program on PBS which went into the matter fully.
Briefly: Supports of the towers consisted of the outside oval "window
skeleton" (yes, it was part of the supporting structure) and columns in the
center core. Steel floor beams went from center core to outside skeleton,
held in place with bolts. Floor beams were coated with fire-retardant
material. The extreme force of the blast stripped the fire retardant from
the beams, which allowed them to buckle in the intense heat; this in turn
sheared off the anchoring bolts. The buildings would have survived both
hits otherwise.
--
Gary G. Taylor * Rialto, CA
gary at cdfound dot org / http:// geetee dot cdfound dot org
"The two most abundant things in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." --Harlan Ellison