SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64995)6/13/2005 8:18:07 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
a real investigation into the physical collapses of the three towers

Well I concur with your concern of official government enquiries on that point. The remit sets up for a white wash, and a white wash of the real facts is the result.

We had the Hutton Iraq enquiry. That was a joke. Like stealing old reports off the internet and publishing them as "intelligence" to justify a war is "OK"?

Message 19745527

The strange death of the weapons expert David Kelly too.

=======================================================

Regarding that WTC picture though. It's a still picture of something very dynamic going on. In my view, that apparent puff going off on a lower floor not yet part of the collapsing structure could come from massive stresses (i.e a wave of stress) that is being transmitted to that point in the building through the steel structure.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64995)6/13/2005 11:21:31 PM
From: skinowski  Respond to of 74559
 
I've seen enough photographic and video evidence to realize that the buildings exploded, rather than collapsed by means of gravity

I visited those buildings many times over the years. My wife used to work in one of them. And I saw - on live broadcast - that when the jetliner hit the second building, it practically shot through it.

I am by no means a construction expert, but thinking back, I wonder how anyone could expect that those buildings would not have collapsed. I had conversations with an architect - and a retired construction worker, both very intelligent men, and both participated in building the WTC. Neither of them expressed any doubt that the impact - along with the heat from the burning fuel - could have brought those buildings down.

A covert operation designed to 1) bring WTC down, and 2) "frame" Al Qaeda, whose operatives, who happened to be aboard the hijacked planes were, in fact, innocent bystanders? LOL. To put it (very) mildly, this is... unrealistic.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64995)6/14/2005 2:02:30 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74559
 
Re WTC collapse.

I understand the idea that the rigid steel structures were strong enough to withstand the initial impact. The only real explanation to the collapse being the structural steel became hot enough to buckle on one or more floors.

There might be some useful pointers to look into. Now that the rubble has been cleared away, what was the condition of wreckage of the aircraft? If the aluminum alloy skin had not melted (Al melting point 1220 degrees F), I would certainly wonder how a floors mass of structural steel got up to these kind of temperatures (page 4 from my earlier link)

sciam.com

"At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

If there was evidence that the aircraft aluminuim alloy burned

"Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.

I would say there may well be good evidence that some of the vital steel structure on a given set of floors failed in the heat. One set of floors collapsing and the dynamics of the falling building take over.

Now... they did find remains of several of the passengers so one wonders.

=========================================================

OK turning the matter on it's head.

Lets say a structural engineer is hired by a black op group looking to "pearl harbor" the USA into a war with Afghanistan and Iraq.(there are still some lingering doubts about the code breaking and advanced warning of pearl harbor I understand) You are told the cover story that some planes are going to be flown into WTC buildings and they are going to collapse. With the help of demolition experts how is it going to look convincing?

I know nothing of architecture and demolition except what I have seen on TV. From what I have seen though, large amounts of structural material is removed to weaken the building first. Then charges are laid and fired in a given sequence.

The WTC building, being strong structures as they are, would need a lot of work to sufficiently weaken them to be sure of success. A hard thing to achieve while the buildings are still being used. Some very unusual maintenance would have been going on. The firing patterns would probably have been recognisable to demolition experts too.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64995)6/14/2005 8:56:15 AM
From: Gib Bogle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
"I've seen enough photographic and video evidence to realize that the buildings exploded"

Oh dear!



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (64995)6/14/2005 11:33:05 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74559
 
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."

Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."

After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.

Greg Szymanski

arcticbeacon.com
Message 21416970