23-08-2013, 08:28 AM
The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Tony Szamboti. Feb. 17, 2008. Mechanical Engineer.
(pdf attached)
Phil's note:
I found the concise summary of problems with the official theory of collapse to be presented in a manner leading to a) discovering the actual cause; and b) examining the method and motives of the event.
The paper in its entirety is eleven pages with notes, and is recommended as a complete summation of the official fable versus the known:
Here is a series of excerpts:
It was the revelation of the presence of large quantities of molten metal, in the rubble of all three buildings which collapsed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, which caused Dr. Jones in 2005 to begin to question whether the present U.S. government explanation, for the collapses, was sufficient. It is provable that the molten metal in the rubble was not aluminum and that diffuse flame fires cannot achieve temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Steel can only be melted in the controlled environment of a blast furnace, with the use of incendiaries, an electric arc welder, or an oxy-acetylene torch. The amount of metal melted with an electric arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch is small and does not produce large pools of molten metal.
There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses. This testimony can be found in the Oral Histories of the 503 NYC firefighters and emergency personnel, who were on the scene that day and survived. Their testimony was taken and transcribed in late 2001 and early 2002 by order of the NYC fire commissioner. However, afterward the mayor of NYC repeatedly refused to release these testimonies to the public. They were only released due to a court order from the New York State Court of Appeals in August of 2005, after earlier court challenges had failed to gain their release. Amazingly, in spite of the existence of this testimony, there was no testing done for explosive residue on the steel structural elements during either the NIST or FEMA investigations of the building collapses. An article by Dr. David Ray Griffin discussing and quoting these Oral Histories can be found at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...8104223192
~~~
The fact that fires have never in history caused a complete vertical collapse of a steel framed high rise structure, let alone any built as robustly as the twin towers, has been amply documented.
~~~
Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering magazine in 2002 that: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official Investigation' blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure... Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers....".
~~~
It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging. It is interesting that neither the NIST press release or
report seem to concern themselves with the fire testing of the floor deck and supporting truss assembly models, done under contract for them by Underwriters Laboratories. Full scale models of the floor deck and supporting truss assemblies were fire tested, under load, for two hours per ASTM E119. These tests did not produce a collapse and the 35 foot long trusses sagged just 3 inches at midspan, not likely enough to buckle the perimeter wall columns. In fact, NIST needed a non-evidence supported floor truss deflection of over 40 inches in their computer model to cause buckling of the perimeter columns. The central core columns great mass gave them a large heat capacity, and their interconnection gave them the ability to transfer heat to other areas of the building. The lack of high temperature evidence on the core columns is a testament to these points. These factors would have certainly made them even less susceptible to weakening than the floor trusses.
~~~
The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roofline, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that it's failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail. The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding.10 Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.
It would seem that any honest and objective look at; the design of the buildings, the true damage potential of the aircraft impacts, the physical evidence of the low steel temperatures, the physics of the collapses, the evidence of pools of molten metal in the rubble, and the emergency personnel testimony, should cause one to conclude that the towers must have been destroyed by a form of controlled demolition. In addition to what has been mentioned so far, there is also evidence of the presence of incendiaries, in the chemical analysis of the dust from an apartment and other locations near the towers, which have been analyzed by Dr. Jones and others.
~~~
The spectacular collapses of the twin towers, which were most probably caused by controlled demolitions, shocked us all, and caused us to demand action against the foreign entities that we were told supported the hijackers. However, the placing of charges, to cause the controlled demolitions, would have required access to the interiors of the buildings, which outsiders were very unlikely to have had in highly secure buildings such as the towers and WTC7. It thus needs to be considered as to whether it is conceivable that the aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses, to allow the collapses to be blamed on outsiders.
If it were insiders who placed and detonated the charges in the buildings, one may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn't do it. It seems that a good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, and the privatization of Iraq's oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be astart at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.
~~~
Phil's footnote:
The above linked and excerpted paper by Tony Szamboti presents a compelling refutation of the official explanation and a powerful argument for controlled demolition as the only means to initiate the collapse.
The author concludes with a cui bono hypothesis which parallels John Newman's argument that only intelligence insidersnot clichéd false sponsorscould have manipulated Oswald's fileeven as Matthias Broeckers argues only the military-intelligence insiders could have controlled the autopsy.
Deep engineering meets deep politics to explain the milestone operations of our time.
(pdf attached)
Phil's note:
I found the concise summary of problems with the official theory of collapse to be presented in a manner leading to a) discovering the actual cause; and b) examining the method and motives of the event.
The paper in its entirety is eleven pages with notes, and is recommended as a complete summation of the official fable versus the known:
Here is a series of excerpts:
It was the revelation of the presence of large quantities of molten metal, in the rubble of all three buildings which collapsed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, which caused Dr. Jones in 2005 to begin to question whether the present U.S. government explanation, for the collapses, was sufficient. It is provable that the molten metal in the rubble was not aluminum and that diffuse flame fires cannot achieve temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Steel can only be melted in the controlled environment of a blast furnace, with the use of incendiaries, an electric arc welder, or an oxy-acetylene torch. The amount of metal melted with an electric arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch is small and does not produce large pools of molten metal.
There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses. This testimony can be found in the Oral Histories of the 503 NYC firefighters and emergency personnel, who were on the scene that day and survived. Their testimony was taken and transcribed in late 2001 and early 2002 by order of the NYC fire commissioner. However, afterward the mayor of NYC repeatedly refused to release these testimonies to the public. They were only released due to a court order from the New York State Court of Appeals in August of 2005, after earlier court challenges had failed to gain their release. Amazingly, in spite of the existence of this testimony, there was no testing done for explosive residue on the steel structural elements during either the NIST or FEMA investigations of the building collapses. An article by Dr. David Ray Griffin discussing and quoting these Oral Histories can be found at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...8104223192
~~~
The fact that fires have never in history caused a complete vertical collapse of a steel framed high rise structure, let alone any built as robustly as the twin towers, has been amply documented.
~~~
Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering magazine in 2002 that: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official Investigation' blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure... Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers....".
~~~
It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging. It is interesting that neither the NIST press release or
report seem to concern themselves with the fire testing of the floor deck and supporting truss assembly models, done under contract for them by Underwriters Laboratories. Full scale models of the floor deck and supporting truss assemblies were fire tested, under load, for two hours per ASTM E119. These tests did not produce a collapse and the 35 foot long trusses sagged just 3 inches at midspan, not likely enough to buckle the perimeter wall columns. In fact, NIST needed a non-evidence supported floor truss deflection of over 40 inches in their computer model to cause buckling of the perimeter columns. The central core columns great mass gave them a large heat capacity, and their interconnection gave them the ability to transfer heat to other areas of the building. The lack of high temperature evidence on the core columns is a testament to these points. These factors would have certainly made them even less susceptible to weakening than the floor trusses.
~~~
The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roofline, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that it's failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail. The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding.10 Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.
It would seem that any honest and objective look at; the design of the buildings, the true damage potential of the aircraft impacts, the physical evidence of the low steel temperatures, the physics of the collapses, the evidence of pools of molten metal in the rubble, and the emergency personnel testimony, should cause one to conclude that the towers must have been destroyed by a form of controlled demolition. In addition to what has been mentioned so far, there is also evidence of the presence of incendiaries, in the chemical analysis of the dust from an apartment and other locations near the towers, which have been analyzed by Dr. Jones and others.
~~~
The spectacular collapses of the twin towers, which were most probably caused by controlled demolitions, shocked us all, and caused us to demand action against the foreign entities that we were told supported the hijackers. However, the placing of charges, to cause the controlled demolitions, would have required access to the interiors of the buildings, which outsiders were very unlikely to have had in highly secure buildings such as the towers and WTC7. It thus needs to be considered as to whether it is conceivable that the aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses, to allow the collapses to be blamed on outsiders.
If it were insiders who placed and detonated the charges in the buildings, one may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn't do it. It seems that a good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, and the privatization of Iraq's oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be astart at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.
~~~
Phil's footnote:
The above linked and excerpted paper by Tony Szamboti presents a compelling refutation of the official explanation and a powerful argument for controlled demolition as the only means to initiate the collapse.
The author concludes with a cui bono hypothesis which parallels John Newman's argument that only intelligence insidersnot clichéd false sponsorscould have manipulated Oswald's fileeven as Matthias Broeckers argues only the military-intelligence insiders could have controlled the autopsy.
Deep engineering meets deep politics to explain the milestone operations of our time.