20-10-2012, 02:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 20-10-2012, 02:44 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
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?
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?