Deep Politics Forum

Albert,

I think that is a good assessment. I find it hard to believe that they had what it takes to do a demo on such short notice AND to send a crew into such an unstable building believing it could fall at any moment.

I can't rule out a CD cause for the COLLAPSE, but there is no hard evidence of it. Something went wrong at the transfer truss #3 and that led to the building collapsing straight down. It was a progression of failures through the structure on floors 6&7. I think that you can take to the bank.

As I have written for months now since it took almost 8 hrs for the collapse to begin (and of course end in a few seconds) a gradual weakening MAY have been what was going on. To me it signals a heat cause... but the source of the heat is speculation. The explosions witnessed were not large enough to destroy the structure AND they were witnessed as early as 10 am and the building stood for 7 more hrs.

The loud sounds heard just before the VISIBLE movement could be the structure giving way inside. Can't really know for sure since we can't see inside the building where the undoing was being done.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Albert,

I think that is a good assessment. I find it hard to believe that they had what it takes to do a demo on such short notice AND to send a crew into such an unstable building believing it could fall at any moment.

I can't rule out a CD cause for the COLLAPSE, but there is no hard evidence of it. Something went wrong at the transfer truss #3 and that led to the building collapsing straight down. It was a progression of failures through the structure on floors 6&7. I think that you can take to the bank.

I see your thesis as highly speculative. You haven't managed to persuade many of your peers regarding it. You say there are only 1500 technical people out of 250k who could have signed on. How many have you got in the Jeffrey Orling 9/11 Skeptics movement? You and ... how many?

Quote:As I have written for months now since it took almost 8 hrs for the collapse to begin (and of course end in a few seconds) a gradual weakening MAY have been what was going on. To me it signals a heat cause... but the source of the heat is speculation. The explosions witnessed were not large enough to destroy the structure AND they were witnessed as early as 10 am and the building stood for 7 more hrs.

The loud sounds heard just before the VISIBLE movement could be the structure giving way inside. Can't really know for sure since we can't see inside the building where the undoing was being done.

Then we get to the loud sounds before the collapse. Of course they were prior to the collapse. That would certainly fit the pattern of CD. It might well fit your model. That is not the point.

They are loud and sequential as seen in the following video starting at 1:98 and on. I am focusing on the sequential nature of the booms -- loud enough to be heard on a directional mic -- that's loud.



In fact, the unique construction features which Orling writes about, which I do not deny, would make the building easier to take down by CD. A few charges, and down it comes.

Note the sequential charges on this building:

Lauren,

I am not communicating with anyone from AE911T. And frankly AE911T doesn't communicated with the 1500 who signed their petition.

I am not interested in publishing a paper. I am an architect and don't have the time and frankly the technical expertise in physics and engineering. Participating on 9-11 discussions is the limit of what I am going to do for the foreseeable future. I am not going down the rabbit hole of becoming a 9-11 personality.. selling books, make lectures and being quoted by *followers*. Not interested in winning wars of ideas or beliefs or toppling those who have set themselves up as experts. But Fetzer IS one annoying character who should listen more than speak.. or write.

I did the research to satisfy my own curiosity and learned a lot along the way. I am neither a leader nor a follower. I am an independent person who is exercising my right to express myself on the various forums which are available to the general public. I post on forums about sailing, ballet, politics and obviously 9-11.

My thesis is no more speculative and likely less so than any other out there. It is based on observed mappings of building movements and applying my limited knowledge of structure, physics and science... which is a helluva lot more grounded than your 9-11 beliefs I imagine.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Lauren,

I am not communicating with anyone from AE911T. And frankly AE911T doesn't communicated with the 1500 who signed their petition.

I am not interested in publishing a paper. I am an architect and don't have the time and frankly the technical expertise in physics and engineering. Participating on 9-11 discussions is the limit of what I am going to do for the foreseeable future. I am not going down the rabbit hole of becoming a 9-11 personality.. selling books, make lectures and being quoted by *followers*. Not interested in winning wars of ideas or beliefs or toppling those who have set themselves up as experts. But Fetzer IS one annoying character who should listen more than speak.. or write.

I did the research to satisfy my own curiosity and learned a lot along the way. I am neither a leader nor a follower. I am an independent person who is exercising my right to express myself on the various forums which are available to the general public. I post on forums about sailing, ballet, politics and obviously 9-11.

My thesis is no more speculative and likely less so than any other out there. It is based on observed mappings of building movements and applying my limited knowledge of structure, physics and science... which is a helluva lot more grounded than your 9-11 beliefs I imagine.

I was just reminding you that belittled the 1500 number of AE911T compared to the numbers they could have had in another post. I was asking a rhetorical question: Where are you minions? OK, you are just one person. I still don't see a lot of people supporting you.

And the videos I posted are the single most troubling set of facts that you cannot give an adequate answer. You just walk away. Explosions? What explosions? Oh, those. Sequential? Naw. Witnesses told the buildings would be brought down? Fuggetaboutit. Witnesses describing the explosions as Thum. Thum. Thum. Thum. Just like in the Ashley Banfield piece? I didn't hear anything. There were also the explosions before the 5:20 pm collapse as reported by the deceased Barry Jennings.

I think your analysis actually helps to explain why so few explosions were necessary. They had only a few beams to blow out. Of course, there were the explosions seen as squibs during the collapse. And there were earlier explosions as reportedAfter that, it's all the control of the flow of news.

Lauren.

Not beams... Beams support floors. What was destroyed were trusses and cantilever girders.

Not many people are aware of ROOSD and virtually no one that I know or have read about has actually proposed the mechanism of collapse of WTC7... including AE911T. They have a cartoon explanation:

81 columns over 8 floors were destroyed instanteously.

There is nothing in the visual record to support such a statement. I've maintained all along that many things exploded at the WTC and were taken to be bombs, but likely were not. The deputy fire commission made a statement that he believed that many of the explosions witnessed were from electrical equipment exploding. Who can be certain? You would need to see what was actually exploding wouldn't you?

I believe strongly that the explosions witnessed by William Rodriguez and Barry Jennings were electrical equipment. William told me he never heard a transformer explode, that there were lots of electrical switchgear where he thought the explosion came from and that he couldn't state it was a bomb either. I posted a link to a transformer explosion. They are common and very loud and could easily be mistaken for a bomb... especially in the context of the day after everyone was thinking there was a terrorist attack underway. My first reaction would be bomb also.

The research indicates that blg 7 and the twins came down when there was a failure in the core in the twins and below it in 7. Bldg 7's core DID NOT extend down to bedrock.. it was supported on less than the 24 column above floor 8 in the core ...on several trusses. If you don't know the structure or have studied it all below flr 8 (as AE911T has not) and you are familiar with statics and engineering design... especially trusses... you can't appreciate how the bldg collapsed. End of story. You haven't a clue because you are not an engineer so all you can do is rely of what someone else tells you.. which is what most of do about technical matters. We trust the experts.

We can't know with what evidence is available in the public record the precise cause of the weakening and then failure of the structure on floords 6&7. But there was not much structure below it and so when it gave way the core above it came down and the rest is history. That's what the movement of the building tells us (who understand such things a bit.)

I don't expect those in the truth movement to back away from the false certainty that all three towers were taken down by CD. They don't explain it but point to some observations... sounds of explosions, lots of dust, speed of collapse, symmetry, high temperatures, a huge cloud and so on as being unexplanable by any *natural collapse cause* or so called fore knowledge as proof on an inside job. This is flat out wrong.

Nano thermite was supposed to be the smoking gun for exotic explosives. But in a second study of the dust the red gray chips were found to be paint, not contain nano thermite. And no one has explained how NT might have been used. Niels Harrit who wrong the paper noted in an email to be that there would have been 160 tons per floor required to do the damage seen... 320,000 pounds of NT? Can this really be taken seriously?

While there could have been devices which cut through or heated the steel and weakened it.. there is no proof or evidence of these devices and the movement is consistent with natural collapses as is the creation of the dust, the cloud, and the heat. The extreme heat DOES require investigation, but it's not evidence of CD any more than it is of some bizarre exothermic reaction resulting from the mixing of iron, aluminum, water and sulfur withj enormous pressure. Weird stuff might happen. I'm not a chemist and I won't declare this is a certainty, but it seems a possibility and should be considered and studied.

The largest building to collapse from CD was 1/20th the size of a twin tower. Size and scale matter in mechanical interactions. Gravity doesn't scale. Small buildings will never collapse as those huge towers did. Comepletely different animals.

There's lot to learn and we need to know what they officials concocted that BS story... aside from the fact that it would smooth the way to wars in the ME.

We're given a choice between two nonsense explanations each unsupported by the observations, engineering and science. That in iteself is rather interesting and quite the distraction.

I don't belittle the 1,500...I think the number is not significant... but it is a very very small percentage of architecture and engineering professionals in the USA which would be in the range of 500,000. If the case was so compelling for CD why are so few asking for a new investigation which was what the petitiion called for. AE911T does NOT engage those 1,500... only a few who come forward because they believe the CD concept. They could be wrong, I could be wrong.. NIST WAS wrong.

I would be willing to debate any one of those 1,500 and I am certain I know as much if not more about those buildings than any of them. I don't think my eye doctor knows much about cardiology.... architecture and engineering are rather specialized and so all should know the general engineering concepts... but most simply are not conversant with the details of those structures. They were no JUST steel frame high rises... run of the mill seen around the country... they were very very unique structural designs. You're talking apples and oranges.

Most architects of engineers CAN understand the issues IF they spend the time to study those buildings AND the visual record in detail. MOST cannot or will not and so most don't take a position or just accept the official rubbish because we are taught to believe that officials don't lie... we learn otherwise as we grow older. And there are many reasons such as peer pressure to not go against the grain and be identified with outlier theories.

I happen to work for myself and with a few other colleagues and am semi retired and have had the time to look into this. As I have my understanding broadened and my views changed. Statements coming from the truth movement were formerly not question and assumed to be vetted and true. I learned otherwise by my own due diligence. I've offered my vision to others. They can take it or leave it but they should learn and vet the evidence and the engineering themselves. Otherwise all you can do is repeat what someone else... like Ashley Banfield says... a decent reporter but by no means an expert in such matters.

BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

JO just keeps weaving and dodging while trying to save the official version from the dustbin of false history [the BIG LIE in service of POWER]. He was once an active member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - and got close to its head. He convinced none of those persons within the group of his novel [ahem] unzip theory and they and he parted company...he now wanders from Forum to Forum [getting thrown off many as a troll or disinfo agent [op cited above] or allowed to drivel on thus far here. I contacted someone in a top position at that excellent organization to ask what they had thought of JO and why he had parted company. The person said many there felt very uneasy about JO and a few felt his agenda was 'not healthy' and very increasingly uncomfortable for him to be associated with AE911Truth. He had convinced none of them, and they continue their great work today - which is antithetical to the nonsense JO offers up. He has taken as his mission to deny the truth of 911 and champion the official version and Big Lie.

You who are interested in 911 would do much better to look at AE911Truth's website, films, slideshows, links, etc. than to pay any attention to JO and his making excuses for those who pulled off 911 by controlled demolition. He is EXACTLY like those who try to push he magic bullet theory or LHO did it alone, was a loner and had no help, never connected to intelligence, nor was he set-up as a patsy. Don't waste your time with JO and his magic building theory!

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

I don't know the precise timing so I can only guess. The collapse of 7 was preceded by a 1 minute period where the tower swayed back and forth slowly in an east west direction. This was not able to be seen by the naked eye but was measured by analysis of the video. Buildings don't move like that unless part of their structure is not working and carrying the loads to bedrock. Think of someone on your left handing you a huge stack of books. The additional weight will be transferred down your spine to your left leg... asymmetrical load... and you will actually tip a bit to favor your left leg. Most likely you will move the load toward your center to distribute the load evenly to both feet. If this was captured on video a swaying motion would be evident.

Since there was no new loads added to the tower... there was instead an asymmetrical LOSS of some of the loads paths...(columns or transfer trusses) and so loads were moving to remaining load paths. This would be analogous to lifting one leg from the floor and all the weight is then being carried by your remaining leg. Again you would show some swaying movement unless you are a trained dancer who has very strong muscles and excellent balance.

The beginning of the collapse was an *unloading* of an area of axial load support... likely at transfer truss 3 which carried the column 79 line of 40 stories. Loss of one column line or damage to the truss supporting it was not sufficient damage for the tower to collapse. The column 79 loads were then transferred to other columns or axial load paths and the building *swayed* on its legs so to speak. The collapse of line 79 COULD HAVE BEEN heard as a series of boom boom booms as each column in the stack hit ground or the slabs connected to column 79 on each floor collapsed onto the one below. I don't know... I don't have a crystal ball. But the building was now BEGINNING to fail ... its structure unloading to few and fewer axial load paths.

The east penthouse above 79 dropped down right through the entire tower. The rest of the building stood around this 47 story hole around column 79... then the west penthouse dropped as well to the ground inside gutting the rest of the core. Then the roof line of tower begins to accelerate downward from 0 mph to about 15 mph in 2.25 seconds.. FF. There was nothing below for 8 stories.... most likely the first 8 stories which lost the column 79 line and apparently the rest of the 24 core columns which supported the west penthouse.

The core of course provided about 40% of the support for the floors outside the core and had very few floor loads inside it.. mostly shafts and a few stairs and bathroom. Absent the core side support the perimeter columns were left to carry the floors from the outside of the trapezoid shaped donuts. When the structure failed at floors 6&7 it possibly pulled in the structure at the perimeter of the building from floors 1-7. Above floor 7 the east side had a line of 15 columns evenly spaced. At floor 7 that changed to 7! the East side from flrs 1-7 was yet another truss structure... and it was laterally supported and *tied to* transfer truss 3 which carried the column 79 line. It's possible that the failure of TT3 caused the east side to be pulled inward. A similar bizarre structural condition existed on the west side to the north of the column line. There it had to span over the sub station and so again there were fewer column below 8 then above and bizarre truss structures to carry / transfer the loads of the columns which did not carry down to bedrock.

So the sounds of collapse could be heard BEFORE the naked eye perception of the collapse... and experience as a series of booms at parts inside were coming loose and crashing into one another.

Could the sounds be that of bombs?

If the bombs were placed in the tt3 region to break part of the truss the visuals would be as we saw... a progressive unloading as redistribution of the loads.. swaying and so forth. I don't know how large the bomb would have had to have been or how loud the sound was. My guess is that the bomb to destroy the steel in one fell swoop would have been so massive an explosion that it would have destroyed much more than a one part of the t-truss. It seems intuitively unlikely to have a *surgical* bomb destruction which would produce the visuals. But I don't know about bombs.

How large is a bomb which would sound as we heard? Could it have been something else exploding... such as a transformer... actually caused from over heating of the cooling oil which turned to gas and exploded but was not the cause of the collapse but a victim of the same cause? Who knows?

The collapse seen could have been caused by a placed cutter or heat devise which eroded the strength of a truss chord, panel or failed a connection. This would be silent and no percussive sound from the device would be heard.

So were the suggested devices silent cutter/heat types which produced the visuals... or were they percussive bombs which seem less likely to have produced the visuals? My hunch is that the sounds heard were the structure coming apart just prior to the collapse itself... not bombs.

The motion tells the story.

If the video data is to be taken as accurate, technical analysis of the sounds indicate a single large explosion followed by a series of evenly spaced "booms."

I am not aware of timing analyses of the "booms" beyond the visual representation proffered in the film. But if in fact that oscilloscope-like graphing does indicate an even spacing of sounds, then we are hard-pressed to believe that unassisted failings would occur so ... evenly.

Charles Drago Wrote:If the video data is to be taken as accurate, technical analysis of the sounds indicate a single large explosion followed by a series of evenly spaced "booms."

I am not aware of timing analyses of the "booms" beyond the visual representation proffered in the film. But if in fact that oscilloscope-like graphing does indicate an even spacing of sounds, then we are hard-pressed to believe that unassisted failings would occur so ... evenly.

Since the floors were evenly spaced at 12'-9" they represent a possibility of regular staccato sounds when collapsing.

If the speed of collapse was 20 mph then there would be 4 floor collisions per second... if the speed was 10mph the rate of collisions would be less than a second per impact.

So why is it not possible that the loud noise was the truss letting go following by a parade of equally spaced impacts since the floors were equally spaced?

How bout that?