20 Years Since 9/11

[Harvey]

Gosh, it would never have occured to me to ask. You?

I spend alot of time questioning what I think on the basis of "am I being a useful idiot for someone else's agenda?"

That's true. I definitely recognise that you do.

[Harvey]

Excellent technical analysis.

This week on 9/11 Free Fall, mechanical engineer and distinguished 9/11 researcher Tony Szamboti joins host Andy Steele to share his analysis of the Twin Towers’ destruction and to reflect on his and others’ efforts to expose the scientific fraud perpetrated by NIST and engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant.

[stickdog99]

We Have New Evidence of Saudi Involvement in 9/11, and Barely Anyone Cares

[stickdog99]

A painting from Jeffrey Epstein's home:

[Belligerent Savant]

.

No surprise to those paying attention all those years ago.

@gumby4christ
·
A week before 9/11, the WTC's structural engineer, Les Robertson, spoke at a conference on tall buildings at which he assured the audience that the towers could survive being hit by a jetliner.

"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he said.

https://twitter.com/gumby4christ/status ... JrHjtst-6Q

@BayosHarmonicas

WTC Head Structural Engineer, 1993: "analysis indicated the biggest problem wld be… that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the bldg. There wld be a horrendous fire. A lot of people wld be killed… The bldg structure wld still be there."

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archiv ... ug=1687698

https://twitter.com/BayosHarmonicas/sta ... JrHjtst-6Q

[Belligerent Savant]

Here's a stroll down RI's memory lane:

Ok, DrVolin. Thanks for taking the time to go down the list.
After seeing you mention "mini-nukes" I realized I'd better return your serve.

1a. Free fall

In all videos available, I make the collapses at closer to about 15 seconds. Video based observations have a large error. The seismic observations tend to agree with the 13-15 second estimate (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... efall.html).

Perhaps using the expression "free fall speed" as short hand for "too close to free fall speed to be just gravity" is causing undue confusion and distracting from the main point.

In the video I've seen there is a visible shock wave racing down the towers ahead of the floors actually exploding out as debris for hundreds of feet.

The interpretation of exactly what the seismic record was reacting (blindly) to over those few seconds is important.

Possibly related, a four-phase demolition scenario is posited quite convincingly by Gordon Ross at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth based on the sequence and timing and visual evidence and physics articulated through conventional demolition technology.

This ae9/11truth.org link goes to Ross's own website with other work you can judge him by-
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
(How the Towers Were Demolished
by Gordon Ross)

I recommend reading his paper to see how the unique construction of the towers would be accomodated in demolition technology.
This sequencing Ross describes made me look at the seismic record in quite a different light since it has been analyzed as representing one destruction event that might actually be several in series and parallel.

NIST put the timing at 9 and 11 seconds for the WTC1 and WTC2 which is why I called this "around 10 seconds."
This then would atleast confirm that NIST's own measurments or declarations or both are flawed.

Official story weakens by this reasoning.
CD is still possible because the issue is whether the destruction time was long enough to be due to gravity, not just if it was exactly free fall speed.

In any case, all available videos show material falling faster than the overall collapse. That is, some material is ahead of the collapse, and at the level of intact floors. By definition then, the buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. But the question remains, how much more slowly should they have fallen in the absence of cutting charges? I don't think there is a clear answer to this question.

Energy transfer analysis has been done by Gordon Ross (again) and he concluded that the so-called 'pancake collapse' wouldn't even have progressed beyond a few floors due to Conservation of Momentum's slowing effect progressively allowing for even more compression and weight transfer down through the many inter-connected load paths in the building like a big spring.

Here's Gordon Ross's paper on this-
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

This principle of energy dispersion into multiple paths that reduces the threshold overload at the initiation point applies also to the alleged high temperatures from those brief fires. The massive steel columns absorb and wick away heat which prevents the alleged high temperatures that caused molten metal to flow out and structure to allegedly weaken.

This sudden onset of 'collapse' is also not in keeping with the physics of 'weakening' creating a chain reaction which would be more like a crumble than a plummet.
That's tech. lingo. heh.

1b. Design for aircraft impact

I don't think any of the designers were bold enough to claim that the towers could "easily" withstand an aircraft impact.

They definitely did. And withstand much more, too.

Reading just this webpage will give you a tremendous respect for the survivability of the Twin Towers-
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html



Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
..."The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting..."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
..."Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there..." 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

They did claim that the WTC was designed to resist an impact by a Boeing 707 (116 570 kg max take-off weight). While the designers don't mention speed in the interviews and quotes I have seen, they might have been thinking in terms of normal cruising speed (900 km/h).

Speed was accounted for and so was fuel.

By contrast, the 767 has a max take-off weight of 179 170 kg, and with a max level speed of 1000 km/h, can be expected to have been flying faster when they hit the towers. They could have been flying as fast as 1200 km/h, just under Mach. The difference in energy between the 707 and 767 impacts is important.

The real difference in energy that day is accounted for. It was even less than maximum.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
.....
Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Wow, 40% less fuel than maximum. That's quite a reduction in mass and thus impact energy, too.

2) See 1a.

Likewise.

3) Falling too fast

This is a much more important problem than that of the free-fall. I think it is fairly well established that the towers did not in fact collapse at free-fall speed. But did they collapse too fast? And if so why? All the work of which I am aware in this area studies the towers as designed, rather than as built, or even as they existed in 2001. First, given that the problems of [url=http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LtVFfQSrQyCDfpfVhccWD2Sf9tn
47G6f7nD0H2n1qRW32kb1vJyT!-698316616?docId=96413442]corruption in the construction industry[/url] in NY/NJ in the 60's and 70's are so well known, it is suprising that we don't immediately suspect the towers collapsed too far because they were built below specs.

There is zero evidence that the three WTC buildings which should not have come down were compromised in any way by faulty or corrupt construction practices.

On the otherhand, there is lots of evidence that the NIST, FEMA, MIT, and other US government organizations are omitting evidence and outright lying about why three WTC buildings came down so fast when they shouldn't have at all, nevermind as fast as they did.

So if you want to look at corruption-
zero evidence of before 9/11 WTC construction problems vs lots of it afterwards in the so-called investigation.

Second, the towers may not have been as strong in 2001 as they were when built. Any complex system generates unintended consequences, and the towers may have been weakened over time in ways that we still don't (and probably never will) understand.

That's 100% conjecture, unlike the indications of demolition that are not fabricated out of thin air.

Most of the steel beams (labeled as they were to location for assembly) disappeared with Fire Engineering professionals screaming cover-up.

Fortunately, a few beams were saved and some even analyzed. Not many.
But enough to show curves that were impossible without thermate-high temperatures and even vaporizing of some areas or 'swiss--cheesing' effects that were unexplainable without thermate-high temperatures.

At the moment, there seems to be too much information missing to decide whether the towers fell to fast, or how much faster than could have been expected.

No, there's still lots to go on. Despite efforts to get rid of the steel and NIST's refusal to even look into demolition for the evidence and making up nonsense physics.

4) How did tons of concrete and all the building contents, including many human bodies, get turned into particulate matter?

This is far from convincingly established. First, there are obviously non-particulate elements seen in the collapse videos. Second, post-collapse pictures and video of the debris show many large chunks of metal and concrete.

Straw man. Nobody said "all." "Most" is damning enough.

Bodies-
Over 1000 bodies just disappeared and many others were turned into tiny pieces that fit in test tubes. One body was turned into over 200 pieces identified just using DNA.

There is way too little of the building's contents left as anything larger than scraps.
One firemen is on film saying "no file cabinets, desks, chairs, nothing. The largest item I found was half a telephone dial pad."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range.

Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:

* pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
* pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
* unrecognizable pieces of metal
* pieces of paper
* dust

Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

But lets not forget the awesome amount of potential energy that was suddenly turned into kinetic energy by the collapses. How much energy was required to produce the amount of concrete dust produced?

The amount of energy needed to-
>destroy the steel column core and outside columns
>destroy all the contents of the buildings
>send much of the contents horizontally hundreds of feet
>send much of the contents flowing down city streets in massive pyroclastic clouds
>produce a few thousand degrees worth of destruction on steel beams
>create massive pools of flowing molten metal unquenchable by water for many weeks

...is WAY more energy than was in those planes and could come from gravity.

Since we have no clear idea of what proportion of the concrete was ground into particles, and since we don't know how much energy was released, any statements about particulate matter can't be treated as strong evidence.

False.
We have a very clear idea of what proportion of concrete was ground into particles.
And how much energy is needed for what happened IS calculable and it is WAY WAY outside what is possible by a plane crash with some fuel burning briefly and a gravity collapse.

Not to mention the problem of design vs building.

All evidence is that the Twin Towers were absurdly overdesigned and there were no building problems.

More on OVER design survivability-
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8

That's some serious over-survivability design.

Let's say you're conjecture about construction problems had happened.
Would this have countered and exceeded the extreme overdesign survivability? Not likely.
Missing a bolt here or there isn't going to surpass that level of overdesign.

So I think it is safe to hypothesize that "design vs building" is a non-issue.
Plus any examination of design makes the alleged 'pancake collapse' more and more absurd.

5) How did tons of this debris complete with tons of steel beams get projected horizontally hundreds of feet to form a 1200 foot-wide concentric debris field?

This is where we start hitting some contradictions. If the towers collapsed at free fall speed, and the path of greatest resistance was cleared by cutting charges, why was material being projected horizontally? We would expect material to be projected out horizontally precisely if the vertical path was blocked, at least partially.

Why do you say that? What is going to project materials if they are being 'pancaked' and compressed into the next floor below in gravity's grip?

Maybe a little dust would 'puff' in a flatulent manner but not tons of it with steel beams hundreds of feet.

Some of the energy of the towers was clearly being expended in the horizontal ejection of material, before it overwhelmed the vertical resistance. This argues against the presence of cutting charges or other forms of CD.

*TILT*
I put your quote in red because that's the most illogical thing you've written.
Why is it the - ahem - "energy of the towers being clearly expended" projecting tons of debris out and even up in an arc for hundreds of feet?

And then you just slip in that this "argues against the presence of...CD."
That is an amazing thing for you to have posted.

You baldly stated that one of the very things that is impossible due to just gravity actually disproves demolition.

SORRY DRVOLIN. YOU JUST FORFEITED YOUR PLACE ON THE FIELD OF LOGIC.

(sorry for the rude fonts. that's for thread scanners with blurry eyes.)

A second important contradiction: The towers cannot simultaneously have been collapsed into their own footprint by CD and have created a 1200 foot wide concentric debris field.

Uh oh. Your quote is in red again because you used a false dichotomy.
Both of these things can and DID happen.
While much of the contents of each tower's floor was projected out hundreds of feet, the rest of the tower came straight down into its footprint.

Furthermore, since much of the weight of the towers was exploding out around it, this weight was not being applied to the floors below it. Yet there was no slowing down of the path of destruction.

SORRY DRVOLIN. YOU JUST FORFEITED YOUR PLACE ON THE FIELD OF LOGIC. AGAIN.

(sorry again, y'all. just want you to not miss this.)

6) Why do photographs and videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers show this rapid high-energy ejection of tons of debris quite clearly, not from "fuzzy" or "doctored" sources?

See 5.

Likewise.

7a impossible temperatures

Burning is one of those complex processes.

No, it's not. It is clearly understood and there is no mystery.
Given the materials involved and the context, hard rules based on the laws of physics apply universally.

Prehistoric furnaces with natural induction allowed the smelting of iron, which requires at least 1535 C. It isn't hard to imagine a natural furnace effect taking place in the WTC pre-collapse.

Prehistoric furnaces are irrelevant to the WTC. The winds and potential fuel sources are known and cannot account for the temperatures needed to melt metal.

And given the materials and context it is impossible for molten metal to be pouring out of the WTC before destruction and impossible for massive pools of molten metal unquenchable by fire to be under the three destroyed WTC buildings.

Unless thermate was involved and thermate burns underwater because it has its own oxygen source in its chemistry.

7b aluminium

The intriguing footage of flowing metal, as far as I have seen, shows flows that originate not far below the impact points. I don't see how aircraft aluminium can absolutely be ruled out.

It has been. Dr. Steven Jones has done experiments with molten aluminum to test the claims of the NIST. Aluminum looks like silver when its molten, not bright yellow-hot.

A disinformationist named Judy Woods mirrored Jones tests and put up pictures claiming otherwise but she has been shown to be a liar on a number of points and capable of doing things that would impede the truth of the matter. Thus her claims are not to be trusted. Also, she claimed to have super-heated the aluminum but to temperatures which were not obtainable using jet fuel and office contents.

Significant quantities of other metals with low melting points could easily have been kept in the WTC offices for various reasons: Gold (1064 C), copper (1084 C). I also wonder whether some executive washrooms didn't have significant quantities of brass (Cu/Zn alloy). Most brasses, depending on the proportion of zinc, have a comparatively low melting point.

These temperatures still weren't possible and certainly not for any length of time.

8. pools of molten metal

That is a mystery, no doubt. But coal fires have been known to burn for decades at very hot temperatures after mine explosions, so this is not unprecedented.

These are physically impossible without thermate.
NIST officials have even denied they existed but scores of witnesses and photos and even NASA satellite film have proven it.

Now why would NIST deny the pools of molten metal?

9) Why was the exact chemical signature of thermite found in the WTC dust spead over NYCity?

I need to look into this more.

Definitely. It answers the 'how' of many questions about things proven to have happened.

10) Why was the exact chemical signature of thermite found in cooled molten material in debris attached to steel beams sent off as memorials and also on areas of the steel beams that were not cut by acetlyne torch?

see 9

Likewise.

11) Why were there massive steel beams curved without fractures as can only happen under thousands of degrees of heat like the 4500 f. that thermite burns at?

Comustion is not the only source of heat. Pressure also generates heat. I think we can agree that very high pressures were generated by the collapses.

It would take a very long time for the kind of heat that pressure creates to build up and it couldn't build up to 4500 f. The destruction of the Twin Towers was a mere few seconds.

So that's ruled out.

12) Why were iron-rich spheroids found in the WTC dust? These can only be created by molten metal turned into a spray of micro-droplets with massive energy.

"Can only be created by" is a bad start for a scientific argument. One can't rule out that there exists alternative mechanisms for the production of an outcome. "Cannot be the result of" is a much better start. I'd be more impressed with this claim if a range of alternatives were also examined and ruled out.

No other explanations have been forthcoming to explain how micro-droplets of molten metal got into the WTC dust.

And there's lots of indications that thermate was involved.

13) Why did hundreds of first responders report that they heard and felt bombs in the WTC before it came down and just before and during its destruction?

They certainly heard explosions. That is, they heard sudden releases of energy. That isn't surprising, given that massive towers were in the early stages of collapse.

Heard, saw, and felt.
Many of them reported the same "pop-pop-pop" sequence with light flashes going around the building as though a bomb sequence was going off.

"Early stages of collapse?" That's not indicated at all.
The NIST says the opposite.
The NIST describes a sudden onset when a critical threshold due to fire was reached.

Now there's something you can't have both ways.

Literally, something had to pop for those towers to come down. Whether those sudden energy releases were caused by bombs is quite a different question, and the witnesses were probably not in a position to answer it.

Firemen were in a pretty good position inside the towers to know what they were experiencing.

Firefighters (and civilians escaping) FELT and were thrown around by massive explosions in the towers long before they came down.

If you've ever spent a very cold night near a large lake, you know exactly what I mean.

That's not at all like an icy lake cracking.


Well, thanks for your time, DrVolin.
I don't think your responses came close to eliminating the conclusion that the WTC was blown up.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

It took me some time to locate this. I recall this video posted here years ago. Esoteric.

Happened across this video again...