07-02-2012, 04:29 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I would recommend that that first post be removed from this site. It's embarrassing... the links are.
Understood. Fully.
07-02-2012, 04:29 PM
09-02-2012, 09:26 AM
Jeffrey
Thank you for your detailed description of the core column end splices. I have searched in vain for a photograph or drawing depicting that precise condition. I picture the half-inch plates welded to the outer face of the columns, at any rate the disparity of that half inch thickness to the average of several inches for the box perimeter wall and the variable interior members presents a structural weakness.
Further, I found a site positing "weld planes" wherein the thirty-six foot long columns all spliced at the same level; which site listed some including "88, 92", showing photos with "explosions" or "smoke" at 88 and 92 of one of the towers, implying demolition charges at those locations.
Extricating myself from that hypothesis, it is a principle of construction to stagger joints to eliminate a plane of weaknessbut, and it's a four-crane-sized butconstruction required the "weld planes"it's where the four corner cranes sat to do the lifting and placing.
In the macroview, I eschew the Mossad ex Machina accusation which is knee-jerk with so many, many, many with whom I discuss the Big Coup of 1963. It is in my view vastly more logical that the same Saudi Arabian regime which has bought so many presidents, administrations, post-administration lobbyists, called in a hit on its inconvenient Hussein, the one in Baghdad.
Insert here my Iran-Gates-Brezinski perpetual motion hobby horse.
Whomever is to blame, the construction particulars of the casus belli are available in the multiresolution browser at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence...rames.html
And to reference directly the charge of charges at 88 and 92:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...osition=20
The pertinent paragraph being:
As mentioned at this link , all 47 core column splices are at the same elevations separated by 3 floors in the region of interest (they are not staggered). There are horizontal planes separated by 3 floors which contain all the splice connections. The floors are 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104. The splice locations are about 3 ft above the flooring. The splices in this region are all bolted with no welds.
In the above paragraph the author alleges "no welds" at 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104. I can see in photographs the "weld planes," that is, that the three-story columns splice at the same plane or level, but I don't see the source for the no-weld claim.
I would return to an earlier hypothesis, that Acme Contractors entered the appropriate spaces and placed minimal and surgical devices to initiate the consequent catastrophic failure following the airplane impacts.
The result was a couple of trillion-dollar decade-long wars, the cattle-car-ization of the nation vis-a-vis commercial travel, the ceding of all civil liberty (POTUS may now kill anyone), and no presumption of privacy nor fourth, fifth or sixth amendment rights.
Thank you for your detailed description of the core column end splices. I have searched in vain for a photograph or drawing depicting that precise condition. I picture the half-inch plates welded to the outer face of the columns, at any rate the disparity of that half inch thickness to the average of several inches for the box perimeter wall and the variable interior members presents a structural weakness.
Further, I found a site positing "weld planes" wherein the thirty-six foot long columns all spliced at the same level; which site listed some including "88, 92", showing photos with "explosions" or "smoke" at 88 and 92 of one of the towers, implying demolition charges at those locations.
Extricating myself from that hypothesis, it is a principle of construction to stagger joints to eliminate a plane of weaknessbut, and it's a four-crane-sized butconstruction required the "weld planes"it's where the four corner cranes sat to do the lifting and placing.
In the macroview, I eschew the Mossad ex Machina accusation which is knee-jerk with so many, many, many with whom I discuss the Big Coup of 1963. It is in my view vastly more logical that the same Saudi Arabian regime which has bought so many presidents, administrations, post-administration lobbyists, called in a hit on its inconvenient Hussein, the one in Baghdad.
Insert here my Iran-Gates-Brezinski perpetual motion hobby horse.
Whomever is to blame, the construction particulars of the casus belli are available in the multiresolution browser at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence...rames.html
And to reference directly the charge of charges at 88 and 92:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...osition=20
The pertinent paragraph being:
As mentioned at this link , all 47 core column splices are at the same elevations separated by 3 floors in the region of interest (they are not staggered). There are horizontal planes separated by 3 floors which contain all the splice connections. The floors are 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104. The splice locations are about 3 ft above the flooring. The splices in this region are all bolted with no welds.
In the above paragraph the author alleges "no welds" at 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104. I can see in photographs the "weld planes," that is, that the three-story columns splice at the same plane or level, but I don't see the source for the no-weld claim.
I would return to an earlier hypothesis, that Acme Contractors entered the appropriate spaces and placed minimal and surgical devices to initiate the consequent catastrophic failure following the airplane impacts.
The result was a couple of trillion-dollar decade-long wars, the cattle-car-ization of the nation vis-a-vis commercial travel, the ceding of all civil liberty (POTUS may now kill anyone), and no presumption of privacy nor fourth, fifth or sixth amendment rights.
09-02-2012, 12:47 PM
Phil,
It appears that the core did fail at the impact zones as there were buckled columns recovered from that region. Buckled columns only occur when the columns see loads which exceed its yield strength. Since there were no significant loads added, the excessive loads were the result of some columns being destroyed, others damaged and perhaps weakened by heat resulting in the loads being redistributed to load pathways in the remaining columns. That's how gravity works.
If you get on the scale with 2 feet and it shows you weigh 200 pounds and you lift one foot up and remain standing on the scale with one foot on it... the scale still shows 200 pounds... your weight has not changed. But now your one leg is supporting all 200 pounds... load redistribution has taken place. Your one leg can support the full body weight... obviously.
The core failure likely was progressive and or the result of multiple factors which led to the remaining columns buckling. The factors were:
Load stresses cannot be made disappear. They can only be redistributed. The first part of the twin towers' destruction was led by core failure and then the collapse of the floors above the buckled/failed core. Once the mass of the top was no longer directed to load paths within the columns axially... it was presented to the floor systems which could not support these excessive loads and they failed by shattering and or ripping off their connections to the columns.
The floor collapse was the second phase and did not require any additional explosives as it was a mechanical process of simple over loading each floor in rapid succession.
The collapsed and destroyed floors left the facade columns unbraced and unstable and they were seeing the growing destroyed floor mass pushing outward. The facade's column to column and spandrel to spandrel connections again being the weakest part of the facade failed and the facade assemblies came off in sections of 36'h x 10'w or mulitples. The panels were staggered and there were continuous horizontal seams just below and above the mech floors. There were facade panels of one and two stories as well.
Even if, as engineering explains... the collapse was gravity driven once started it does not rule out that there were devices placed or delivered as payload which would not align with the conventional explanation of the OCT. One would have to rule out the possibilities that heat from the plane caused fires and other features of the structure (design) were not sufficient to cause buckling and core failure. There are multiple possibilities and they seem to require massive core destruction from the plane impact, and enormous heat from plane caused fires to overwhelm the core's strength. This is a complex problem with multiple inputs and little hard data to work with.
It's certainly *easy* to posit that devices were placed and that solves that and no need to develop a model of how the core was made to fail. The issue is to find evidence of this. And that may not be possible because the steel is gone.
Was the destruction of the steel (evidence) part of a plot to cover up the use of explosive and other placed devices... or was it a sweet heart contract to some company? Or both? How can we know?
It appears that the core did fail at the impact zones as there were buckled columns recovered from that region. Buckled columns only occur when the columns see loads which exceed its yield strength. Since there were no significant loads added, the excessive loads were the result of some columns being destroyed, others damaged and perhaps weakened by heat resulting in the loads being redistributed to load pathways in the remaining columns. That's how gravity works.
If you get on the scale with 2 feet and it shows you weigh 200 pounds and you lift one foot up and remain standing on the scale with one foot on it... the scale still shows 200 pounds... your weight has not changed. But now your one leg is supporting all 200 pounds... load redistribution has taken place. Your one leg can support the full body weight... obviously.
The core failure likely was progressive and or the result of multiple factors which led to the remaining columns buckling. The factors were:
destruction of columns from the plane impact (unknown number) destroyed or damaged
some columns were thicker than others and the thinner one were subject to weakening/destruction more easily
heat which weakens steel (unknown temps, duration and location)
splice connections which were 3' above the floor level
weakening from loss of bracing
safety factor (low enough to lead to column failures)
damage from placed devices or plane delivered destruction... *payload* aside from jet fuel
All but the last were a result of the plane impact and only the last cause would support an intervention such as a MIHOP. The nature of the connection splices being substantially weaker and aligned in a single plane 3' above the floor level accounts for the frame breaking apart into neat 36' long sections seen in the debris pile. Euler buckling accounts for columns loss of strength and stability when bracing is removed. Bracing was likely removed from floor collapses partial or in whole as the braces supported the floors.some columns were thicker than others and the thinner one were subject to weakening/destruction more easily
heat which weakens steel (unknown temps, duration and location)
splice connections which were 3' above the floor level
weakening from loss of bracing
safety factor (low enough to lead to column failures)
damage from placed devices or plane delivered destruction... *payload* aside from jet fuel
Load stresses cannot be made disappear. They can only be redistributed. The first part of the twin towers' destruction was led by core failure and then the collapse of the floors above the buckled/failed core. Once the mass of the top was no longer directed to load paths within the columns axially... it was presented to the floor systems which could not support these excessive loads and they failed by shattering and or ripping off their connections to the columns.
The floor collapse was the second phase and did not require any additional explosives as it was a mechanical process of simple over loading each floor in rapid succession.
The collapsed and destroyed floors left the facade columns unbraced and unstable and they were seeing the growing destroyed floor mass pushing outward. The facade's column to column and spandrel to spandrel connections again being the weakest part of the facade failed and the facade assemblies came off in sections of 36'h x 10'w or mulitples. The panels were staggered and there were continuous horizontal seams just below and above the mech floors. There were facade panels of one and two stories as well.
Even if, as engineering explains... the collapse was gravity driven once started it does not rule out that there were devices placed or delivered as payload which would not align with the conventional explanation of the OCT. One would have to rule out the possibilities that heat from the plane caused fires and other features of the structure (design) were not sufficient to cause buckling and core failure. There are multiple possibilities and they seem to require massive core destruction from the plane impact, and enormous heat from plane caused fires to overwhelm the core's strength. This is a complex problem with multiple inputs and little hard data to work with.
It's certainly *easy* to posit that devices were placed and that solves that and no need to develop a model of how the core was made to fail. The issue is to find evidence of this. And that may not be possible because the steel is gone.
Was the destruction of the steel (evidence) part of a plot to cover up the use of explosive and other placed devices... or was it a sweet heart contract to some company? Or both? How can we know?
10-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Jeffrey
Thank you for the clarity of your explanation.
I take your sequence to be 1) core collapse; 2) floor collapse; 3) façade collapse.
The principle of transfer of load X from Y columns to Y minus damaged columns causes the collapse of Y columns.
The damage is by observable and deduced cause and perhaps by speculative cause as well.
The sabotage aspect is speculation without proof, but with belief.
Belief based on a number of prior incidents not least of which is OKCBomb, the Murrah being devastated though ATF informant Carol Howe begged agent Angela Finney to get McVeigh at Elohim City yet the FBI would not.
Would not, and did not pursue Andreas Karl Strassmeier, Andy the German, he of military intelligence training.
The tie-in to Ramzi Youssef related to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Jayna Davis' Middle Eastern John Doe Number 2.
The immediate war drum percussion tsunami rivaling any Reifenstahl intro to Nuremberg.
In the links I posted an author protested that the official report was loathe to provide blueprints and did not present a current diagram of the core columns.
You have provided great detail, and clarity.
The four corners were robust enough to be used as moving crane platforms, withstanding 360 degrees of stress at most every level.
The relatively rapid disposition of the steel has a plausible denial, that of profit.
Since 1947 we have been arguably unwitting subjects to policies emanating more and more from an agency refining the technique of accomplishing a covert agenda by overt means.
There can never be for me an innocent explanation of the Gorelick Wall, the isolation and sabotage of John O'Neill, the presence of the hijackers on no-fly lists, the warnings of FBI Special Agent Kathleen Rowley going without action, and the immunity of the Saudis flying out on D-Day.
As is widely known but little discussed, the auxiliary anomalies include but are not necessarily limited to, the lack of evidence of a plane impacting the Pentagon, the conflicting reports of the fate of Flight 93, as well as questions of the abilities of the pilots and airframes to accomplish the tracks alleged.
Weakening any credence of a government report is the vicious coverup of TWA Flight 800 by the FBI's Kalstrom, the CIA's cartoon of the center fuel tank explosion explaining the missile sighting of many, the radar plot of the fast boat leaving the scene as all other craft sped to a rescue position.
We eschew wild speculation.
As well as any respite from a well-earned, dark suspicion.
Again, thank you for your clarity.
Thank you for the clarity of your explanation.
I take your sequence to be 1) core collapse; 2) floor collapse; 3) façade collapse.
The principle of transfer of load X from Y columns to Y minus damaged columns causes the collapse of Y columns.
The damage is by observable and deduced cause and perhaps by speculative cause as well.
The sabotage aspect is speculation without proof, but with belief.
Belief based on a number of prior incidents not least of which is OKCBomb, the Murrah being devastated though ATF informant Carol Howe begged agent Angela Finney to get McVeigh at Elohim City yet the FBI would not.
Would not, and did not pursue Andreas Karl Strassmeier, Andy the German, he of military intelligence training.
The tie-in to Ramzi Youssef related to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Jayna Davis' Middle Eastern John Doe Number 2.
The immediate war drum percussion tsunami rivaling any Reifenstahl intro to Nuremberg.
In the links I posted an author protested that the official report was loathe to provide blueprints and did not present a current diagram of the core columns.
You have provided great detail, and clarity.
The four corners were robust enough to be used as moving crane platforms, withstanding 360 degrees of stress at most every level.
The relatively rapid disposition of the steel has a plausible denial, that of profit.
Since 1947 we have been arguably unwitting subjects to policies emanating more and more from an agency refining the technique of accomplishing a covert agenda by overt means.
There can never be for me an innocent explanation of the Gorelick Wall, the isolation and sabotage of John O'Neill, the presence of the hijackers on no-fly lists, the warnings of FBI Special Agent Kathleen Rowley going without action, and the immunity of the Saudis flying out on D-Day.
As is widely known but little discussed, the auxiliary anomalies include but are not necessarily limited to, the lack of evidence of a plane impacting the Pentagon, the conflicting reports of the fate of Flight 93, as well as questions of the abilities of the pilots and airframes to accomplish the tracks alleged.
Weakening any credence of a government report is the vicious coverup of TWA Flight 800 by the FBI's Kalstrom, the CIA's cartoon of the center fuel tank explosion explaining the missile sighting of many, the radar plot of the fast boat leaving the scene as all other craft sped to a rescue position.
We eschew wild speculation.
As well as any respite from a well-earned, dark suspicion.
Again, thank you for your clarity.
10-02-2012, 01:36 PM
It's truly hard to know if the collapse of the top sections were an engineered demolition with some sort of pre placed or delivered devices in the planes ot if they were simply from the excessive heat from the fires generated by the plane fuel and contents acting on a vulnerable design.
The vulnerable design was definitely part of the cover up because regardless of the cause of initiation, the structure was not investigated for the likelihood of progressive collapse. There are engineering papers which show this is a distinct possibility in high rise buildings. Those papers were written after the towers were built and before they collapsed (I believe). Obviously no one was going to take then down or reinforce them. We can only assume that there was a decision to not undertake this way too expensive retro fit because the worst case would only manifest if there was a over load presented to the floor system sufficient to destroy one floor and all those below. The likelihood of such an over load was virtually zero... as it required 4 or more collapsed floors falling on a single floor to kink off the progressive floor failure.
The engineers did not expect even a large plane impact to create enough destruction to kick off a progressive floor collapse. They claimed they did not run any simulations about whether fire could cause failure of the floor system (the NIST explanation which is not credible)... or if the core could be weakened by heat to cause it fail. Office type fires seem to produce not enough heat and over larger enough areas to effect enough columns to fail the core. This needs more rigorous scientific investigation to confirm or deny this. NIST did not look at core failure from heat and only truss failures. And of course the reserve strength of the core would be a key factor to how many columns could be destroyed or how much the remaining ones could be weakened to cause the core to buckle. I've read some who claim (from the truth movement side) very FOS of 3 or 5 or even 20. This is simply not true because it means that there would have had to be 1/3 to as much as 10 times the steel weight (cross section) for the columns... or the steel would have had to have been extremely hi tech high strength steel at the same weight and cross section we see. So the FOS was as low as 1.65 and perhaps as high as 2 depending on the building weight. Core failure from buckling IS a calculation driven by the actual yield strength of the steel and the actual mass it is supporting. Yield strength DOES go down with heat... but building mass is more or less constant. Destroyed and or damaged columns reduce total yield strength of the core.
I speculate that this *engineering secret* was something that was something that could be exploited IF someone wanted to take the towers down... without having to use a traditions low down column destruction. The tradition approach would require such massive explosive power that it would be very hard to place without notice. But the progressive floor collapse led by a core destruction up top required much less energy input to kick off the floor collapse which had to be a downward driven process.
I speculate that AQ type terrorists did not need to take the towers down... but the simply hit them and such a plane strike and ensuing fires would make them unusable not to mention unrentable even if they could have been repaired. I speculate that the total destruction of the entire complex would not be a goal of a terrorist. This speculation leads one to think that the supposed hijackers got very lucky and cause way way more damage than then thought would happen... or they had done some engineering and advanced study of the buildings including the electrical systems.
How to account for bldg 7? It was we were told collateral damage from the collapse of tower 1 causing fires at column 79 which proved fatal. But it's likely that bldg 7 collapsed from another design innovation - building a 47 story (actually 42) above a huge Con Edison sub station which served most of lower Manhattan. My speculation is that the first plane caused a huge voltage spike which fatally damaged a series of transformers in the substations in tower 1 (8 of them) and the main one under Building 7. The transformers then released insulating oil and explosive gas which ignited from sparks etc. The pumps for sprinklers lost power, the huge diesel tanks unloaded their fuel down to the generator floors above the sub station which were destroyed and a massive diesel fire burned inside the core. There were massive ventilation grilles on the north side of bldg 7 at floors 6 and 7 to supply oxygen for combustion and the net effect is that the fires failed the massive transfer trusses supporting multiple core columns of the tower above the sub station. Another core failure but this one at the bottom (floor 7 / 8). These fires burned un fought all day. Recall Barry Jennings hear massive explosion below him when he was in the stairwell on the 8th floor shortly after the first plane had hit tower 1 ( exploding gas released from the sub station???) If this failure scenario of bldg 7 is what happened as I speculate, it is almost impossible to accept that this was planned by hijackers. They got lucky or... someone exploited the vulnerability to / ofthe sub station... the transfer trusses and then the core.
Excerpt of a report of the electrical power grid on 9/11:
The vulnerable design was definitely part of the cover up because regardless of the cause of initiation, the structure was not investigated for the likelihood of progressive collapse. There are engineering papers which show this is a distinct possibility in high rise buildings. Those papers were written after the towers were built and before they collapsed (I believe). Obviously no one was going to take then down or reinforce them. We can only assume that there was a decision to not undertake this way too expensive retro fit because the worst case would only manifest if there was a over load presented to the floor system sufficient to destroy one floor and all those below. The likelihood of such an over load was virtually zero... as it required 4 or more collapsed floors falling on a single floor to kink off the progressive floor failure.
The engineers did not expect even a large plane impact to create enough destruction to kick off a progressive floor collapse. They claimed they did not run any simulations about whether fire could cause failure of the floor system (the NIST explanation which is not credible)... or if the core could be weakened by heat to cause it fail. Office type fires seem to produce not enough heat and over larger enough areas to effect enough columns to fail the core. This needs more rigorous scientific investigation to confirm or deny this. NIST did not look at core failure from heat and only truss failures. And of course the reserve strength of the core would be a key factor to how many columns could be destroyed or how much the remaining ones could be weakened to cause the core to buckle. I've read some who claim (from the truth movement side) very FOS of 3 or 5 or even 20. This is simply not true because it means that there would have had to be 1/3 to as much as 10 times the steel weight (cross section) for the columns... or the steel would have had to have been extremely hi tech high strength steel at the same weight and cross section we see. So the FOS was as low as 1.65 and perhaps as high as 2 depending on the building weight. Core failure from buckling IS a calculation driven by the actual yield strength of the steel and the actual mass it is supporting. Yield strength DOES go down with heat... but building mass is more or less constant. Destroyed and or damaged columns reduce total yield strength of the core.
I speculate that this *engineering secret* was something that was something that could be exploited IF someone wanted to take the towers down... without having to use a traditions low down column destruction. The tradition approach would require such massive explosive power that it would be very hard to place without notice. But the progressive floor collapse led by a core destruction up top required much less energy input to kick off the floor collapse which had to be a downward driven process.
I speculate that AQ type terrorists did not need to take the towers down... but the simply hit them and such a plane strike and ensuing fires would make them unusable not to mention unrentable even if they could have been repaired. I speculate that the total destruction of the entire complex would not be a goal of a terrorist. This speculation leads one to think that the supposed hijackers got very lucky and cause way way more damage than then thought would happen... or they had done some engineering and advanced study of the buildings including the electrical systems.
How to account for bldg 7? It was we were told collateral damage from the collapse of tower 1 causing fires at column 79 which proved fatal. But it's likely that bldg 7 collapsed from another design innovation - building a 47 story (actually 42) above a huge Con Edison sub station which served most of lower Manhattan. My speculation is that the first plane caused a huge voltage spike which fatally damaged a series of transformers in the substations in tower 1 (8 of them) and the main one under Building 7. The transformers then released insulating oil and explosive gas which ignited from sparks etc. The pumps for sprinklers lost power, the huge diesel tanks unloaded their fuel down to the generator floors above the sub station which were destroyed and a massive diesel fire burned inside the core. There were massive ventilation grilles on the north side of bldg 7 at floors 6 and 7 to supply oxygen for combustion and the net effect is that the fires failed the massive transfer trusses supporting multiple core columns of the tower above the sub station. Another core failure but this one at the bottom (floor 7 / 8). These fires burned un fought all day. Recall Barry Jennings hear massive explosion below him when he was in the stairwell on the 8th floor shortly after the first plane had hit tower 1 ( exploding gas released from the sub station???) If this failure scenario of bldg 7 is what happened as I speculate, it is almost impossible to accept that this was planned by hijackers. They got lucky or... someone exploited the vulnerability to / ofthe sub station... the transfer trusses and then the core.
Excerpt of a report of the electrical power grid on 9/11:
Timeline on 911112001:
08:46 a.m. Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
09:02 a.m. Two additional WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW went off
09:52 a.m. Four additional open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
10:28 a.m. Status: '
Cortlandt 8 of 15 feeders were off
Battery Park City 6 of 8 feeders were off
Bowling Green 6 of 16 feeders were off
Park Place 1 of 12 feeders were off
Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled the
equipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed.
08:46 a.m. Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
09:02 a.m. Two additional WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW went off
09:52 a.m. Four additional open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
10:28 a.m. Status: '
Cortlandt 8 of 15 feeders were off
Battery Park City 6 of 8 feeders were off
Bowling Green 6 of 16 feeders were off
Park Place 1 of 12 feeders were off
Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled the
equipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed.
10-02-2012, 07:37 PM
Phil - your post #14 above is typically resonant.
Jeffrey - in an area of scientific literature with which I am more familiar, namely medical papers published in clinical journals or as records of specialist conferences, discoveries or insights of this profound nature - analogous to what you term an "engineering secret" - can occasionally be found.
These discoveries then tend to remain curiously unresearched in the open, public domain, literature.
However, it sometimes becomes evident that the research into such "secrets" continued and intensified... out of sight, in the world of black budgets...
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:It's truly hard to know if the collapse of the top sections were an engineered demolition with some sort of pre placed or delivered devices in the planes ot if they were simply from the excessive heat from the fires generated by the plane fuel and contents acting on a vulnerable design.
The vulnerable design was definitely part of the cover up because regardless of the cause of initiation, the structure was not investigated for the likelihood of progressive collapse. There are engineering papers which show this is a distinct possibility in high rise buildings. Those papers were written after the towers were built and before they collapsed (I believe).
(snip)
I speculate that this *engineering secret* was something that was something that could be exploited IF someone wanted to take the towers down... without having to use a traditions low down column destruction. The tradition approach would require such massive explosive power that it would be very hard to place without notice. But the progressive floor collapse led by a core destruction up top required much less energy input to kick off the floor collapse which had to be a downward driven process.
I speculate that AQ type terrorists did not need to take the towers down... but the simply hit them and such a plane strike and ensuing fires would make them unusable not to mention unrentable even if they could have been repaired. I speculate that the total destruction of the entire complex would not be a goal of a terrorist. This speculation leads one to think that the supposed hijackers got very lucky and cause way way more damage than then thought would happen... or they had done some engineering and advanced study of the buildings including the electrical systems.
Jeffrey - in an area of scientific literature with which I am more familiar, namely medical papers published in clinical journals or as records of specialist conferences, discoveries or insights of this profound nature - analogous to what you term an "engineering secret" - can occasionally be found.
These discoveries then tend to remain curiously unresearched in the open, public domain, literature.
However, it sometimes becomes evident that the research into such "secrets" continued and intensified... out of sight, in the world of black budgets...
10-02-2012, 09:42 PM
Jim,
My suspicion is that NIST and the 9/11 Commission might have realized that these three structures had some very unusual engineering design approaches/decisions. This would have nothing to do with the initiation cause per se... but ultimately explained the building collapse. In both the case of the twins and Bldg 7 a legal team would want to look at the actual mechanism of collapse if not try to pin down the initiation. As noted the initiation likely had several contribution factors... and one of the was the design itself. It was one factor, but the aggregate which would doom the structures. And one of those factors was the structural design. A very strong design could resist the other contributing factors and in the case of the twins would not have had the floors collapse progressively and completely down to the ground. The Emprire State Building could not collapse down if the top 15 or 30 stories collapsed onto the lower section... regardless of what initiation that upper collapse. A law suit would have brought out the design consideration and decisions and how this led to the collapse. I suspect the same for Bldg 7 and so cover HAD to be provided to the developers, designers and officials who approved the designs... because the mother of all construction professional liability negligence lawsuit would have been filed. And had it been we would have a lot more evidence of what actually happened.
W declared 9/11 an act of war... no need to preserve evidence... and down the memory hole it all went.
My suspicion is that NIST and the 9/11 Commission might have realized that these three structures had some very unusual engineering design approaches/decisions. This would have nothing to do with the initiation cause per se... but ultimately explained the building collapse. In both the case of the twins and Bldg 7 a legal team would want to look at the actual mechanism of collapse if not try to pin down the initiation. As noted the initiation likely had several contribution factors... and one of the was the design itself. It was one factor, but the aggregate which would doom the structures. And one of those factors was the structural design. A very strong design could resist the other contributing factors and in the case of the twins would not have had the floors collapse progressively and completely down to the ground. The Emprire State Building could not collapse down if the top 15 or 30 stories collapsed onto the lower section... regardless of what initiation that upper collapse. A law suit would have brought out the design consideration and decisions and how this led to the collapse. I suspect the same for Bldg 7 and so cover HAD to be provided to the developers, designers and officials who approved the designs... because the mother of all construction professional liability negligence lawsuit would have been filed. And had it been we would have a lot more evidence of what actually happened.
W declared 9/11 an act of war... no need to preserve evidence... and down the memory hole it all went.
11-02-2012, 07:53 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I would recommend that that first post be removed from this site. It's embarrassing... the links are.
Understood. Fully.
I await the arrival of Mark Gaffney's forthcoming book (still forthcoming, according to Amazon) on the "black" technologies used that day.
We have a clear case of "metsuke" in that some of the people trying to understand what happened that day are -- like the folks warned by Salandria in discussing JFK/Dealey -- standing way to close to the detail and continuing to argue the detail while all the while blithely ignoring history (where can be found the master curricula and playbooks for the use of ruse and deception in the hands of the very people who brought us Zionism), and its observations about tendencies.
I learned how to study tendencies by re-creating an entire NFL season using the tabletop football simulation game "NFL Strategy", which was developed by an NFL quarterback with a doctorate in math, although it did not help me predict, because I'd been away from the game for so long, the day when one coach would tell the ball-carrier to fall down before he crossed the goal line and the other coach tell his players that if they saw the ball-carrier approaching the goal line, they were to make way for him and let him score.
This illusion to tendencies seems obscure and off-target but it is closely related to game theory.
Which political movement and sovereign state has made it a national priority to master game theory?
Which has used continuously and repeatedly the tactics of psychological warfare, deception, and aggressive attack under some ruse or guise?
Who are the primary players, purveyors, educators, theorists and pundits of that approach (including the infamous method of coup d'etat by infiltration now in its end game in America)?
The most recent (of many, many of which are not posted here in this tiny-but-august forum of experts on thinking) of these tendencies can be found here:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ror-groups
Everyone should keep their shirts and pants on because if you think that, at this stage of the game, you can describe in depth and in detail what went down, how, etc., you are surely deeply ignorant. While on one hand we can concentrate on trying to predict what play the quarterback is going to call next, or whether he will be emphasizing short passes or the ground game, we can also try to look back and analyze why it is that one clutch catch of a critically-time pass succeeded and why another did not.
If I learned anything about football by playing a simulation game, if I learned anything about warfare by playing simulation games, it is this:
Events and outcomes are decided by the physical execution or performance of a myriad of coordinated acts of real human beings "on the ground", in reality, in real-time. This is why the OODA loop developed (so as to look into the wind of the opponent at near-Mach speeds ranging in altitude from 500 feet to 20,000 feet). This is why training systems are de rigeur. This is why people study situational awareness, tactical decision-making under stress (TADMUS), and performance psychology for humans: http://summonthemagic.blogspot.com/2011/...urney.html
11-02-2012, 08:36 PM
OK... How many participants in the 911 conspiracy were required who understood that they were pulling off a false flag.
10
50
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Just guess at one of those numbers.
10
50
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Just guess at one of those numbers.
11-02-2012, 08:45 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:OK... How many participants in the 911 conspiracy were required who understood that they were pulling off a false flag.
10
50
100
200
500
1000
2000
5000
Just guess at one of those numbers.
This question is as absurd as it is demeaning to the serious study of deep politics.