Lauren Johnson Wrote:.
This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
This is different from NIST who presented the sagging trusses pulling in the facade, not a core led collapse. The quoted section was from a FEMA report which preceded NIST... I believe. The FEMA scenario is different that what the cartoon suggests... but it shares some key elements. The hat truss was not the ONLY means to redistribute loads... the floor plates did this as well. A finite element analysis would be very complex because of the complexity of the structure and the nature of the fire/heat input. My cartoon is only one possible sequence.
I should point out that the towers destruction was a process not discrete steps.. and there was a blending over time where different processes dominated the destruction so to speak. The first was of course the plane striking and destroying many columns... then the fires began and this weakened them. The strike itself likely knocked insulation from the steel and the fuel did not burn immediately but flowed down and ignited several floors (contents). The plane appears to have severred and shorted the high voltage electrical risers leading to flr 108. This appears to very quickly lead to over heating of the equipment on flr 108 which then catches fire.... it may have also caused the insulting oil to explode. You can see the think black smoke from 108 immediately after the plane hits. This may also have caused the some electrical equipment in the basement to explode and even upstream in the Con Ed sub station in wtc 7. Con Ed did report I think 12 hi tension feeders were offline at them time the plane stuck. As the fire grew there was no fire fighting or sperinkler working up there apparently. The strength of the remaining steel was being eroded by getting hot. It didn't melt nor have to... The heat was causing the frame steel in some places to expand and distort and members began to fail and the loads they carruied were shifted to other columns and this process continued for an hr or more as the building began showing grow visible movements... and then finally there was insufficient capacity available and the actual release of the top 12 stories began.
I don't know if this scenario has been formally presented in an engineering journal. There has been some discussion about the so called "initiation" at the 911freeforum and there is some consensus but clearly it's not even universal. The problem is that the details are impossible to see and so people seem content to accept the over all heat weakening as the cause on top of the mech damage.
Some jref posters are OK, most are not for any number of reasons. The discussion options are few. Truth sites don't accept anything but CD and attempting a non CD discussion is a non starter. They act the same as JREFs. The only forum which has intelligent discussion is 911freeforum which appears to not have a political agenda. It has CD and non CD proponents. Lots of forums people select a nick name.... and it's not only 911truth. People may do that because they feel harrassment or something. I know I've been subject to online attacks about information which is not part of any discussion which I assume is a result of people finding my name and so forth. The attacks are childish and mean spirited. So unfortunately you have to deal with the content and be less concerned with the nick name. Obviously some people are out about their name etc. because they are public advocates such as Gage, Chandler or John Gross, or Ed Depaola. People online hiding behind their made up names can be very nasty... and that's not limited to one side of the debate on any topic.
The video at 148 presents the audible explosions, likely from nanothermite rather than RDX
The video at 159 presents firefighters addressing sporadic rather than massive fire, the jet fuel was gone in less than ten minutes, the extreme temperature to weaken steel was absent
At 174 the core failure is indicated by the antenna collapse
At 176 the horizontal propagation was extraordinarily rapid across 98
At 203 focused jets apparent at corners of building
At 211 Jan/CD confirm right/left a false choice--and this was also the message of Sibel Edmonds, eschew the partisan, investigate more deeply
At 231 entire core did come down inside and pulled perimeter inward
At 233 initiation at 98
At 240 98 chosen as closest to impact where charges were not displaced; 98, then 99, 100, 101
At 241 squibs destroy structural integrity before wave of collapse; focused jet, not widespread unfocused collapse
At 244 fireman says flashes going around building like a belt, building coming down like there is no tomorrow
At 253 plumes come out 98 evenly
At 260 core collapse at 98
At 262 instability could only have been caused by devices at 98 and above
At 264 98 selected to make it look good--as close to impact as possible--but ABOVE
At 288 initiation nearly simultaneously across 98, then 99, 100, 101--only because of charges
This has been very useful in forming a cohesive operation
As in Dealey Plaza where a false murderer was framed while the actual execution was by teams of professionals
In the three towers the false cause was the hijack and impact of aircraft taken control by evil commandos from Berserkistan
When the charges were placed during the building access attained by a shadowy elevator company
utilizing no doubt nanothermite of such sophistication it indicates one of the defense-related tenants in the Ryan analysis
activated by wireless detonators
orchestrated from a sophisticated electronic command post either in 7 or a loitering E4
The crime scene was quickly sanitized and no investigation was done regarding explosives
The official explanation rests on extreme temperatures not attained while ignoring the sounds of explosions
The benefit achieved was the national mobilization for war in Iraq to destabilize the region and war in Afghanistan to control the heroin
and in the larger sense to eviscerate the common consciousness creating a psychic void into which fear and pain of loss rushed
much like that day in Dealey Plaza
And Sibel Edmonds said Gladio originated in the mind of Allen Dulles
Phil Dragoo Wrote:And Sibel Edmonds said Gladio originated in the mind of Allen Dulles
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5050[/ATTACH]
Yes, we should not forget the remarkable Allen Dulles, that paragon of selfish and uncaring intent who is truly owed the everlasting loathing of the entire human race. Dick Cheney seems to fit the same mold.
This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.
Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.
A quote from Tom from this morning:
"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.
Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."
and
"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.
But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.
Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."
I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.
The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.
Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.
A quote from Tom from this morning:
"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.
Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."
and
"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.
But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.
Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."
I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.
The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.
The reason there is no consensus is that there was/is a cover-up. That is why the steel wasn't examined.
The points about people like Dulles and Cheney is that they were/are part of a deep political apparatus which will commit atrocities to get their way. To know they lied us into Iraq and yet not be suspicious that they were involved in the destruction of the buildings and that the collapses could have somehow been natural with all of the talk of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, no deceleration in WTC 1, free fall in WTC 7, and iron microspheres and active thermitic material found in the dust, is the height of stupidity. Yes, Jeffrey if you actually believe those buildings came down naturally then you are........in a word........dumb.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.
Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.
A quote from Tom from this morning:
"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.
Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."
and
"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.
But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.
Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."
I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.
The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.
This reads to me like everyone is gullible and full of shit,except for me,Jeffery.
But,talk is cheap as they say......
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â€
Buckminster Fuller
Yes there appears to be what you refer to as a cover up... an official report about what was supposed to explain the collapse but we agree in this... that the report does not. It's hard to attribute this to honestly made mistakes or insufficient resources. One then might think that they intended to deceive or to use your word - cover up.
So let's accept that the official reports were a cover up.
Your position along with the CD people is that NIST found that the destruction did not have a so called natural cause... jets and destruction and heat weakening... but that the three towers were taken down with explosives and this *fact* could only mean that it was "insiders" behind the conspiracy and the entire official story and the technical reports were part of the conspiracy... commit the crime and cover the tracks. This is perfectly logical.
But there are other possible explanations to produce a cover up and they don't include CD or the inside job... but they do support a conspiracy after the fact. A conspiracy to hide wrong doing.
We've seen such behavior in the past... usually when there is some sort of industrial disaster.. Bhopal, BP Oil spill, Exxon Valdez, PCBs in the Hudson, Fukishima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island... even Katrina. But the list is very long. What is the common element? A need to cover up malfeasance, criminal liability, protection of those who made bad decisions or who failed to act as they should have and failed to protect the people, workers, the environment and so forth. The big guys are protecting the powerful corporations and those who run them and drive their policies.
So there ARE other sorts of cover ups possible and I have proposed that we consider that the engineering design, the development process, the constuction oversight and approvals process may have been flawed to put it mildly. Millions if not billions were made in developing the WTC... These were state authorities which likely engaged in the usual waste fraud abuse... and add to that professional misconduct, incompetence, willful neglect of the publics' safetly and so forth. Lot's of inviduals should have had to answer for many decisions involved with the WTC development.
And of course the system... the old boys network... the so called blue line of silence is always in self protect mode when crisis presents. We see no individual accountability for any of the above and other disasters and at most a pathetically small and inadequate and poorly administered victims' compensation fund to slap a band aid on it and move forward with the same agenda... no lessons learned.
And of course, regardless of who was behind what was perceived and marketed as an attack... an act of war... with a patsy identified the people would get behind the primitive concept of vengeance and retribution and how convenient that it would be Arab terrorists and usher in a new never ending war and excuse for the militarism of the empire... to gobble up more of the world.
This sort of cover up does not fit so well with the deep state paradigm. But it is nevertheless a possible analysis and without indisputable hard evidence... confessions and so forth the insider job analysis is speculation. The technical discussion pivots on whether there were planted devices or not with the presumption that this would be the evidence for the inside job and deep state frame. That case has not been proven and jurors have not been convinced. There are some who claim CD did not happen with complete confidence. My position it could explain but the evidence of the devices and a detailed mechanism has not been demonstrated... it's an idea, a speculation and it conveniently leaves out evidence which does not support a CD conclusion. So ALL evidence must be accounted for in the correct technical explanation.
Keith Millea Wrote:This reads to me like everyone is gullible and full of shit,except for me,Jeffery.
But,talk is cheap as they say......
Hardly... it reads as if people including Jeffrey see the world though a chosen filter. Sure I can post on a forum... but I have spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in looking at the wtc and producing slides and so forth...
So Keith... what did YOU do to inform your understanding of the destruction of the WTC?
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I did not say the dust and debris coming out of the 98th floor was due to charges, of course that is from the collapse. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What is wrong with you?
I have answered your points, unless you are talking about some hidden little item in one of your cramped paragraphs. You and Jeffrey are similar in the sense that both of you could use some work on your writing styles and comprehension.
You can't get away with that. If the devices used to bring down the upper section were not explosive then what were they, thermite? Phil's a great poet but I'd like to see him describe how those thermite charges escaped destruction after being exposed to the furnace heat of the fires at the top? CDer's avoid this by simply saying the fuel fires only lasted 10 minutes. Truth is those people have no clue what kind of fuel pockets existed in the tower. Also, there was a scientific "furnace effect" caused by the 23mph wind blowing through the funneled opening in the tower. You can't ignore the serious fires evidenced by the black smoke coming off the tower (coincidentally the same color as a jet fuel fire). The floor trusses had thin steel 'wire' supports that were vulnerable to this heat. I have yet to see any analysis that calculates the wind-stoked furnace effect and its influence on the heat conditions. Also, the core was damaged and was more vulnerable to heat while the surviving members were under extreme stress from load shift lowering their heat tolerance threshold. This is the proper dynamic that existed on the scene and not the piecemeal textbook theories you are putting together to avoid the real arguments here. You answer with indignant protest but use that as a shield to avoid answering the entire argument that is being made.
If the collapse were initiated by placed thermite charges at the 98th floor how did they activate only one floor's worth of devices? How did those devices escape destruction from the extreme heat of the fires centered at the 96th floor? Has anyone studied the ignition threshold for thermite vs those fires or do you guys just wing it as it goes? Are you saying that the plotters placed explosives charges in extremely sophisticated timing in order to ripple down the building right in front of the collapse in the lower section, but only placed thermite cutter charges in the upper section in order to initiate the collapse? Those guys were good because they set off the lower level explosives packs in precise timing with the collapse, so much so that there was no discernable gap in the demolition to indicate this cross-over. Pretty damned good. Too good.
You fail to understand that focused jets in the corners is a sign of natural pneumatic collapse rather than explosives. If you posit that the core was rigged then there couldn't be any explosions in the corners because their source would be too close to the facade to not register an explosive signature, blast pattern, and detonation flash. Ask CD experts to look at your corner 'explosions' and tell us if they were explosives-based. The dust jets too. Those jets are clearly pneumatic in all aspects yet we are forced to listen to your claims that they are caused by explosives.
Now we will wait for your answer that will show indignation and try to respond to a very complex series of forensic factors by focusing on one contrived out of context example while not answering the majority of what is being argued. You never answered why they did the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate natural collapse?
You let David Chandler narrate the video as he goes along but don't call him on his mistakes. For instance he says the floor jets don't happen in a progressive manner but happen over multi floors at once. Bullshit. That cascading pneumatic blasting clearly happens in a floor by floor downward sequence. You can hear that Chandler is aware of this so he adds "I can't think of any other explanation". - I can. What you seeing there is precisely what you would see with ROOSD (and he knows it).
Also, I've looked at the video and don't really see any specific corner jets. I think some loose murder is being attempted here.
Keith Millea Wrote:This reads to me like everyone is gullible and full of shit,except for me,Jeffery.
But,talk is cheap as they say......
Hardly... it reads as if people including Jeffrey see the world though a chosen filter. Sure I can post on a forum... but I have spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in looking at the wtc and producing slides and so forth...
So Keith... what did YOU do to inform your understanding of the destruction of the WTC?
Quote: unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.
I'm the average Joe stuck in the middle.I just have a huge problem with your complete arrogance and the way you treat my friends on this forum.This alone turns me off to your personal "theory".But,hey,I'm just your average Joe nobody,eh?
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â€
Buckminster Fuller
