4-Ton Girders: Blowing in the Wind?

Posted on December 20, 2010 by willyloman

Another David Chandler video

North Tower Exploding


About these ads

Filed under: 911 investigations, 911 Scholarly Articles

« »

67 Responses

  1. Jeffrey Orling, on June 7, 2012 at 9:09 pm said:

    David Chandler is a amateur and loving every minute as some sort david v goliath moment in the sun. He’s not a physicist and he’s mostly wrong when he speaks.

    Reply
    • Chris, on June 7, 2012 at 9:20 pm said:

      Do you believe that fire brought down WTC1,2 and 7? And why exactly is Chandler an amateur?

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 7, 2012 at 9:36 pm said:

        He’s an amateur because he is not a credentialed physicist and he’s wrong about many things he says.

        Fire did not bring down anything. All three towers collapsed from MULTIPLE causes which led to structural failures and then gravity driven collapses (like CD’s .. gravity takes them down).

        There is no evidence that there were explosives or mini nukes or DEWs. There is evidence… at least with the twins that there was buckling at the plane strike zone… and this means that there was a loss of yield strength of the columns (those remaining post plane strike). That loss likely did not come from office fires. But it could have come from jet fuel + office fires + few columns and relatively low FOS and perhaps placed devices such as thermate. But there is no evidence of such devices.

        Steel does not have to melt to lose strength. As steel is heated its strength is eroded. If the FOS was 1.8 and 25% of the core columns were lost from the plane strike, one could assume that the core lost 25% of its strength… not fatal but it pushed the FOS down perilously close to 1. Then add the loss of strength from weakening from heat and the columns could give way… 600° steel has lost 20% of its strength.

        Whatever caused the tops to collapse… the mass from the tops was sufficient to destroy all the floors below and the columns could do nothing to stop it.

        Open your eyes and some engineering and physics textbooks and study the structure itself. It’s all there:

        Observations
        Physics and Engineering (science)
        structure of the buildings

        Reply
        • Chris, on June 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm said:

          Have you by any chance been on both sides of this issue? And WTC7 fell because of plane strikes and office fires right? Yeah, I’ll “open my eyes” and soon as you open yours. Who the hell do you think you’re fooling? Not here buddy, wont work.

          Reply
        • willyloman, on June 7, 2012 at 10:29 pm said:

          “All three towers collapsed from MULTIPLE causes which led to structural failures and then gravity driven collapses (like CD’s .. gravity takes them down).” JO

          Gravity does not bring down buildings in controlled demolitions… it brings down broken, severed material that was structurally capable of RESISTING gravity until carefully place high explosive charges erase the structural integrity of the buildings so that gravity can bring down the MATERIAL.

          There are MANY cases where controlled demolitions go wrong and the building starts to fall but then a mistake in the high explosive charge demolition process leaves the structure still together and it just plops down, still primarily intact, and sits there. Gravity does not “take them down”

          “There is no evidence that there were explosives or mini nukes or DEWs.” JO

          Wrong. There is striking physical evidence of extremely high temperatures involved in the demolition of the Twin Towers. Not just the thermal imaging that shows extremely hot areas under the towers for up to 6 weeks after the demolition, but also, the RJ Lee Group in their 2004 Composition and Morphology Report found what would extrapolate to 100s of thousands of tons of melted steel and other materials that could NOT have been formed by office fires or jet fuel burning. These metals, according to the report, were formed by molten metal, instantly evaporated and suspended in the air under extremely high pressures.

          They termed it a “combustion event“

          Jet fuel cannot create that kind of heat and certainly not on such a massive scale (remember the tonnage).

          Also, there are MANY aspects of a controlled demolition that are present when observing the collapse of the Twin Towers and even more when viewing the collapse of Building 7.

          That is to say NOTHING of the 100s of EYE WITNESSES who reported hearing and seeing explosions as the buildings came down. And that is to say NOTHING of the fact that NIST edited the videos they had of the collapse of Building 7 so as to remove the sound of the explosions (which they admitted to by finally releasing the unedited versions)

          “Then add the loss of strength from weakening from heat and the columns could give way… 600° steel has lost 20% of its strength.” JO

          Wrong again. At 600 deg F CORE TEMPERATURE steel loses a good measure of it’s strength BUT, as NIST observed themselves, the ONLY tests they were able to perform on the steel salvaged from the Twin Towers, they only found a few areas where the paint tests showed a flash SURFACE temperature of around 600 degs.

          Engineering is a pretty well established science. There is a reason they use that kind of steel in high rise buildings. The design of the frame of the building and the conductive nature of the steel itself keeps the buildings from falling apart when there is an open fire (office fire) which typically gets to around 680 deg F. The reason being that the conductive nature of the steel and the design disperses the heat energy so that the frame never gets to a CORE temperature of 600+ degs. That’s why buildings don’t simply collapse when they catch on fire.

          “Whatever caused the tops to collapse… the mass from the tops was sufficient to destroy all the floors below and the columns could do nothing to stop it.” JO

          Yes, that is the mythology, isn’t it? But in fact, it is ridiculously naive. Let’s forget for a second that the Twin Towers had been there since 1971 and the bottom 3/4s of the building had held the “mass from the tops” for 30 years with no problem… let’s pretend that didn’t happen. Lets also forget that the bottom part of the building was undamaged, and the upper “mass” was crumbling WHICH WE ALL SAW WITH OUR OWN EYES… let’s forget that as well….

          Your “Crush Down Crush Up” hypothesis has been widely debunked many times in a variety of ways not the least of which is the simple rule of physics that says the tops would have moved through the path of least resistance rather than falling straight through the buildings all the way down then miraculously disintegrating on there own at the end.

          You want to insult readers here telling them to read physics books? Read the RJ Lee Report. Read the ENTIRE NIST reports (both of them) like I have. Study controlled demolition, study the process and the materials used like I have. Read the parts of the NIST report that admits several controlled demolition companies were ON SITE while the Twin Towers came down and read about their “Special Engineer” who told them why Building 7 came down then look up who he is (he’s a contractor hired by controlled demolition companies to run seismographs on adjacent buildings while they are demoing a building). Then look up the final two points of the NIST report, the points where they explain why they REFUSED to test for high explosive residue in their evidence collected from Ground Zero (because their adviser in that matter, the owner of one of the controlled demolition companies who were on site at the time of 9/11 and who ran the clean up of the site for 9 months afterward TOLD THEM IT WASN’T a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION)

          In short Jeffrey, you want an education on this, you let me know. You wish to insult readers here, take a hike.

          and while we are on the subject, I may have my own issues with some of Chandler’s work, but I notice you haven’t even ATTEMPTED to explain how 6 tons of steel columns were ejected at roughly 60mph and flew 300 feet from their original positions to end up embedded in the side of another building. You can sit there and say he’s “wrong” all you want, but please try to provide the physics of that little miracle if you will if you are going to dismiss his demonstration out of hand. Your friend Gravity doesn’t like 6 ton objects flying horizontally own their own accord. Gravity doesn’t work that way.

          Reply
          • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 8:31 am said:

            Excellent reply, Scott !

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 9:35 am said:

              Chris,

              If people have closed minds then it may be a waste of time trying to get them to open them. I believe that reason can prevail… it MUST prevail in the end. And it’s why I want a new thorough investigation. There are many unanswered questions. But you of course have all the answers….

              There WAS explosions in the sub basement and that DID produce the burning on the man who was in the elevator… a predictable result of ANY explosion.

              Look up the transformer explosion/fire in the sub basement in 1992.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 9:47 am said:

            No no, YOU have all the answers right Jeff? You’ve made that clear. Nice try though, really.

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 9:53 am said:

              You have an answer for everything. I have only some explanations based on the engineering issues and the observations. I have many questions.

              I don’t care if you or anyone else wants to hunker down in some belief system which is based on little to no science.

              I don’t support junk science from NIST, FEMA, AE911T or YOU.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 9:59 am said:

            “You have an answer for everything.”

            Funny, thats exactly what I said about you an hour or so ago. I admit, your credentials are better than mine on this subject. That doesn’t mean that you’re not pushing junk science and bullshit assumptions yourself. I know you find that extremely hard to believe, you seem very proud of yourself. You could be wrong in your many assumptions though. You havent helped your own credibility so far imho.

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 10:39 am said:

              The towers contained many things which can explode… even fluorescent fixtures and various electrical devices.. like back up power supplies and they don’t require fires to make them explode.

              The deputy fire commissioner commented that he saw flashes associated with some explosions and thought they were electrical in nature. Ask him or Jim Quintierre.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm said:

            Reply
  2. Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 7:13 am said:

    Scott I am not going to get into a internet snipe and refute debate with you. I would suggest that you and others read this thread:

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/smart-idiots-t525.html

    and read this online book:

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/

    My understanding about 9/11 has evolved over the past 5 years as I got actively involved in trying to first advocate for a new investigation.. because like most in the truth movement I found the NIST, FEMA and OCT false. The alternative was the 911 truth camp and I fell over there eventually becoming an AE911T board member.

    Over the period I attended many 9/11 related events conference and activities. I lobbied with/for AE911 at the Virginia AIA conference, lobbied directly a member of the NYC CIty Council with Ted Walter, Tony Szamboti, and Jeff Latas…wrote the Misprison of Treason presentment which Sander Hicks *appropriated* and read to the Treason in American conference in Valley Forge, attended a seminar on NIST failures at the Christian Regenhard Center at John Jay where I met discussed the issues with James Quintierrre who was fired from NIST because he advocated a more extensive investigation.

    I’ve spent 3 years in producing all sorts of didactic materials and slides (for my own understanding) about the structural and engineering issues of the twin towers including the only actual detailed study of the FOS of the twin tower core steel.

    I’ve read almost everything I can get my hands on and listed to countless interviews and watched even more youtubes and DVDs on the subject

    My understanding about the events of and post 9/11 has evolved. I am not naive politically and know and have spoken with Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley, and most of the 9/11 truth leaders or corresponded with them.

    I went from not believing the OCT to accepting the 9/11 truth (AE911T) position to questioning the conclusions of BOTH sides of this debate… two false choices both of which are substantially wrong… though each clearly has elements of truth.

    I am not interested in being a truth leader or publishing a comprehensive work with foot notes and end notes referencing people who hold themselves out as experts and provide incorrect conclusions and jink science. This includes: NIST, Chandler., Szamboti, Hoffman, Jon Cole, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones etc. Each of those self declared experts can be shown to be wrong in various statements and observations about the events of 911 and therefore wrong in their conclusions.

    The truth movement HAS done a decent job of falsifying the reports of NIST and FEMA. But that does not mean that the conclusion that they present. explosive controlled demolition is truth.

    Many of the key truth movement claims have also been falsified undermining their conclusion.

    I can’t solve the mysterious collapse of the 3 towers. But I can shed some light on what we observed… and the nature of the structure which played a key role in how they were destroyed.

    YES gravity is the key force which destroys structures such as buildings which have gravity resisting frames to enable people to inhabit them and at multiple floors in skyscrapers. CD aims to shatter/fail parts of those frames enabling gravity – the mass of the structure to destroy it when the load paths to the foundation have been *interrupted*.

    To shatter/fail a frame which has usually about a capacity of 1.5 times what it is necessary to keep it standing does not require destruction of the entire frame. The collapses of the twin towers were an interrelated series of mechanical and chemical processes which progressed to the point where the various elements of the structure where subject to forces which exceeded their yield strength and broke apart, shattered and were crushed. Different materials and components.. different failure modes.

    The use of and the release of the enormous stored gravity energy (PE) turned to kinetic energy was of course very *violent*. In addition to mechanical destruction of the frame…much of the other materials were destroyed, crushed and ground up producing (releasing) enormous amount of heat from friction.

    The destruction of the towers was very complex and not the cartoon like event that it is depicted as. NIST presents the fiction of office fires and then their black box called global collapse… and the truth movement presents the fiction of CD as its black box neither explanation matches the observations and neither bother to explain the mechanisms of the collapse/destruction/sequence which took place over a period of time. The NIST animation of B7 is as laughable ad DEWs and mini nukes and 90,000 tons of concrete exploded in mid air.

    I don’t insult readers. I invite them to look closely at the observations and the science and not listen to *false* prophets and supposed experts who don’t know what they are talking about at times.

    By the way there is NO evidence that heavy steel sections traveled at 60 mph AND landed 600 feet (as AE911T claims) or 300 feet you claim. Virtually all the steel scattered away from the foot print FELL down and some of it DID fall (from flrs above 75) as far as 450 feet from the tower 1 and strike the Winter Garden and the AmEx tower at the 22nd (I believe) floor. That far found steel reached a max velocity of about 35 mph.

    Since no buildings like these were ever CDed or collapsed… in height and mass and design… no one knows from the historical record what it would look like. And that includes no building being struck by a wide bodied jet. This is completely new territory and the officials did not help by racing off with their GWOT policies. There is more than ample evidence that the usual suspects engage in *disaster capitalism* at any and all opportunities even when they didn’t create those opportunities.

    I also don’t doubt that intel and the national security state engage in all sorts of illegal activities with the sanction of congress including false flags, double agents, sting operations, entrapment, assassination and arming one or both sides in various struggles around the world. I don’t believe the US has a single serious threat from a nation state or non state actors to merit the defense establishment we have. That seems in place to advance world domination of resources, markets,and labor.

    I don’t doubt that our policies stated and non stated… including those activities (illegal) of the national security state have engendered animus around the world toward US hegemony. I don’t doubt that people want to strike back at the domination by our military and corporations, that they would engage in asymmetrical warfare we called terrorism. I also don’t doubt that the national security state enables and supports these activates to justify its very existence and the extra legal policies and action it then takes and uses as cover to further advance the unstated purposes of complete domination and control of the planet, its resources and its inhabitants.

    The national security state didn’t need to plan or carry out 9/11 because they would use it to advance their agenda regardless. So it’s certainly possible that these interests knew about these event in advance and allowed it to happen… even facilitated aspects of it and picky backed on top of it. They certainly had controlled of an obedient media and exploited the fear to turn the public into blood thirsty flag waiving patriots dying to fight in the ME.

    There is more than enough evidence of disaster capitalism. There is scarce to no evidence of controlled demolition. That doesn’t mean that this might not turn out to be true. But the fact remains that one the structural straw that broke the camel’s back was manifest… the collapse of all three towers was driven by gravity and explained by physics and engineering and science.

    Yes explosives SHOULD have been looked for. I agree. But I suspect that Harrit et al have made some mistakes in their work and that they mis identified nanothermite in the dust. I am not qualified to show where those mistakes were. Unless and until their results can re reproduced by other independent scientists in something like a double blind study we have to take their finding with a huge grain of salt. The authors were partisans from the get go and Jones was caught lying about the diagonal cut column… and this is not something which makes one’s resume shine.

    Scott, I don’t an education from you about physics or engineering. I have practiced architecture in NYC for 40+ years and even worked for Emery Roth & Sons when the WTC was being erected in 1970. However, I am more than willing and open to learn from anyone regardless of the credentials or lack there of. Facts speak for themselves. Opinions abound and you seem to have plenty of them and present them as fact.

    You need to be more careful and less certain.

    Reply
    • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 7:58 am said:

      You’re right, facts speak for themselves and they speak louder than some guy whos been on both sides of such an important issue and has worked with obvious disinfo tools in the past. You appear to have an agenda that has ntohing to do with finding the truth and everything to do with slowing down the progress of exposing WTC1,2 and 7 as controlled demolitions. I noticed you ducked my question about WTC7. Not surprised. You said a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing.

      Reply
      • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 8:21 am said:

        Well said, Chris. He also completely ignores the witnesses that report explosives heard and seen on floors below fire area… and reports of Firefighters ….. unless he groups all that together with his ‘fuzzy’ remark about ‘kinetics’….. and there is Building Seven… the Achilles heel of 9/11…. the blunder that befuddles and maddens the ‘planners’ of 9/11.

        Reply
        • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 9:24 am said:

          Ah, but hes got an answer for everything. And they might even fool a few gullible people if he goes to CNN or Fox’s websites to peddle his talking points.

          Reply
          • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 10:33 am said:

            He doesn’t have an ‘answer’, he only has a ‘reply’…… an answer might infer that he actually knows what he is talking about… : )

            Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 9:03 am said:

        Of course there were explosions in the buildings on 9/11. But all explosions are not bombs…but all bombs are explosions!

        Many things can explode such as electrical transformers and switch gear from shorts or voltage spikes. There were 8 large step down 13.8KV transformers on the 4 mech floors and additional ones in the sub basement. One of which caught fire and exploded in the sub basement in 1992.

        The explosion on which was witnessed by Jennings and Hess was most likely related to electrical equipment which was located on the first 7 floors of B7. Con Ed reported that it 8 – 13.8kv feeders were lost beginning at the precise moment of the plane hitting tower 1. Can you explain those events? Why would perps explode the transformers and not the structure? What is you explanation for the reports that B7 lost power shortly after tower 1 was struck?

        Rodriguez reported an explosion about 1 second before he heard what he thought was the plane strike. It’s likely the explosion he heard was the precise moment of the plane strike which sent a voltage spike or caused an instantaneous short in the electrical gear which exploded and a second later the sound traveling at 1180 feet per second reach him… about 1 second AFTER the moment of the impact. Rodriquez admitted he never heard a transformer explode, nor a bomb aside from on TV and he could not say what the explosion might have been.

        Fires cause things to explode. I witnessed this 3 weeks ago when a boat caught fire and many explosions ensued.

        I have no agenda and the fact that I have an open mind and my understanding is evolving as I learn more is precisely how people should approach a complex technical event. I’ve been called “dis info agent” and worse and it only reflects upon critics who have to resort to ad hom attacks because they can’t provide technical refutation.

        I am not sure what the question about B7 you want me to answer. I believe that B7 collapsed as a result of a structural failure on floors 6&7 where the transfer trusses, the 8 cantilever girders, as well as the emergency power generators, day tanks and HVAC equipment were located all supplied with fresh air from huge grillage on the north face.

        I suspect that when the transfer trusses and cantilever girders failed the parts of the core (columns) and the perimeter columns that they supported collapse down. The first signs of load redistribution as the structures axial load paths were destroyed was a swaying of the entire tower east and west for about a minute before the east penthouse collapsed right down through the entire building. It was supported by the east transfer truss. Then the the west penthouse descended as well and we see the north screen wall fold in… presumably into the hole left by the penthouse collapses. Then the curtain wall is seen to drop for 100′ at free fall.. but it was not a linear acceleration either.. but very close to 32′ sec 2. During the filmed descent from the north side we see the entire north face bow inward as it comes down indicating that there was no structure behind it to hold it in plane. The inward bowing is above the where the 8 columns of the supported by the cantilever girders were located. The observations suggest that most of the interior of B7 had collapsed just prior to the descent of the curtain wall.

        There is reason to believe (to be proven with further investigation) that the entire first 7 floors including the perimeter columns had collapsed or folded inward this left curtain will with nothing below it. We can’t see inside the tower and so its hard to know what was going on. This is like diagnosing someone by examining their skin… no xrays, cat scans, MRIs or other diagnostic information/data.

        However if there is a structural failure, one needs to understand the structure, and the engineering principles, loads and so forth which failed the structure. B7 was not exploded to bits… it collapsed and we saw it collapse. We need to figure out what made it collapse… PRECISELY.

        Reply
        • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 9:19 am said:

          You have an answer for everything and everyone. Rodriquez didnt hear what he thought he did(what about what he saw in the form of a burnt man in the basement? I’m quite sure you have an answer for that too right?). The many firefighters and civilians didnt hear what they thought they did. You even trot out the diesel tanks canard? Seriously? I just wanted your opinion on WTC7 and you sure didnt disappoint.

          “I believe that B7 collapsed as a result of a structural failure on floors 6&7 where the transfer trusses, the 8 cantilever girders, as well as the emergency power generators, day tanks and HVAC equipment were located all supplied with fresh air from huge grillage on the north face.”

          After that comment you really dont need to waste your time here anymore. It wont work. That comment alone says all that needs to be said about you.

          Reply
        • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 10:31 am said:

          Well, yes, hot fires can cause things to explode…. but on the floors below the upper fires… there were no fires – until – the ‘explosions’ occurred

          Reply
    • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 10:38 am said:

      OK Jeffery, you keep saying you have questions… so, what are they?
      Maybe that will clear up where you are coming from.

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 10:50 am said:

        What DID explode… the explosion witnessed by Jennings and Hess?
        Could the diesel fuel system pump fuel all day long if there was a breach in the piping system caused by an explosion?
        Could the diesel ignite and burn all day? Could a small continuous diesel fire provide enough heat to weaken a truss member?
        Why didn’t NIST look at ANYTHING below floor 8 and consider it of no interest?
        Why was the comment of the B7 structural engineer Irwin Cantor that diesel fires could do in the transfer trusses investigated?
        What DID happen to the flammable oil in the transformers? Was it recovered? How
        What did happen to the supposed 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel below the loading dock? If it was recovered… how and when was it recovered. If the tank broke wouldn’t the high heat shown by the NASA imaging ignite the fuel?
        Was there a surveyor with a transit measuring the B7 that day or not?
        Why and how did the DOB and the FDNY determine that B7 was likely going to collapse? What did they see and know?

        Why are the plans not available? What was located on the floors 4, 5,6 &7 aside from the mech and electrical equipment?

        Why did PANY by air rights to the Con Ed property when there was vacant land across West Street which was less expensive (and less risk) to build on?

        How did NYC manage to site 20,000 gal of diesel tank next to a sub station when there IS a history of sub stations exploding in NYC? Why did they zoning board permit this project? What about the community planning board?

        Why did PANY not have to conform to NYC codes?

        There are hundreds of unanswered questions.

        Reply
        • jan10, on June 8, 2012 at 1:43 pm said:

          I am sure Scott can answer these questions .. but they are really just ‘piss’ questions…. diesel fuel cannot reach the heat index level needed to melt steel…. that much i do know.

          Reply
          • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm said:

            hahahaa who said there was melted steel or that the steel had to be melted for the structure to fail? Steel loses its strength as the temperature rises and lots of long before it become liquid.

            Comments such as this reveal how ignorant you are about engineering and physics and the destruction of the WTC.

            I’d like to see anyone produce a photo of a steel beam which is dripping liquid steel at one end.

            Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 8, 2012 at 9:00 pm said:

              You don’t think I’ve seen these videos 100 times. What’s the point? You think it’s melted steel pouring from the tower? I doubt it. No way you can tell from the color in an uncontrolled film taken from 1/2 mile away with the sun refracting and air full of dust particles. It’s liquid and likely metal… but if would first be aluminum to melt as it melts at a lower temp then iron… can you see any aluminum or was all that aluminum isolated from the heat you believe melted the iron/steel? Please explain.

              There was also lead in UBS batteries and that has a very low melting temp… as well as copper and all of these could make impurities and change the color not to mention the optical effects which mask it all.

              Of course there were explosions and witnesses believed we were being attacked so they hear and explosion and call it a bomb… a common and understandable mistake (if it was a mistake). These ear witnesses are not reliable. END OF STORY and I don’t care if there were 100 of them. Did a single one mention a transformer or electrical explosion? There HAD to be things exploding in the towers. Where’s the testimony mentioning the explosions as being anything other than bombs? Are we to assume nothing exploded because of no witnesses mentioned it… other than the Deputy Fire Commissioner.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 8:51 pm said:

            Reply
          • Chris, on June 8, 2012 at 9:04 pm said:

            Yep, thay alllll “made a mistake” right Jeff? And you know this how? Wait, don’t tell me. Seriously. You’re floundering here.

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 5:23 am said:

              Chris evidence is not hearsay. All of what you present as evidence is not evidence. It may suggest something, but it only speculative. I am not saying they are wrong… only that what they allege has not be properly demonstrated to any evidentiary standard.

              Where are the videos of the flowing rivers of metal? Where are the photos cooled rivers of metal?

              Don’t tell me that they are suppressed. That is an excuse… same as bog foot or the tooth fairy. If you make extraordinary claims you need solid proof of them. Claiming that the perps destroyed all the incriminating evidence is not going to cut it. You need to produce real hard indisputable evidence.

              And yes… it’s possible for all to have made a mistake.

              If you look back in history… Galileo was the lone voice disputing the geocentric explanation of the solar system. Everyone was wrong but him. I am not comparing myself to Galileo, but just because there are many people who say the same thing doesn’t not make them correct. You don’t create a fact by consensus or voting.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 9, 2012 at 8:05 am said:

            Jeff, as you should well know, cameras were prohibited from the crime scene. Though there are MANY witnesses who testified to the fact that molten steel was found in the wreckage weeks after 9/11. Ignore and belittle their testimony(like you did the firefighters) because it doesnt fit your agenda of selling the official lies. I know you will.

            Even your boys at NIST were forced to abandon the laughable “diesel tank” theory. You should too for your own credibility. What little you have left that is.

            Oh, and you gotta love how people like yourself DEMAND evidence from a nobody like me but dont do the same with the governments “extraordinary claims”. I don’t have the power or political reach to produce the evidence you are demanding from me. And you know this. Save the demands for those who can actually provide some answers. The government.

            Finally, your analogy is ridiculous. It is not brave to reaffirm the official 9/11 lies. It is the exact opposite. Its lazy and cowardly at best. Galileo you are most certainly are not.

            Reply
            • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 8:37 am said:

              If Jeff had actually read the NIST report like I suggested he do, then he would know (and possibly he does know) that NIST reported the diesel fuel did not contribute to the collapse of Building 7.

              I find him to be at best dishonest when it comes to certain aspects of his claims. Take for instance his assertion that building components are designed to carry only 1.5 of the expected live load. That is patently false. I ran my own design and drafting company, dealt with engineers on a regular basis, and I know for a fact that what he claims to be a 1.5 design ratio is actually a 7 design ratio meaning that building components are specified to be capable of carrying 7 times the live load expected capacity in high rise commercial buildings. Hard to imagine an architect would get something like that so wrong without doing it on purpose.

              And actually, there are photos of the molten steel. Just go to the RJ Lee report on the Composition and Morphology of the Ground Zero Dust and you can see pictures of the molten steel all day long.

              You can also go to the archives of the 9/11 museum at Pier 17 (I think) and see images of molten steel mixed with molten concrete (which actually takes a lot more heat energy to melt than structural steel (somewhere in the 4,000 deg range if I am not mistaken, structural steel melts at 2,750 or so))

              Even better, you can go to the aerial photos taken via thermal imaging and see the hot-spot that lasted 6 weeks under ground zero. They even will provide for you the thermal ranges, telling you exactly how hot the areas were.

              Jeff is a dishonest debater on this subject. Notice how he claims he doesn’t want to get into a debate with me yet then goes on and on presenting his “evidence” anyway? He does that because he can’t and won’t address the references that I put up for him to look at. He’s here for a different reason. His association with people like Hicks and Fetzer is enough for me to understand who and what he is. Then his behavior here confirms my original conclusion.

              And, just for the record, the recorded oral histories of the first responders would qualify as first-hand eyewitness accounts of the event and therefore they are certainly admissible as evidence in any court of law regardless of what Jeff has to say on the matter. His dismissive attacks against them and his labeling them as “hearsay” is simply deliberate obfuscation.

              Unlike Mr. Jeff here, I have no time to waste on him. He is not actually seeking anything. He is trolling this site. Possibly for financial reasons, or possibly for his own edification. who knows why. not important.

              But you and Jan have handled him quite well. I have to admit I got a few chuckles out of it. Notice how he trips over himself while trying to discredit what we showed him? He says AE claimed that the girders flew 600 feet then I claimed it was 300 feet (different girders genius) but according to him, they all landed in the area directly below the towers… EXCEPT for the ones that he briefly mentions being ejected and sticking in other buildings 450 feet away and according to him traveling 35mph which he offers no trajectory calculations for. He just mentions that and offers no rational explanation for this striking evidence. But of course, Chandler is wrong across the board because I suppose it’s perfectly reasonable to expect 6 ton columns to fly 35mph laterally for 450 feet whereas it’s just absurd to say they were expelled at 58mph for 600 feet.

              The guy is a troll and not a very good one at that. Maybe since he thinks he is only supposed to design buildings with a 1.5 capacity load, he can’t find much work so he has to do this kind of social marketing gig to keep a roof over his head. Who knows.

              Reply
              • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 9:36 am said:

                Scott you are wrong about the factor of safety of the steel. And you are not qualified to calculate it I suspect nor have actually bothered to. I have. The FOS of the twin towers core steel was between 1.65 and 1.8 depending on which columns and the actual weight of the building.. It if it heavier the FOS is lower.

                One can even do a back of the envelop calculation re the FOS because we know the core steel as A36 and so we can easily calculate the load carrying capacity of the core steel and the facade steel. We have the sizes of the core columns.. http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/ and we know the total weight and configuration of the facade columns… for the FOS to be 7 there would be 3 times as much steel and that would be the weight of the structural steel alone at close the 350,000 tons. And as the towers reported weight which we have calculated was in the range of 400,000 tons your FOS 7 notion leaves only 50,000 tons for all the other materials and the concrete was 90,000 for floors 7-110.

                You clearly don’t know what you are talking about when you refer to the FOS 7 number. If you research the FOS of a typical office high rise frame you will find it is about 1.42 and that meant the towers were in fact 20 30% stronger with respect to the axial support steel.

                Scott, I have worked on calculations and slides for 3 years and can send them to anyone who emails me with a request for same. Several have been published at Deep Politics and at the 911 Free Forums.

                Unlike most 911 researchers I don’t have a web site and haven’t rushed to publish a *result* or finding. All my work is evolving and I consider it preliminary and not for final publication and so I don’t write papers and maintain a web site.

                “BUILDING RETROFITS: BREATHING NEW LIFE INTO EXISTING …

                Abstract. Steel building structures often undergo modifications to accommodate new uses and … new framing to replace or supplement the existing. …. usually reduce the average load factor to a value lower than 1.4. … provides a variable factor of safety that decreases as the ratio between dead

                http://www.harmangroup.com/ articles/ 37/ download.php?fileName=AISC——NASCC-Conference-Procedings-Building- Retrofits-Breathing-New-Life-Into-Existing-Building-Structures.pdf – View by Ixquick Proxy – Highlight

                …..While dual certified steel may have been designed as A36 material, the actual yield
                strength was at least 50 ksi. Taking advantage of the actual yield strength can provide a substantial increase in
                member capacity.
                Another technique for finding more strength in existing structures is to analyze the framing using LRFD.
                LRFD useable strength is approximately 1.5 times greater than ASD service level strength. If the average load factor
                is less than 1.5, then LRFD design will provide greater load carrying capacity than ASD via the relative lower
                required strength.
                Per Chapter 2 of ASCE 7-05, the required strength for a member supporting only dead and live gravity loads is
                1.2D+1.6L.
                When the live load is the same magnitude as the dead load (D = L), the average load factor is 1.4. In most steel
                buildings the design live load is usually close to or less than the dead load. For members such as girders and
                columns supporting large tributary areas of floor framing, live load reductions permitted by building codes will
                usually reduce the average load factor to a value lower than 1.4.
                An average load factor of 1.4 yields a 7% decrease (1 – (1.4/1.5) = 0.07) in required strength versus a 1.5 average
                load factor, resulting in an effective 7% increase in load capacity using LRFD design.
                For columns in multistory structures where full live load reductions can be taken, the ratio of dead load / live load
                can often be 2 or more. When DL/LL=2, the average load factor is 1.33. An average load factor of 1.33 yields a 11%
                decrease (1 – (1.33/1.5) = 0.11) in required strength versus a 1.5 average load factor, resulting in an effective 11%
                increase in load capacity using LRFD design….”

                Not that the author refers to the average load factor as 1.4… and with load reduction it is 1.33

                Scott simply are wrong and in over your head… and you are insulting as well. The ad homs don’t help.

                Reply
          • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:

            You know, I am really getting tired of your obfuscation Jeff. The fact is, you cannot simply do a “back of an envelope” calculation as to what you claim the weight of the steel framing would have been because as you WELL KNOW the size and PLATE THICKNESS of the steel columns changed as you went up the building. Also, the exterior columns actually had different TYPES of metal, not just A-36 structural steel. This was done for precisely the reason I stated earlier as well as to allow for more flex higher in the building to deal with live wind loads. So, your proof by means of asserting that the weight of the steel proves me wrong is vastly oversimplified as you well know. I know in residential new construction design the ratio is about 7 to 1. My guess is it’s the same if not higher in commercial hi-rise design, but I may be a bit off on that. I have designed elements in commercial properties and had to interact with an engineer on the project and as I recall that was the standard measure. But I promise you it isn’t 1.2 or 1.6.

            Frankly I don’t give a shit what you think about me being “over my head” or “insulting”. Fact is, you have gotten so many things wrong, and deliberately so, I really don’t care what you say anymore. again, your history in this movement is there for anyone to look up. You have not been a genuine arbiter of the Truth Movement since day one in my opinion and now you seem to be following the same path.

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 1:49 pm said:

              You know, I am really getting tired of your obfuscation Jeff. The fact is, you cannot simply do a “back of an envelope” calculation as to what you claim the weight of the steel framing would have been because as you WELL KNOW the size and PLATE THICKNESS of the steel columns changed as you went up the building.

              I know exactly what each column section was as I have drawn them all.

              Also, the exterior columns actually had different TYPES of metal, not just A-36 structural steel. This was done for precisely the reason I stated earlier as well as to allow for more flex higher in the building to deal with live wind loads.

              WRONG the used higher strength steel as much as 100 KSI for the facade columns to reduce the WEIGHT and ultimately the thickness of the plates used in the columns at the bottom. The dimension was constrained to 14×14 and to the box shapes would become too small to properly fasten them. The higher strength steel was not part of the strategy to deal with wind loads.

              So, your proof by means of asserting that the weight of the steel proves me wrong is vastly oversimplified as you well know. I know in residential new construction design the ratio is about 7 to 1. My guess is it’s the same if not higher in commercial hi-rise design, but I may be a bit off on that. I have designed elements in commercial properties and had to interact with an engineer on the project and as I recall that was the standard measure. But I promise you it isn’t 1.2 or 1.6.

              Scott you can’t BS your way from a wood frame house to a tube in tube steel frame for a high rise. I cited the article about steel frames but YOU KNOW BETTER of course because your drafted a few houses in FL or something

              The FOS of the core steel is easy to calculate because the total cross sectional area of the core and the facade columns is known:

              total area of facade steel at floor 1 was 196.39 SF
              total area of core steel at floor 1 was 122.17 SF

              Note the facade was heavier. it carried MORE of the floor loads and MOST of the wind shear design load.

              The total yield strength at floor 1 A36 steel was 825,708 tons
              The gross weight of the tower was ~ 425,000 tons making the FOS less than 1.94. if the tower weighed 500,000 tons the FOS would be 1.65.

              for an FOS of 7 the steel would be 3.5 times as heavy! and this would be most of the weight of the tower.

              Frankly I don’t give a shit what you think about me being “over my head” or “insulting”. Fact is, you have gotten so many things wrong, and deliberately so, I really don’t care what you say anymore. again, your history in this movement is there for anyone to look up. You have not been a genuine arbiter of the Truth Movement since day one in my opinion and now you seem to be following the same path.

              HAHAHA

              I am not in the truth movement. I am an individual who is interested in understanding how the towers collapsed and getting accountability for all the fraud and justice for all the victims.

              The truth movement is not interested in research but is all about a MIHOP inside job agenda.

              Reply
  3. jan10, on June 9, 2012 at 8:09 am said:

    Jeffery, you get funnier and funnier….. your comments are actaully amusing…..
    what you are saying about the witness-experience of Firefighters … bet you wouldn’t have the nerve to say it to their face……now that would be funny…. you.. getting knocked down and spit on…..
    but cheer up…. we only laughing at you here… LOL

    Reply
    • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 8:46 am said:

      Not afraid to say it to them and have on occasion. All of the witnesses need to be interviewed by expert investigators. I don’t discount their reports. They just need to be qualified.

      Laugh all you want. I could care less.

      Reply
      • jan10, on June 9, 2012 at 1:01 pm said:

        I gotcha… Jeffery…. if you don’t care… then why are you here at this site?
        You have actually told professional Fire Fighters that their on-hands experience at the Towers on 9/11 could be ‘mistaken’ (your word) or non qualified? LOL …. Bet they spit at your feet…. LOL..

        Reply
  4. Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 10:06 am said:

    The so called meteor was a result of pressure and pressure produces heat. The collapse involved the communition (breaking up into smaller and smaller pieces) of hundreds of thousands of tons of materials and was a mechanical process which released heat just as sanding or grinding or drilling metal does… lots of heat. And there was lots of pressure as well. Some has calculated pressure in some instances of as much as 100,000 psi. If true it would explain the formation of the meteor… which doesn’t show melted steel but mangled steel.

    The NASA imagery does show extreme heat below each collapse. This heat may be the result of the collapse and not the cause. No evidence of heat destroyed steel from below the plane strike zone in the steel seen in the debris pile. Mangled and bent steel yes… and also most of the structural steel parted at the connection of one member to another. The joints were the weak point and the failed under the excessive loads. This is especially true of the bolted connections… and was analyzed in a study … I don’t have the reference handy but you can certainly find it online.

    The debris steel also shows buckled steel all from the zone of the plane strikes where the columns failed as the aggregate FOS of the core was eroded until it buckled. Buckled steel is evidence that the yield strength of the column was exceed. And since there were no additional loads on the core or the building, the buckling was due to loss of columns and then the loss of strength of those remaining. When the FOS descended to 1 there was not reserve strength left and a bit more weakening caused ALL the remaining columns to rapidly fail (buckle).

    The cause of the FOS reduction could be placed devices… bombs which destroy or damage columns… incendiary devices which heat and cut them… and of course weakening from whatever fires were burning which were certainly not office contents only. There were thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were burning inside the strike zone… We don’t know how much and how hot and precisely which columns failed first.

    But the observations of the collapse and the knowledge of the structure suggest that there were no explosives in the collapse stage.

    The far flung steel feel away and from as much as 1100 feet high. You can see this panels coming emerging from the debris canopy and they are attached in a huge assembly of 30 or more panels perhaps 100 feet wide and 12 stories high.. they are all ranged out in order in front of and on the WFC and this includes the panel which is lodges in the 20th floor of the AmEx SE corner. If you want to see the calcs… I have a slide which has them.

    You can disagree with my theories but not with the facts.

    Reply
    • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm said:

      Well, your “facts” are simply wrong, so I CAN disagree with them.

      “There were thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were burning inside the strike zone…”

      Wrong. Once again, if you would simply read the NIST report, they themselves admit what is painfully obvious to the most casual observer… that the VAST majority of the jet fuel burned in the fireballs that occurred immediately upon impact. Remember those massive 20 story tall fireballs that everyone and their mother sees when you watch the videos of the planes hitting the towers? Guess what that was?

      NIST says that the jet fuel, most of which burned off OUTSIDE the buildings, only contributed by STARTING the office fires. Ergo, “thousands of gallons” of jet fuel did NOT burn inside the building.

      “The far flung steel feel away and from as much as 1100 feet high.”

      Wrong. 1100 feet was the total height of the buildings and the sections that fell down onto the lower undamaged sections were about 10 stories and 30 stories depending on which tower you are talking about. and according to you, those sections remained intact all the way down, right? So you can’t use the 1100 feet mark as the start of the fall, can you?

      “No evidence of heat destroyed steel from below the plane strike zone in the steel seen in the debris pile”

      Wrong. As I have pointed out MANY times, the RJ Lee Group report showed molten steel micro-spheres to many to have come from just the crash site alone. There are several websites showing photos of melted file cabinets, badges, guns, steel fire-rated doors, and other things that were collected from Ground Zero. Even floor number signs that were obviously CHARRED with the paint peeling off, from ALL the floors. And ask yourself this: What happened to the 220 floor pans and the 46,000 steel trusses from the Twin Towers? Look that one up, or you can read my writing on the subject. But, there is VAST evidence of heat destroyed steel and other things BELOW the strike zone.

      “This heat may be the result of the collapse and not the cause.”

      Wrong: The “friction thing” you keep trying to allude to has been debunked over and over again. And pressure in and of itself does NOT create heat energy otherwise no pressurized air system would EVER work.

      Point is, I could do this all day long. You keep avoiding talking about the RJ Lee Group report and their finding that it was a “COMBUSTION EVENT”, their words not mine.

      The physical evidence shows that there were extremely high temperatures involved with the collapse of the Twin Towers, temperatures that could ONLY have been the result of high explosive demolition. That’s the hard EVIDENCE. You can “maybe” and “might’ all you want, but the evidence, the hard physical evidence shows it was a controlled demolition.

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 1:23 pm said:

        Jet fuel:

        Why do you believe NIST on this when they are trying to make the case that the trusses sagged from heating of office contents fires? Why do you cite NIST when it suits you and trash them when it suits you!

        “How Much Jet Fuel Actually Entered Each of the Twin Towers

        WTC 2 – “Flight 175″

        Boeing 767 fuel capacity……..23980 US gallons
        Flight 175 impact fuel total….415 US gallons…991 cubic feet (31% of capacity)
        Fuel burned outside Tower (within fireball)….1483 US gallons…198 cubic feet (20% of fuel total)
        Fuel left inside Tower……….5932 US gallons..793 cubic feet
        Fuel left within impact zone….2966 US gallons..397 cubic feet (50% of remainder)

        WTC 1 – “Flight 11″

        Boeing 767 fuel capacity………23980 US gallons
        Flight 11 impact fuel total……8684 US gallons…1161 cubic feet (36% of capacity)
        Fuel burned outside Tower (within fireball)….1737 US gallons…232 cubic feet (20% of fuel total)
        Fuel left inside Tower………..6947 US gallons…..929 cubic feet
        Fuel left within impact zone…..3474 US gallons…465 cubic feet (50% of remainder)

        1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet

        Initial Fuel Distribution

        Flight 175

        Floor…. US Gallons
        78…….. 826
        79…….. 2072
        80…….. 811
        81…….. 1996
        82…….. 1500
        83…….. 210

        Flight 11

        Floor….. US Gallons
        92…….. 195
        93…….. 405
        94…….. 2342
        95…….. 1906
        96…….. 1982
        97…….. 1546
        98…….. 240
        99…….. 68
        Estimate of external fireballs

        The size of the external fireball can be estimated using spheres of 63m diameter (width of the building). One of those spheres represents a volume 130924m³. I would estimate the external fireball of WTC2 as 400000-500000m³ (3-4 spheres) and the WTC1 fireball as 250000-300000m³.
        Probably we have to add about 40000-50000m³ for the fireball inside the impact zone.”

        Far flung Facade panels:

        Joe Princiotta’s analysis:

        http://www.csi911.info/Exhibit_J.jpg

        The towers were 1362 and 1368 feet tall to the top of the roof. The story ht was 12′ and the 1100 foot refers to about the 90th floor which is just below the plane strike in tower 1.

        Yes it WAS a combustion event… there was lots of heat from fires and enormous heat post collapse which continued combustion. The collapse was cold… the initiation – hot.

        You were dead wrong about the FOS and you have not done a single calculation… You are parroting others and don’t understand half of what you read…. And you are insulting to boot.

        I’ve read the NIST reports, FEMA, RJ LEE, McLeer and several others… various engineering articles such as Banovic and Siewart, MIT, Lamont Doherty and most of the 9/11 truth materials/articles/DVDs/ web sites and so on.

        No one is without error. None of those reports is error free.. for whatever reason. Some commissions, some omissions…

        You need to not be so dismissive of others who are honestly seeking answers.

        Reply
  5. Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm said:

    The floors trusses were shredded and shrived up and many parts of the were recovered. 1.8 million tons of debris was removed from the site. The metal fluted decking was 22 ga which is .03″ thick and under the enormousness pressure was shredded like tin foil… ground, pulverized and even melted and some of it ground so small that it might have become iron micro spheres!

    You have no conception of the power of a 400,000 ton structure collapsing.

    Reply
    • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm said:

      That’s just plain silly. You’re suggesting that the round microspheres which the RJ Lee report claimed had to have been caused by molten metal cooling while airborne under extreme pressure and heat were caused by… what? The weight of the material falling on them?

      hmmm…

      how much of that weight that you cite endlessly was actually tossed out of the equation by falling OUTSIDE the building as we can CLEARLY see from the videos? How much of that weight that you keep talking about was not involved in the grinding of the micro-spheres because it was flying up in the air and blowing down the streets in massive clouds which we all saw? Hundreds of thousands of tons of dust was spread across lower Manhattan and into the Hudson River. Pulverized concrete dust mind you.

      How much of that 400,000 ton structure was no longer factored into the huge equation you are relying on to magically explain the extremely high temperatures and the molten steel? Ever tried to figure that out in all you “slides”?

      And by the way, no, that can’t explain the missing floor pans and trusses. They weren’t “shredded” or whatever you claim. They were turned into tons and tons of micro-spheres.

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm said:

        Most of what we see being ejected essentially through the windows is the contents of the floors… ceiling tiles, furniture and walls.

        The facade can be seen peeling or falling off/away from the towers and the core steel bracing came down with the floor collapse destruction along with many of the core columns.

        Bldg 7 had the same level of concrete pulverization and there was no massive ejections through the curtain wall so the collapse HAD to cause the level of crushing and to use Judy Wood’s hideous term… dustification. These floors were light weight concrete… no stone aggregate and hardly more than gypsum and portland cement slurry supported by the fluted decking. But the aggregate weight was 90,000 tons and there was some stronger concrete on the mech floors. The collapse included some very dense and heavy things such as the hat truss steel, the 360 ton antenna steel, restaurant and HVAC equipment, electrical transformers, elevator motors all of which would be very destructive in a *caged avalanche*

        The height of the undamaged slabs one atop the other would have been about 40′ and with the crushing and dispersal the debris height seems reasonable if one actually thinks it through.

        The facade weight was north of 60,000 tons and so most of the material was caged in the collapse aside from the contents which were something like 100,000 tons… so we can estimate that the collapsing mass aggregated to over 250,000 tons by the time it hit bottom. DO the math.

        Reply
  6. Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm said:

    Yes I am suggesting that the amount of heat released from the friction of grinding 90,000 tons of concrete when concentrated was enough to melt steel and form micro spheres.

    Scott how many tons of iron micro spheres were there?

    Reply
  7. Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm said:

    Scott I lived there and saw where the dust was…. and how far it spread and how thick it was. The dust dispersed was largely from the expanding hot cloud created by the collapse/friction. Boyle’s gas laws caused the hot air to expand and the normal cooler air which followed behind the collapse as a low pressure zone was created also pushed the cloud outward… much like the dispersal of water fall from a faucet.

    The cloud carried with it lots of dust and fine particles and cooled as it expanded and then deposited the dust which eventually falls out of the air. The three towers had almost a quarter of a million tons of concrete… and that makes a lot of dust!

    Reply
    • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm said:

      Dust which was blowing down the street, not included in your mass calculations of what crushed the lower floors of the towers and created all that friction you keep referring to. Do you understand the point?

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm said:

        The dust was the product of the crushing and destruction mostly at the very final stages / moments of the collapse. If you take a sack of portland cement and drop it onto something which can’t support it… a plastic child’s chair for example…. the chair might shatter and then the dust which was contained in the bag is released and disperses. This is not a perfect analogy… but illustrates that the cement *powder* did the destruction and THEN was disbursed.

        The cloud rose up from the bottom at the conclusion of the collapse and carried within the materials OF the collapse… destroyed by the collapse.

        Reply
        • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 3:40 pm said:

          Ah, so all those clouds, those massive dust clouds we see rising up and blowing around DURING the collapse was what? a figment of our imaginations?

          Besides, your logic again doesn’t hold up. You drop the bag on cement on the chair and it poofs up into the air AFTER crushing the chair is a fine analogy for MY point. There wasn’t just one impact at the bottom of Ground Zero, but in fact there were 90 or so in the North Tower and 70 or so in the South. After EACH of those impacts, you would have the same “poofing” of the dust wouldn’t you? It wouldn’t all just wait around till the demolition of the building was complete, would it?

          The simple fact is, that dust, that concrete, which made up MUCH of the mass you claim destroyed the Twin Towers and created all that “friction” simply wasn’t there anymore after the collapse began. We all see it with our own eyes just like we also see where the majority of the steel beams and other debris landed AROUND the footprint of the towers and not IN them which means that the majority of the mass was NOT traveling downward through the path of greatest resistance as you claim. There is little to no way of knowing exactly how much of the mass was outside the impact area of the towers because all of the EXPLOSIONS created all that smoke so you can’t really see what was happening.

          Reply
          • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm said:

            The debris canopy around the towers is the ejecta from the floor contents… ceiling tiles and so forth…. the huge dust cloud was from the end of the collapse and was mostly the crust dust from the slabs. Of course there wasn’t isolated phenomena but a blending of processes taking place.

            The grinding and crushing was ongoing during the collapse but the force was cumulative and the most crushing was likely at then end and then the dust rose within the hot air from the friction created by the collapse.

            Reply
          • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 4:59 pm said:

            You’ll just say anything won’t you Jeffrey?

            “The debris canopy around the towers is the ejecta from the floor contents… ceiling tiles and so forth”

            If that is the case, then you tell me which ceiling tiles and “so forth” destroyed Building 6 Building 5 and Building 3? Which ceiling tiles did this damage to this building?

            You can see in this photo, a massive section of the top of one of the towers sliding off and traveling down the side of the towers, following the path of least resistance as should be expected.

            In this photo you can see HUGE amounts of pulverized concrete dust POURING down the sides of the tower, clearly out of the direction of the remaining intact tower below it. It is not “ceiling tiles and so forth”. In fact, in that same photo, you can see material being ejected UPWARDS into the sky in multiple streamers which, if I am not mistaken, kind of defies your “gravity driven collapse” theory.

            And in this photo you can see steel columns, both interior core columns and exterior column sections as well as aluminum cladding from around the exterior columns being ejected during the collapse. Again, you see huge clouds of the pulverized dust OUTSIDE the area where it would contribute to the destruction of the twin towers.

            Here is a map of the debris field.

            And you can go here and view an aerial image of Ground Zero with the outlines of the Twin Towers drawn in and see clearly for yourself that a large amount of the steel beams both interior and exterior were OUTSIDE of the tower footprints meaning they TOO did not contribute their weight to your gravitational collapse “crush down crush up” theory.

            Here is a hi resolution aerial photo of Ground Zero and you can clearly see vast amounts of the debris well outside of the footprints of the Twin Towers again showing you that the majority of the calculated weight of Bazant’s “crush down crush up” theory simply wasn’t capable of contributing to the demolition because it fell OUTSIDE of the Twin Towers… and thus did not destroy the towers themselves.

            In short, the crush down crush up theory is bullshit.

            Reply
          • Chris, on June 9, 2012 at 8:17 pm said:

            Scott, dont you get it? Fluorescent bulbs and ceiling tiles are the key, it explains everything. I think Jeff converted me. And WTC7 simply committed suicide out of reverence for the towers.

            Reply
          • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm said:

            Chris, did he actually say the explosions were florescent tubes? No way. Really?

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 9:44 pm said:

              No I didn’t say they were fluorescent tubes. Each tower contained 8 13,800 volt feeds to a sub substation 2 on each of 4 mechanical floors and there was the main switch gear in the sub basement feeding the 13.8kv risers. The 13.8kv transformers stepped the power down and supplied feeders to various floors where other smaller transformers stepped the power down again. The distribution system eventually reduced the power to line voltage. Machinery also had transformers to step the power to the correct voltage. Transformers generate lots of heat and are cooled with oil filled radiators. They do explode and the breakers are often too slow to prevent cascading failures or black outs.

              Look up electrical transformer explosions. They are pretty common, very loud and easily mistaken for a bomb. Twins contained scores of high tension power transformers.

              Reply
          • Chris, on June 9, 2012 at 9:41 pm said:

            I’m being slightly facetious but look above. He seemed to insinuate that part of what firefighters and others took as explosions were in part light bulbs bursting. As we all know by now, when trying to sell the official story one really has to reach for whatever they can to “sell” their position.

            Reply
          • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 pm said:

            What’s up Jeffrey? Don’t want to talk about your “debris canopy” comment? Thought you might like to go over some of those photos and videos showing all that “ceiling tile” falling outside the footprint of the Twin Towers.

            Reply
            • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 10:04 pm said:

              debris canopy was created by the over pressure (mostly) from the collapse. The ejecta was shot through the windows like hot gases streaming out of a cylinder valve. It reached about 150- 200 feet from the tower, Note that tower 2′s ejecta did not damage tower 1 which stood 118 feet to the northwest. Images of tower 1 south side post tower 2′s collapse show no facade to tower 1 from the ejecta from tower 2. It was pulverized light weight material and some was blasted out at as much as 400 mph through the windows in a .1 second pulse.

              Reply
        • jan10, on June 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm said:

          wait a minute… a bag of cement powder is far different than cement columns or structures…. :(

          Reply
          • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 9:55 pm said:

            You’re right Jan and you make a very good point. A bag of cement is already dry and pulverized, thus it disperses in the air after impact. Part of the problem with the “crush down crush up” theory is it fails to explain how something heavy enough to pulverize the lower concrete floor then allows the dust from that to escape into the air, to disperse after impact. And if it does do that as we can see from the videos and photos, the dust is clearly in the air and falling around the building as it is coming down, then how does it add to the crush weight of the “piston” driving down the rest of the intact building? Kind of like eating your cake then having it too.

            Reply
  8. Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 10:09 pm said:

    different origin…separate process. ejecta is basically floor contents…dust at the end rising up is mostly from the floor concrete from the crushing process… he downward avalanche.

    Ejecta is blasted out with the air on each floor. 18,000 cubic yards per floor had to be moved out of the path in about .1 seconds on each floor. That’s moving a lot of air as much as 60 feet in .1 sec and it pretty powerful and destructive.

    All the air inside the tower was pushed outward during the collapse.

    Reply
    • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 10:23 pm said:

      “All the air inside the tower was pushed outward during the collapse.”

      High explosives have a tendency to do that.

      Reply
      • Jeffrey Orling, on June 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm said:

        so does an avalanche push the air out of the way or a speeding train…two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The towers collapsed and the collapsing floor mass was like a train racing through a tunnel… but the air was forced out the widows… AHEAD of the crush front. LOOK at the vids ..see where the ejecta is… below the mass coming down.

        Reply
        • willyloman, on June 9, 2012 at 10:50 pm said:

          You know, you are just jumping from one BS cover story explanation to the next without even attempting to address questions posed to you about specific evidence. This tells me a lot. I’m done with you.

          Reply
        • jan10, on June 10, 2012 at 8:40 am said:

          It was a huge problem for the ‘planners’….. how to use demolition to take down such tall buildings and make it look like a terrorist attack…. first, the demolition process weakens the bottom floors (bottom of 117 floors could be basement up to 50th floor?)… so that explains explosions heard in the lowers floors (before the so called ‘crush of the top falling)…….part of the demolition process…. and they say demolition is done in such a way that it avoids material blowing outward so as to reduce damage to other buildings and people…(so the terrible so called air-power is not usually a problem with the normal demolition process) but this was not a normal demolition job.. after all…. ‘they’ also planned to murder people with planes and fire….they didn’t really care about additional damage but they did want to prevent too much damage to other properties… again, building seven was a huge mistake…. a tell-all blunder….
          and Jeffery, if you are ever in a tunnel when a speeding train goes by you…. don’t worry… you will not be thrown threw the walls of the crumbling tunnel….. just stay off the tracks…

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 565 other followers

%d bloggers like this: