Controlled demolition -- outline of the proof
Jerry Russell
the proof of controlled demolition to the "student". Of course that
was because I couldn't figure out how to do it. This morning, I knew
the answer. Perhaps it came to me in a dream.
Suppose that a building's structure becomes unsound at one level, and
the upper stories begin to collapse on the lower stories. The
acceleration of the upper stories downward, is determined by the force
of gravity working downwards, against the force exerted upwards by the
remaining structure below. The entire gravitational potential energy
of the upper stories cannot possibly be converted entirely into
downwards kinetic energy, because much of it must be dissipated in the
process of breaking up the concrete and steel structure below. As the
collapse continues, the concrete and steel must be broken into finer
and finer pieces to facilitate the increasing speed of the upper
stories, and yet this requires more and more energy for each foot of
downward motion. The speed must reach approximately an equilibrium at
some point.
Calculating this equilibrium speed should be a fairly straightforward
issue, based on the energy required to pulverize concrete and smash
welded joints to the observed level of destruction, and the rate at
which gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy
and then dissipated in the concrete and steel structure.
In a controlled demolition, the integrity of the structure is
destroyed simultaneously at multiple points, so each section is able
to begin accelerating independently towards the ground. This removes
support from the upper portions of the building much more quickly, so
that they are able to achieve an acceleration rate which is much
closer to 10 meters/sec/sec, the acceleration of an unrestrained
object falling to earth. The gravitational potential energy of the
building is converted very efficiently into kinetic energy, which is
then available for crushing and pulverizing activity as the entire
mass strikes the earth.
So we can determine whether the collapse was a controlled demolition
or an accident, by measuring the rate of acceleration of the upward
stories towards the ground, and the total amount of time required for
the top of the building to reach the ground.
John C. Randolph
Jerry Russell wrote:
>
> Yesterday in my Usenet post (and at my web page) I said I would leave
> the proof of controlled demolition to the "student". Of course that
> was because I couldn't figure out how to do it. This morning, I knew
> the answer. Perhaps it came to me in a dream.
It sure didn't come to you from watching the video of the towers
collapsing, you whacko.
Let me just point something out to you, if it can get through your
tinfoil hat: a controlled demolition is a hell of a lot of work.
Hundreds of charges have to be placed, they have to be detonated in a
carefully-controlled sequence, and the structure has to be mechanically
weakened in strategic points. In other words, it's just like a massive
construction project.
Now, how do you propose this work was done without any of the thousands
of people who worked in that building noticing? (Keep in mind, that the
building was routinely inspected by structural engineers, who were some
of the people who were killed on sept. 11. Do you propose that they
were in on the conspiracy, or were they just not able to spot a shaped
charge on every major structural member?)
-jcr
Mr.Foo
> Suppose that a building's structure becomes unsound at one level, and
> the upper stories begin to collapse on the lower stories. The
> acceleration of the upper stories downward, is determined by the force
> of gravity working downwards, against the force exerted upwards by the
> remaining structure below. The entire gravitational potential energy
> of the upper stories cannot possibly be converted entirely into
> downwards kinetic energy, because much of it must be dissipated in the
> process of breaking up the concrete and steel structure below. As the
> collapse continues, the concrete and steel must be broken into finer
> and finer pieces to facilitate the increasing speed of the upper
> stories, and yet this requires more and more energy for each foot of
> downward motion. The speed must reach approximately an equilibrium at
> some point.
It would seem some clarification is necessary. Each floor of either of
the twin towers could weigh somewhere in the area between 10 to 20
tons of mostly steel exterior and cement and plaster interior. There
were 4 main support columns for each tower, which gave it it's sqare
shape. The support beam's load capacity was supplemented by the
fibrous exterior casing. Like stick of cellery, it was this
distribution of weight between interior and interior strucures that
not only gave te necessary rigidity to the towers so as to support the
weight of each floor, but also the needed sway so that the tower's
massive wind surface would not topple the towers. Another bonus to
having only 4 suport columns on the corners of the buildings was not
having to waste office space by working around bulky support columns
right in the middle of the room.
Now since the weight was evenly distributed between exterior and
interior support structures, when the planes impacted the tower, a
large portion of the exterior support was lost. The buildings were
designed so that in the event that exterior support was lessened or
lost, the interior support could still hold up the floors above the
site of impact. The melting temperature of Structural Steel is
somewhere in the range of 900-1300 degrees fahreneit. Burning jetfuel
does not burn that hot. But steel absorbs heat exceptionally well, and
the jet fuel, massive in it's cumulative heat, stuck to the steel,
amplifying the already intense heat on the beams.
Take the south tower, for example. The plane impacted the 86th floor
of the 110 floor building. If each floor were to weigh the minimal 10
tons, that is 240 tons of steel and cement resting on near molten
metal. If you've ever dealt with molten metals, you'd know they are
*very* maluable(to various degrees with different metals). And
maluable is not term usually associated with sructural integrity.
Now, which is more likely to move the other: ten tons standing 85
stories in the air, or 240 tons falling from 86 to 110 stories up?
Obviously, the floor below will be moved. And moved with the uper
floors. Now, there are 87 floors falling, weighing roughly 250 tons,
and the floor below STILL weighs 10 tons, so will the process repeat?
Obviously yes. The weight falling grew exponentially with each floor
that fell, wheras the floor below stayed the same weight. 10 tons
standing still simply cannot resist the ever grownig downward motion
of the above floors. Hence the collapse.
The exact same principal is used in proffessional demolitions, which
is why the two seem so similar. This is only because the laws of
physics apply ALWAYS, no matter what. Proffessional demolitionists use
the techniques they use because they are well aware of this, and so
they utilize that knowlage to level a building the easiest and safest
way possible under the laws of physics of this planet. The terrorists
seemed to know this too, but we'll obviously never know for certain.
Demolitionists, however are far more maticulous, and as was said in
message 2, it requires much time to plant the shaped charges in a
place calculated over and over again to insure it's the best possible
place to do so. Shaped carges are very expensive, and far less
powerful than what was used to level the Twin Towers. The
Demolitionists can afford to use the low grade ordinance because as
said earlier, they're so meticulous, but moreover they have time, and
should they fail thefirst time, they can try again. The terrorists
obviously did not have this luxury.
Mr.Foo
> Suppose that a building's structure becomes unsound at one level, and
> the upper stories begin to collapse on the lower stories. The
> acceleration of the upper stories downward, is determined by the force
> of gravity working downwards, against the force exerted upwards by the
> remaining structure below. The entire gravitational potential energy
> of the upper stories cannot possibly be converted entirely into
> downwards kinetic energy, because much of it must be dissipated in the
> process of breaking up the concrete and steel structure below. As the
> collapse continues, the concrete and steel must be broken into finer
> and finer pieces to facilitate the increasing speed of the upper
> stories, and yet this requires more and more energy for each foot of
> downward motion. The speed must reach approximately an equilibrium at
> some point.
It would seem some clarification is necessary. Each floor of either of
Geeman
Steel absorbs heat, but it quickly CONDUCTS it throughout every
other piece of steel it's attached to.
The steel structure of the Towers (and 7WTC) should have served
as giant heatsinks, dissipating the heat.
It was a state-of-the-art demolition job, requiring weeks or months
of nightly "Maintenance crews" working like ants.
How often did workers smell fresh paint?
Were areas often boarded up or cordoned off?
"WORK IN PROGRESS"
Steel melts at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F)
This link is on my site:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
From the above link:
"Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.
Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's
collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only
black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind,
that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something
was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke.
A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for
oxygen -- or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).
But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel, see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only
bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
-- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).
I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate:
you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder
parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up.
If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup
to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very
fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will
quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.
Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north
tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a
blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of
the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts
should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were
heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would
be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry
that much fuel?
Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "Fire reaches 800
[degrees] C -- hot enough to melt steel floor supports."
That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century,
steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st
Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).
This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the
temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of
course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark
skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and
relevant temperatures discussed at
http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)
But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold,
and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise,
"Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit
himself to be misquoted in a global publication?
Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental
engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and
structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or
melted the structural elements -- floor trusses and columns -- so that
they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the
collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could
melt steel -- though he does not venture a specific temperature for
the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).
I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to
doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this
essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own
righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must
not become another casualty on America's skyline.
In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack
of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead
of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted
of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts
(see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm ,
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and
http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html )."
Mr.Foo
> collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only
> black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind,
> that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something
> was still burning inefficiently,
Thusly explaining why the tower sites were burning until NOVEMBER.
Even while deprived of Oxygen and covered by debris, it still burned.
To burn for 2 months with no additional fuel or oxygen is amazing.
Especially since, as you say, Jet fuel can't burn for 2 months. Like
it did.
Freeman
MR FOO! (Sorry to butt in folks.) I wrote a reply to your statements
of a couple of months ago. Did you notice it? I worked QUITE HARD on
it! And here it is again:-
---------------------------
shellsh...@cs.com (Mr.Foo) wrote in message news:<11c31c2a.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> gedu...@hotmail.com (Geeman) wrote in message news:<3635337f.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > On a more serious note, the US cabal will sooner or later have to
> > stage another actual terrorist attack, if it is to maintain any
> > credibility for its perpetual terror-warnings.
>
> IF the US "cabal"(Which you spelled wrong) is and/or was so determined
> to get support on this war on terror, why not make the Airbus crash in
> october a terrorist attack?
It very probably was. Same method, same time of day, two-monthly
anniversary PLUS ONE DAY, Nov. 12, of the WTC attack. Evidently it
was intended as a "brush up" of the memory of that attack. Why wasn't
it on Nov. 11 then? This date was both a Sunday and Remembrance Day.
Perhaps it went against the Christian and/or traditionalist
sensibilities of some cabal members (hypocritical as that may have
been of them), or perhaps they decided it just wasn't expedient to do
it on such a day.
The plane came down precisely on the narrow spit of land holding
Queens. I imagine a remote-control bomb or other device could have
been triggered at this point. A crash on Queen's would brush up the
horror of the WTC collapse in which 350 were killed -- many of them
apparently Queens residents.
The "other side" in the current maelstrom (call them for the sake of
argument the Democrats) maybe hoped to deal with this privately, i.e.
without blowing the whole very damaging conspiracy out into the open,
and issued instructions for it to be publicly put down to an accident,
a fault in the design etc. (Of course this is speculation on my
part.)
According to you, the US clearly has the
> resources, motivation, and desire to make attacks like the september
> 11th attacks. So why not? The Airbus crashed into a residential area
> of Queens. Woulnd't that be easily made to highlight Al Qaeda's
> savegery? Furthermore to that point, If the US wanted to make the
> attacks on 9/11 motivate the people more, why not attack something far
> more endearing to the US people, Like the Statue of Liberty, or the
> Whitehouse, or the Washington Monument in addition to the WTC?
If they killed a large number of businessmen and women, this would
provoke a deeper, MORE HUMAN, outrage than atacking inanimate symbols,
an energy to be usefully employed as background for world blitzkrieg
(i.e. world empire-building) and the suppression of the inconvenient
constitution at home. One plane did feint at the White House, but
changed course to hit the Pentagon:
And Why
> the Pentagon, if the US did this to become a military coup of the
> world's power base?
The plane strike at the Pentagon destroyed the south wing, which had
(My God! What lucky chance!) recenly been evacuated for "renovation".
Clearly the military weren't prepared to sacrifice their top brass the
way 6000 (was it 3000? Or 12000?) business people were at the WTC.
And Why just warn the people?
Sorry this question isn't clear to me. Is it mistyped?
If the US wants to
> do something like the WTC attacks, why the hell not go about
> distributing anthrax or smallpox or the plague on an even wider scale?
The more crimes are committed, the more "traces" they leave. Even the
FBI and police, overawed and repressed by Directives From Above, must
"crack the case" eventually, with such a mass of data. And the bulk
of the American public will see it too.
Then too, they want something left at the end of the day to tyrannize
over; they don't want to thwart themselves by knocking down all the
buildings and killing all the people.
But I agree. The WTC and anthrax attacks may well prove insufficient
to carry through a design of world empire run by an American emperor
(or whatever). Already the Europeans are starting to flake out on
them. What next, the Americans? Some real supplements will have to
be launched by them. A snuff movie of an American journalist seems
only the thinnest of "topping up" in this respect.
> They could do it, the people of the US would be enfuriated and this
> would further the proportes causes of the US's big plot. Why Not? If
> that is their motivation, then why not do even worse things within a
> closer amount of time to the WTC? It makes no sense. I'm sure now in
> response, you'll probably just sling mud at me as oposed to a real,
> reasonable counter point, But I'm perfectly fine with that. Enjoy.
I trust, Sir, that I remain your polite and sincere correspondent,
Freeman
www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
*************************
PS: "Cabal" (which is in fact spelled correctly, and means covert
intra-government group) was an acronym of the names of the first cabal
(in Charles II's government), arranged so as to make a pun on "qabala"
(Hebrew for a group privy to esoteric knowledge, which cabals
certainly are in a somewhat different sense.
Rebecky
This explains the complaint of the USFE (US Fire Engineers), articles
in the USFE journal, articles in the NY Daily News and NY Times. The
CBS documentary of a French journalist's video of Engine 7 (Fr
journalist was doing a documentary on NY firefighters) shows that when
the crew, an explosives expert team, enters the lobby, first on the
scene, their initial impression is that the lobby looks as if it has
been hit by a concussive explosive type of device unrelated to the jet
fuel fire 80 stories above?
Question: Sakher "Rocky" Hammad was recently released on bail in
Memphis (drivers license fraud ring) At the time of his arrest, he
was carrying a pass to the WTC for 9/5, and he stated in court that he
and his cousin (also in the fraud ring) were working in the basement
and garage of the WTC, ostensibly on the sprinkler system, a few days
before the event. Would 2 or 3 days access to the lower levels of the
WTC have been sufficient to plant necessary charges? What kind of
experience or training would such a crew require?
Rebecky
je...@regena.com (Jerry Russell) wrote in message news:<347c52b9.02032...@posting.google.com>...
Max
> Interesting article.
>
> This explains the complaint of the USFE (US Fire Engineers), articles
> in the USFE journal, articles in the NY Daily News and NY Times. The
> CBS documentary of a French journalist's video of Engine 7 (Fr
> journalist was doing a documentary on NY firefighters) shows that when
> the crew, an explosives expert team,
They weren't an "explosives expert team".
> enters the lobby, first on the
> scene,
They weren't the "first on the scene".
> their initial impression is that the lobby looks as if it has
> been hit by a concussive explosive type of device unrelated to the jet
> fuel fire 80 stories above?
And exactly where is this "initial impression" recorded?
> Question: Sakher "Rocky" Hammad was recently released on bail in
> Memphis (drivers license fraud ring) At the time of his arrest, he
> was carrying a pass to the WTC for 9/5, and he stated in court that he
> and his cousin (also in the fraud ring) were working in the basement
> and garage of the WTC, ostensibly on the sprinkler system, a few days
> before the event. Would 2 or 3 days access to the lower levels of the
> WTC have been sufficient to plant necessary charges? What kind of
> experience or training would such a crew require?
More than a plumber. BTW, how did the "charges" go off and only damage the windows?
Mr.Foo
> argument the Democrats) maybe hoped to deal with this privately, i.e.
> without blowing the whole very damaging conspiracy out into the open,
> and issued instructions for it to be publicly put down to an accident,
> a fault in the design etc. (Of course this is speculation on my
> part.)
note, to bring a plane down at that altitude in a way so as to force
it (or it's debris) to the ground without any kind of guidance would
require the bomb to remove the pilots(who were recorded talking on the
recovered black box until the moment of impact)and even in that
situation the pane would still have glided for at least two or three
miles before finally impacting, or a bomb that detonated the fuel
reserves in both fuselages, both of which were recovered intact.
>
> If they killed a large number of businessmen and women, this would
> provoke a deeper, MORE HUMAN, outrage than atacking inanimate symbols,
> an energy to be usefully employed as background for world blitzkrieg
> (i.e. world empire-building) and the suppression of the inconvenient
> constitution at home
Sound logic, I mus grant you that. But if these attacks were
orchestrated by the Government, then it certainly would not require
much more effort, and like I said "In ADDITION to the WTC" would
provide not only the fury from busness men and women who were involved
and ther families ad so on, but destruction of monuments would involve
ALL Americans, as te monuments I gave expamles of and more are more a
part of the American heart as a whole than the WTC was to anyone
working there.
One plane did feint at the White House, but
> changed course to hit the Pentagon:
But f the military and te government were behind it,, it would be just
as easy to hit both, and the first family was conveniently away from
their home.
>
> And Why
> > the Pentagon, if the US did this to become a military coup of the
> > world's power base?
>
> The plane strike at the Pentagon destroyed the south wing, which had
> (My God! What lucky chance!) recenly been evacuated for "renovation".
> Clearly the military weren't prepared to sacrifice their top brass the
> way 6000 (was it 3000? Or 12000?) business people were at the WTC.
>
Yes, it does seem convenient, but the side of the Pentagn that was
struck was the side facing immedietely northeast, where the plane was
coming from.
> And Why just warn the people?
>
> Sorry this question isn't clear to me. Is it mistyped?
Ok, 'Why just *warn* the people, when you could unite them in fear
that was centered around real threats?"
>
> I trust, Sir, that I remain your polite and sincere correspondent,
I apreciate your civility.
> Freeman
> www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
>
> *************************
> PS: "Cabal" (which is in fact spelled correctly, and means covert
> intra-government group) was an acronym of the names of the first cabal
> (in Charles II's government), arranged so as to make a pun on "qabala"
> (Hebrew for a group privy to esoteric knowledge, which cabals
> certainly are in a somewhat different sense.
Origialy spelled QABAL, as one of the advisors' name(whch began with a
Q)
Rebecky
petitioning Congress, accusing NY of concealing evidence by the quick
recycling of critical steel beams, the civil engineers of the Nat'l
Institute now have access to over 60 steel beams they found in salvage
yards which had not been melted down and recycled. On 4/16, they were
particularly happy to report finding an intact beam that, according to
the numbers stamped on it, went from floor 101 to 103. Report
pending. These folks are not "conspiratorial", they just want to know
WHY the towers collapsed when, according to most calculations, they
should not have.
Now to your questions:
(1) This Saker "Rocky" Hammad thing has me ready to scream; I'm dead
ended, out of ideas to research, and can't think of any plausible
theory to explain the known data.
I can't find ANY reliable account of why Sakher and his cousin were in
the garage and lower level basement of the WTC on 9/5 and 9/6,
although per Rocky's WTC pass and his court testimony and a letter
from his "boss", they undisputably were "working" in the WTC on those
dates.
First day in court, Rocky says he and his cousin were repairing the
sprinkler system. The business card he had with him was "Magic Heating
and Air -- call Rocky at xxxxxx". The card advertised residential
counter-top installation and repair, residential plumbing and air
conditioner service. Investigative journalist calls to the number
listed got a voice message: "Rocky's voice mail is full". Traces to
the address listed on the card showed this to be the residence of
Sakher Hammad and several others with Arabic names.
Second time in court, 3/28/02, reported in only two Memphis news
articles I could find, he is released on bail with no objection from
the DA. His father, Peter Hansen, reportedly an engineer for the City
of New York who immigrated from Jordan 15 years ago, who now lives on
Staten Island, brought a letter from Rocky's "boss", a Sergei Denko of
Denko Mechanical Ltd. (not Magic Plumbing). In phone calls to the
number listed, not published in the news articles, Mr. Sergei Denko
verified that Rocky and his cousin (also arrested in the Memphis scam)
were working in the WTC garage and lower level basement "for a couple
of days" in early September -- no further explanation (in the news
articles). The Port Authority has no record, and claims he must have
been hired by a tenant in the building (??? -- for the sprinkler
system??). One earlier article reported that Rocky was close to his
mother, no name given, who is still a resident of Gaza/Jordan.
Frustrated, I ran my own amateur trace over the net -- the only Denko
Mechanical I could find was a refrigeration company in Manitoba. I
could find no Sergei Denko in the US or Canada. Mr. Hansen admitted
in court he did not see his son often -- Mr. Hansen lives on Staten
Island and Rocky lives in Brooklyn at an address I found registered to
14 others with Arabic names; Rocky also was listed at a residence in
Memphis. His car and another, with NY tags, had driven down from New
York to Memphis the day of their arrest (in February) and were in the
process of obtaining four fake drivers licenses for Arabic aliens at
the time of arrest. Per my amateur trace, his father couldn't have
lived at the Staten Island residence for more than a year because the
address was registered to someone else in 2001 who was, until 2001,
active in the Staten Island community. Mr. Hansen testified he made
Rocky's $250,000 bail by second mortgaging his home.
And I keep remembering how OSB said he didn't know himself the date of
the attack until the previous Thursday -- Sept 6.
As for the rest of your questions:
(2) My sources are basic internet search: the CBS documentary
transcripts and transcripts from the Naudet video, and articles cited
in the NY Times, NY Daily News (January 4, 2002), and USFE magazine,
most of which feature quotations by Bill Manning of the USFE (a name
to use if you're using a search engine). The articles I've read note
Chief Pfeiffer's team as having explosive experts, which is why they
had been sent to a (false alarm) possible gasoline leak (minutes
before the first plane hit). I recall more than one article stating
they were among the first to arrive and I presumed that was a
universally accepted fact. Is it not?
(3) In all fairness, in checking further (I have a box full of printed
articles), witnesses in the lobby DID report seeing a fireball come
from the freight elevator shaft, and that was the source of the two
"burning bodies" encountered by Naudet when he entered the lobby -- he
decided not to film anything so gruesome. The lobby, then, is clearly
not as strong a pro-bomb argument as I had first believed, and I think
a couple of conspiratorial sites exaggerated the initial reports of
the firemen saying, "it looked like a bomb exploded in the lobby".
(3) Most of the reasonable evidence for "bomb" or "detonation"
theories comes from an engineering standpoint, as in the beginning of
this thread -- of the articles I've been able to find on the net,
about 50% of them don't believe the jet fuel fire and plane crash were
enough to collapse the buildings. It certainly surprised the firemen
on the scene -- other high rises have withstood intense upper level
fires for 3 and 4 hours. Also they cite problems with the type of
debris found and the manner in which the buildings collapsed, and the
Tower 7 problem. There is not enough evidence to PROVE a bomb, but
there is enough doubt to warrant a THOROUGH investigation.
??? IF Sakher(a) Hammad and his cousin were in the WTC illegitimately
on 9/5 and 9/6, what MIGHT they have done? You tell me -- I'm still
hunting.
Rebecky
age...@justicemail.com (Max) wrote in message news:<6efdc66c.02041...@posting.google.com>...
Redneck
"Mr.Foo" wrote:
You're wasting your time here. Check out his site and you will see he
is gleaning all sorts of news stories and 'evidence' together that fits his
conspiracy themes (making too much of discrepencies from alternate news
sources), and ignoring any critical questions that don't fit. You comment
on the malleability of heated steel hits one central point: Geeman insists
that the steel could not have possibly been heated high enough to melt, but
he will not in any case whatsoever consider that steel rapidly loses
strength as it is heated. He sites explosions on the ground before the
collapse as evidence of charges, but will not answer where the fuselage of
the plane that hit the south tower fell (doesn't care 'cuz it does not fit
his 'evidence'). And you bring up yet another good point: How should the
buildings have collapsed, if not mostly straight down?
Here is a better conspiracy question: Who is financing Geeman? That is
one hell of a website he has put together....
Assaf
> WHY the towers collapsed when, according to most calculations, they
> should not have.
I just want to remark something about "most calculations". As a
working physicist I have long since learned that theoretical
calculations are often doubtful thing. How exactly do you intend
on answering such a terribly complicated question as whether, given
some conditions of impact, the twin towers should collapse or not?
We are talking about probably one of the most complex buildings in
the world. It takes painful calculations just to, say, determine
the behaviour of the wind around a plane in a wind tunnel using
naviers stokes equations or some similar method - I can't even begin
to imagine the complexity of your problem.
Regards,
Assaf.
Max
> First, good news -- from the USFE and Firehouse.Com site: after
> petitioning Congress, accusing NY of concealing evidence by the quick
> recycling of critical steel beams, the civil engineers of the Nat'l
> Institute now have access to over 60 steel beams they found in salvage
> yards which had not been melted down and recycled. On 4/16, they were
> particularly happy to report finding an intact beam that, according to
> the numbers stamped on it, went from floor 101 to 103. Report
> pending. These folks are not "conspiratorial", they just want to know
> WHY the towers collapsed when, according to most calculations, they
> should not have.
Hate to break this to you, but who do you think saved those beams?
And having NIST look at them was always the plan. Nothing the USFE,
etc did has changed anything.
> Now to your questions:
>
> (1) This Saker "Rocky" Hammad thing has me ready to scream; I'm dead
> ended, out of ideas to research, and can't think of any plausible
> theory to explain the known data.
It isn't that hard.
> I can't find ANY reliable account of why Sakher and his cousin were in
> the garage and lower level basement of the WTC on 9/5 and 9/6,
> although per Rocky's WTC pass and his court testimony and a letter
> from his "boss", they undisputably were "working" in the WTC on those
> dates.
So you think Denko was lying and they weren't working for him?
> First day in court, Rocky says he and his cousin were repairing the
> sprinkler system. The business card he had with him was "Magic Heating
> and Air -- call Rocky at xxxxxx". The card advertised residential
> counter-top installation and repair, residential plumbing and air
> conditioner service. Investigative journalist calls to the number
> listed got a voice message: "Rocky's voice mail is full". Traces to
> the address listed on the card showed this to be the residence of
> Sakher Hammad and several others with Arabic names.
And what would you expect? Hammad hadn't been home in quite a while,
he apparently did have a business, and apparently he did work for
other people. Check the address with the NYC tax assessor's office.
I'll bet it's an apartment house. The others had different phone
numbers, didn't they?
> Second time in court, 3/28/02, reported in only two Memphis news
> articles I could find, he is released on bail with no objection from
> the DA. His father, Peter Hansen, reportedly an engineer for the City
> of New York who immigrated from Jordan 15 years ago, who now lives on
> Staten Island, brought a letter from Rocky's "boss", a Sergei Denko of
> Denko Mechanical Ltd. (not Magic Plumbing). In phone calls to the
> number listed, not published in the news articles, Mr. Sergei Denko
> verified that Rocky and his cousin (also arrested in the Memphis scam)
> were working in the WTC garage and lower level basement "for a couple
> of days" in early September -- no further explanation (in the news
> articles). The Port Authority has no record, and claims he must have
> been hired by a tenant in the building (??? -- for the sprinkler
> system??). One earlier article reported that Rocky was close to his
> mother, no name given, who is still a resident of Gaza/Jordan.
>
> Frustrated, I ran my own amateur trace over the net -- the only Denko
> Mechanical I could find was a refrigeration company in Manitoba.
You didn't look quite hard enough. The State of New York has a
business entity filing for Denko Mechanical, filed 2/8/2000.
Denko Mechanical, Inc.
232 E 26th Street
Ste 21
New York, New York 10010
Chief Operation Officer
Sergei Denko
same address
> I
> could find no Sergei Denko in the US or Canada.
That would be because his real name is Davidenko.
Sergei Davidenko
232 E. 26th Street
New York, NY 10010
And 232 E. 26th Street is a 5 story walkup, 22 apartments.
> Mr. Hansen admitted
> in court he did not see his son often -- Mr. Hansen lives on Staten
> Island and Rocky lives in Brooklyn at an address I found registered to
> 14 others with Arabic names;
You have heard of apartment buildings, haven't you. Did the other
people have the same phone number? Again, check with the NYC tax
assessors office. Bets are it's an apartment house.
> Rocky also was listed at a residence in
> Memphis. His car and another, with NY tags, had driven down from New
> York to Memphis the day of their arrest (in February) and were in the
> process of obtaining four fake drivers licenses for Arabic aliens at
> the time of arrest. Per my amateur trace, his father couldn't have
> lived at the Staten Island residence for more than a year because the
> address was registered to someone else in 2001 who was, until 2001,
> active in the Staten Island community. Mr. Hansen testified he made
> Rocky's $250,000 bail by second mortgaging his home.
Hansen owns a $305,000 house (tax evaluation) and Mid-Island Equities
holds the mortgage.
> And I keep remembering how OSB said he didn't know himself the date of
> the attack until the previous Thursday -- Sept 6.
>
> As for the rest of your questions:
>
> (2) My sources are basic internet search: the CBS documentary
> transcripts and transcripts from the Naudet video, and articles cited
> in the NY Times, NY Daily News (January 4, 2002), and USFE magazine,
> most of which feature quotations by Bill Manning of the USFE (a name
> to use if you're using a search engine). The articles I've read note
> Chief Pfeiffer's team as having explosive experts, which is why they
> had been sent to a (false alarm) possible gasoline leak (minutes
> before the first plane hit). I recall more than one article stating
> they were among the first to arrive and I presumed that was a
> universally accepted fact. Is it not?
I believe you said "the first to arrive", not one of the first.
> (3) In all fairness, in checking further (I have a box full of printed
> articles), witnesses in the lobby DID report seeing a fireball come
> from the freight elevator shaft, and that was the source of the two
> "burning bodies" encountered by Naudet when he entered the lobby -- he
> decided not to film anything so gruesome. The lobby, then, is clearly
> not as strong a pro-bomb argument as I had first believed, and I think
> a couple of conspiratorial sites exaggerated the initial reports of
> the firemen saying, "it looked like a bomb exploded in the lobby".
So, not knowing anything about what happened, what is a logical
description of the area around the trade center just after the planes
crashed?
> (3) Most of the reasonable evidence for "bomb" or "detonation"
> theories comes from an engineering standpoint, as in the beginning of
> this thread -- of the articles I've been able to find on the net,
> about 50% of them don't believe the jet fuel fire and plane crash were
> enough to collapse the buildings. It certainly surprised the firemen
> on the scene -- other high rises have withstood intense upper level
> fires for 3 and 4 hours.
But those buildings were not (a) built like the WTC towers and WTC7,
and (b) did not have accelerants added to the fire. You do know that
a good bit of the other WTC buildings collapsed too, don't you?
> Also they cite problems with the type of
> debris found
Those problems being?
>and the manner in which the buildings collapsed,
Which is what kind of problem?
>and the Tower 7 problem.
There is no "Tower 7 problem" except in the minds of conspiracy
theorists. It was constructed just like WTC1 and 2 and had hundreds
of gallons of diesel fuel in it. It burned for many hours before it's
steel beams gave way.
>There is not enough evidence to PROVE a bomb, but
>there is enough doubt to warrant a THOROUGH investigation.
How do you investigate when there is not enough evidence?
> ??? IF Sakher(a) Hammad and his cousin were in the WTC illegitimately
> on 9/5 and 9/6, what MIGHT they have done? You tell me -- I'm still
> hunting.
Worked on the sprinkler system?
Freeman
reports said that the SOUTH (south-west) wing of the Pentagon was
struck. Was this the wing that the military was EXPECTING to be
struck? This was the wing that was supposed to have been previously
evacuated, wasn't it?
Mr Foo, about the airliner that crashed on Queens, NYC:- the airliner
took a sudden STEEP dive onto the Queens spit, after the tail
"failed". It didn't make a shallow descent. Thus it is feasible that
it could have been intentionally "targeted by remote control" (a bomb
or other device designed to disable the tail). (If it had been a
shallow descent, it would have been practically impossible to bring it
down intentionally on a particular spot.) And consider the chances of
it hitting the Queen's spit by chance -- they must be pretty small;
much of the flight was over water, and the spit is of course narrow.
But I don't know about the black box recording.
Max
> Mr Foo, and other readers, about the Pentagon strike:- initial news
> reports said that the SOUTH (south-west) wing of the Pentagon was
> struck.
It was the "south-west" or southwesterly wing that was struck (more or less).
> Was this the wing that the military was EXPECTING to be
> struck? This was the wing that was supposed to have been previously
> evacuated, wasn't it?
No part of the Pentagon was evacuated prior to the crash of Flight 77.