9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Jeffrey Orling]

Not much available and it's very incomplete but try this:

81 columns above floor 7
45 below

How so? transfer trusses.

read about a tower where the engineers messed up and almost lost the building.

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Citicorp+Center

From that story which APPLIES to the WTC:

"While working on a new building design in the spring of 1978, LeMessurier planned once to again implement diagonals. During a meeting with the steel fabricator the question came up on the connections of these diagonals; field welded full-penetration welds are expensive. LeMessurier called his associate to confirm the success on the field-welded connections used on the Citicorp building and was told that the welded connections were replaced by bolted connections designed by Bethleham Steel for a savings to the bank of $250,000. This was common practice for steel erectors at the time and the new joint design was based on the loads provided by LeMessuriers' Cambridge office. There is a discrepancy in the account of events, whether or not LeMessurier was aware of the change from bolts to welds. McNamara claims LeMessurier knew of the switch to bolts, this statement has some credibility since LeMessurier's Cambridge office was the one that provided the design forces to Bethlehem Steel. "

and look who surfaces in this story as well:

"Leslie E. Robertson was brought in and became the bank's consultant on this matter."

How bout this:

"This knowledge, combined with LeMessurier's discovery that his firm had used New York City's truss safety factor of 1:1 instead of the column safety factor of 1:2, meant that the building was in critical danger. "

Trusses in NYC did not have to have reserve strength... FOS was 1.

"Because nothing happened as a result of the engineering gaffe, the crisis was kept hidden from the public for almost 20 years.."

Do you see a picture emerging of incompetence being covered and hidden from the public? When the WTC collapsed they DID have something happen and they DID have to HIDE IT FROM THE PUBLIC.

Calling NIST ...Calling NIST...your skills and expertise are required in this time of national crisis to assure the public that it was the crazy terrorists who managed to know those towers down..

[Albert Doyle]

Edit: I have to withdraw the clear air challenge because further on in the video, if you have the sharp eye I was calling for, you will notice the Banfield video shows the standing building with the clear air area already filled-in with black smoke. So, in trying to challenge this I now realize this is proof of the opposite and proves the booms came BEFORE the collapse. Actually in perfect timing for the department store charge delay.

This unfortunately is still not resolved because the low volume booms could be the trusses failing internally which was a prolonged event according to what is known about the collapse. So, it is possible the clear air filling-in was because of the inner portion containing one of the penthouses falling a few seconds before the main building. This series of low volume booms could very well be the sequential failure and floor collapse of that inner section collapsing with the Penthouse. Its low volume nature could actually be evidence of this event.

Yet this doesn't exclude a controlled demolition either.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Albert we can only speculate at the cause but we can be more certain of the mechanism of collapse because we can measure and study the movement of the building. As I have proposed the collapse appears to have been the result of a weakened structure below the core in the 6&7th floors where the transfer trusses spanned over the sub station.

When the aggregage strength was less than the actual loads.. the tower collapsed. The weakening was likey a process where one failure in one member of the structure which could no longer carry the loads it was designed to carry and its load was distributed to other parts of the structure (colums and transfer trusses). This eroded the reserve strength of those members. The structure remained standing as long as the aggregate strength exceed the loads... but when it no longer could support the loads the entire structure collapsed.

However, before that... it's possible to have local failures and collapses... the columns or members which for whatever reason lost the ability to carry their design loads. We saw the east penthouse come down AS the rest of the tower stood. But this was the beginning of the end. So it is MORE than likely that there was local interior destruction/collapse of parts of the building and this WOULD send dust out (from the lower floors) where the collapse took place... stuff fall down!

The collapse was a process... a progression and it was only the easily visible parts at the end of the process that we refer to when we call use the term collapse or destruction (or CD). All of it took place behind the facade...in the lowest floors obscurred from camera view. But when the strength was gone we saw it collapse before our eyes.

[Albert Doyle]

That's a good point and I'd like to see Peter answer it. If the building swayed a few minutes before the collapse that's a sign it was failing internally. Now that could have been from cutter packs weakening the support columns. But it could also be from progressive natural failure. The controlled demolition version requires a hybrid installation of explosive charges and thermite packings that would be pretty extensive in their installation.

It is possible the Banfield audio is capturing the progressive collapse of the East Penthouse support core. Precise timing now comes into play. This internal collapse would explain the filling-in of the clear air horizon with smoke in the Banfield video as the building stood.

It's also possible those are demolition charges.

[Jeffrey Orling]

There's not much difference between a natural gravity driven collapse and a CD... in each case the structure loses aggregate strength and can't stand. The key is that failure progresses or migrates through the structure. It's not a big bang and it all falls down.

It could be a big bang which say knocks out a transfer truss and then a progression of failures ensues. That seems less likely because that would be a pretty huge blast to take out the very heavy steel in one instant. But it's possible. It's also possible that there was a slow weakening at the steel at a joint heated up. We can't know but the visual part came 8 hrs after the first explosions were reported by Jennings.

[Albert Doyle]

A video showing the precise timing of the East Penthouse collapse vs the oscilloscope booms would really tell a lot at this point.



OK, I'm getting a better grasp of the deception here from the Banfield video. If you go to that video you'll see the narrator shows you a video of the standing building in order to synchronize the sequence of events. That narrator is wholly dishonest because he's not informing you that he's showing the building 6 seconds after the collapse of the East Penthouse. So while the narrator is using this deception to suggest the booms were timed with the collapse he is deliberating omitting visual evidence that the booms were actually timed with the East Penthouse core collapse. This is evidence of deliberate deception by the makers of the video. As is their omitting the unevenly spaced booms that occur in increasing progression after the evenly spaced ones. If the maker of the video was honest he would show the video of the standing building including the East Penthouse collapse.

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]Charles,


And while the floors may have been equally spaced, they were not equally loaded.

Wrong... the difference in the floor loads was insignificant compared to the structure that supported the live loads. You are talking about something you don't know much about.... obviously.

Oh, how you must have enjoyed that one.

Explain this to me: Given that we're listening to evenly spaced "booms," and that you hypothetically ascribe the spacing to a reasonable-to-expect series of floor collapses, why wouldn't differing floor loads -- a term which this layman uses to refer to varying levels of resistance based upon varying levels of materials on each floor -- create an asymmetrical series of "booms"?

Unlike some who post on this thread, I am eager to learn -- and the first step in the eradication of ignorance is to acknowledge its presence.

[Charles Drago]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]Charles,


And while the floors may have been equally spaced, they were not equally loaded.

Wrong... the difference in the floor loads was insignificant compared to the structure that supported the live loads. You are talking about something you don't know much about.... obviously.

Correct Jeffrey. Charles is ignorant of the basic principle of Galileo's law.

Try not to wet 'em, Alfie!

[Albert Doyle]

[
Explain this to me: Given that we're listening to evenly spaced "booms," and that you hypothetically ascribe the spacing to a reasonable-to-expect series of floor collapses, why wouldn't differing floor loads -- a term which this layman uses to refer to varying levels of resistance based upon varying levels of materials on each floor -- create an asymmetrical series of "booms"?

Unlike some who post on this thread, I am eager to learn -- and the first step in the eradication of ignorance is to acknowledge its presence.

If indeed the collapse originated at the truss level that was the place where the uneven loads existed. If the truss collapsed first then the uneven booms would have occurred first. But they didn't. They occurred on the oscilloscope at the end. Or perhaps they did? Because the oscilloscope showed two booms first and a space followed by other even booms. The uneven booms occurred right in sequence with the acceleration of the collapse right where they should be.

According to Galileo, the weight of the floors should make no difference because objects fall at the same speed. However different loads could have a minor local effect in the collapse, though probably a negligible one when compared to the overall stresses and failure. What's most telling here is the uneven booms the video makers omitted from their analysis. Since they happened at the end they conform to an acceleration of the collapse as the building gained inertia. The audio fingerprint of exactly what you would expect to see.



.

[Lauren Johnson]

Edit: I have to withdraw the clear air challenge because further on in the video, if you have the sharp eye I was calling for, you will notice the Banfield video shows the standing building with the clear air area already filled-in with black smoke. So, in trying to challenge this I now realize this is proof of the opposite and proves the booms came BEFORE the collapse. Actually in perfect timing for the department store charge delay.

This unfortunately is still not resolved because the low volume booms could be the trusses failing internally which was a prolonged event according to what is known about the collapse. So, it is possible the clear air filling-in was because of the inner portion containing one of the penthouses falling a few seconds before the main building. This series of low volume booms could very well be the sequential failure and floor collapse of that inner section collapsing with the Penthouse. Its low volume nature could actually be evidence of this event.

Yet this doesn't exclude a controlled demolition either.

I agree with you and JO that there are signs of collapse before the Oscilloscop Like Explosions (OLE). I was watching a collection of WTC7 collapse videos, one of which zooms on north bottom floor. Search for Xenomorph911WTC and 911: WTC7 building collapse compilation. Go to about 5:00 mark for the closeup. Definitely increased activity before the OLE.

I rule out spontaneous collapse based on the sequential nature of the explosions. The loud explosions are corroborated by the Banfield involutary response. That building was "pulled" has been confirmed by more than one witness. One close up witness described the sequence (I will find it later). Smoke and flame at the bottom of WTC7 does not at all exclude CD.