14-08-2013, 09:59 PM
We were presented with an emotional psychological operation on September 11, 2001, a contrived "tragedy" arising from an act of "terrorism" in order to mobilize us for two wars, where "us" is the American body politic.
The model presented by the official commission and its delegated experts relied upon the three points of the paper linked at 345 above by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboli:
Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis
(see attachment at 345 above)
NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:
Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:
1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]
There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to
Conclusions
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
~~~
I thank Tony Szamboli for correcting my conflation of terms in his 347--in fact, I intended to write floor truss, not hat truss--as the model presented in the official animation showed floor trusses weakened by heat and sagging an exaggerated amount pulling in facades and causing irreversible collapse.
The weakening by fire has not been proved but is essential to the official model--it is central to Jeffrey's scenario at 351 of a core collapse due to physical damage and temperature weakening which left twelve stories of load depending in tension from the hat truss which imploded and pulled in the facade.
Tony disagrees, stating the hat truss a-frames were not adequate for the forces implied.
The conclusions I posted at 345 of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Samboli indicate heat weakening did not reduce the core strength, but that sequential charges may well have done.
The Bazant falling block or pile driver is not shown, no more so than the heat weakening or the plane damage.
The official explanation for the North Tower collapse is defended even as it is unsupported, much as the single-bullet or Magic Bullet contrivance arising out of the ambitious and unscrupulous Arlen Specter faced with the inconvenient wound to James Tague's cheek.
By what alchemy was the extreme temperature necessary to weaken steel produced by the burning jet fuel which was gone in ten minutes--
--or by the office furniture which, although toxic and dramatic, cannot "melt" steel?
The dropping antenna indicates core column failure, but the official explanation fails to explain.
Any more than separation of domestic and foreign intelligence explains the disbanding of Able Danger as it identifed a 9/11 cell in CONUS a year before the event.
Or the sabotage and sidelining of John O'Neill when the FBI counterterrorism chief warned of such an attack
or Special Agent Colleen Rowley whose warnings of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landing were ignored by her FBI supervisors
Ace Elevator had access--
(is that a typo. . .shouldn't it be Wiley Coyote's Acme Elevator)
No one heard explosions--someone still makes that claim
When a fireman describes boom boom boom
The model presented by the official commission and its delegated experts relied upon the three points of the paper linked at 345 above by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboli:
Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis
(see attachment at 345 above)
NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:
Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:
1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]
There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to
Conclusions
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
~~~
I thank Tony Szamboli for correcting my conflation of terms in his 347--in fact, I intended to write floor truss, not hat truss--as the model presented in the official animation showed floor trusses weakened by heat and sagging an exaggerated amount pulling in facades and causing irreversible collapse.
The weakening by fire has not been proved but is essential to the official model--it is central to Jeffrey's scenario at 351 of a core collapse due to physical damage and temperature weakening which left twelve stories of load depending in tension from the hat truss which imploded and pulled in the facade.
Tony disagrees, stating the hat truss a-frames were not adequate for the forces implied.
The conclusions I posted at 345 of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Samboli indicate heat weakening did not reduce the core strength, but that sequential charges may well have done.
The Bazant falling block or pile driver is not shown, no more so than the heat weakening or the plane damage.
The official explanation for the North Tower collapse is defended even as it is unsupported, much as the single-bullet or Magic Bullet contrivance arising out of the ambitious and unscrupulous Arlen Specter faced with the inconvenient wound to James Tague's cheek.
By what alchemy was the extreme temperature necessary to weaken steel produced by the burning jet fuel which was gone in ten minutes--
--or by the office furniture which, although toxic and dramatic, cannot "melt" steel?
The dropping antenna indicates core column failure, but the official explanation fails to explain.
Any more than separation of domestic and foreign intelligence explains the disbanding of Able Danger as it identifed a 9/11 cell in CONUS a year before the event.
Or the sabotage and sidelining of John O'Neill when the FBI counterterrorism chief warned of such an attack
or Special Agent Colleen Rowley whose warnings of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landing were ignored by her FBI supervisors
Ace Elevator had access--
(is that a typo. . .shouldn't it be Wiley Coyote's Acme Elevator)
No one heard explosions--someone still makes that claim
When a fireman describes boom boom boom