| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.
World Trade Center 7
6: Unnatural Symmetry
[Richard Gage, AIA] We might anticipate that an unevenly damaged building would fall over. Yet, videos of the collapse of Building Seven show a fairly symmetrical fall. How do we make sense of this?
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] The exterior of the building comes down fully, symmetrically, and at one time. Both sides of the building come down completely. This is fully indicative of full structural support being removed for at least six stories. That could not happen by fire.
[Jonathan Smolens, P.E., Structural Engineer] If there was some fire in one corner, it would have collapsed maybe in that corner, but not the total building free-falling.
[Michael Donly, P.E., Structural Engineer] If the buildings had come down by fire, we would have seen a more natural progression of collapse. We may have seen the buildings actually topple over to one side. Certainly not coming down in its own footprint.
[Steve Barasch, High-Rise Architect] And clearly a more asymmetrical pattern should have been present.
[Kathy McGrade, B.S., Metallurgical Engineer] The symmetry is the smoking gun. It cannot happen that when you have asymmetric damage, you will get a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
[Scott Grainger, P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer] It would not have been a uniform collapse. The building might have partially fallen over, but the building would not have collapsed as it did. That doesn't make any logical sense.
[David Topete, S.E., Structural Engineer] For it to come down straight down upon itself you would basically need to take out the supports at the center, at the core.
[Kamal Obeid, S.E., Structural Engineer] The exterior columns on the outside, as well as on the inside, at the bottom, would have to be severed almost at the same time.
[Tom Sullivan, Explosives Technician, Formerly Employed with Controlled Demolition, Inc.] Well, that's another indicator that this NIST report is very suspect, because I would have expected, in a classic implosion, as I've seen numerous times, is the core to fail. My name's Tom Sullivan. I worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. -- CDI -- the top-rated explosives demolition firm in the world as an explosives loader. My job was to place explosives in the buildings to prepare them for demolition. I was licensed while in New York by the New York Fire Department to handle explosives. And I worked on major projects such as Seattle Kingdome, the Three Rivers Stadium, Philadelphia Naval Hospital, and Keyspan Gas Holders in New York. I would expect the center of the building to start moving first. And then, as the implosion progresses, then the rest of the building is involved. What I saw was a classic implosion. The center of the core, the penthouse area, starts to move first, and then the building follows along with it.
[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] And there were so many columns in the building that were not affected by either the fires or the impact damage. And they all came down just at once. So it's a little disheartening. And it's implausible.
[Robert E. McCoy, High-Rise Architect] When it's all finished, the outside walls from the lower floors are piled one on top of the other right in the middle of the building. Just like a house of cards if it were coming down.
[Scott Grainger, P.E., Forensic Fire Protection Engineer] Logic tells you that if you have a single failure at some random point in the building, that the entire building is not going to collapse. The collapse would have been a chaotic, random event. The building would have partially collapsed possibly, but it didn't. There was a total collapse. And there's very few things that could explain that, none of which are addressed by the NIST report. According to NIST, the failure occurred at column 79 on level 12. This means, basically, they are talking about a single columnar collapse or failure that resulted in a total collapse of the building. That just does not make any sense.
[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] As a structural engineer, I don't believe that the failure of one column would normally bring down an entire building in the way we saw World Trade Center Seven come down, because of redundancy, and because of all the other columns in the building that were not affected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXPLOSIVE Collapse Cont'd.
World Trade Center 7
6: Virtual Unreality: NIST's Computer Animations
[Richard Gage, AIA] NIST provided computer animations that supported their fire collapse theory. But what do independent engineers say about these animations?
[Kamal Obeid, S.E., Structural Engineer] When you observe the footage of how the building failed, and when you look at the animation of the failure, and compare that to what you actually observed in reality, I think they disprove their own theories. It is impossible for it to fail the way they said.
[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] I've seen the animation sequence from the National Institute for Standards and Technology for their mathematical model of the collapse of Building Number Seven, and they have the inside members, one column gave way which they claim resulted in the collapse of all the surrounding members and then this precipitated a global collapse.
[Ronald Brookman, S.E., Structural Engineer] The NIST computer model, actually, they had done a bunch of finite element models of the individual connections. So they had connections failing before the members failed. The four-part connections, when three of the four parts failed, they considered it to be all failed.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] The exterior of the NIST World Trade Center Seven computer simulation model, which they put together to try to explain their theory, shows very large deformations which are not observed in the video of the actual event. Yet they don't attempt to explain this in the report, or why their model doesn't represent or replicate reality. What's actually happened with the NIST computer model, it's behaving like a natural collapse would. It would be deforming the exterior of the building if the whole interior was collapsing prior to the exterior. What we're seeing is what would happen in a natural collapse. And what we see in the real video is not a natural collapse.
[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] So I think that the NIST model is flawed. Of course, they won't release all of their parameters that they used to model the collapse, and that is a primary problem for them.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] NIST has also repeatedly refused to release computer input data that was requested through the Freedom of Information Act from them in the past concerning World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Grainger wrote: | | According to NIST, the failure occurred at column 79 |
Gold, by Wikipedia
Gold ( /ˈɡoʊld/) is a chemical element with the symbol Au (from Latin: aurum "gold") and an atomic number of 79. Gold is a dense, soft, shiny metal and the most malleable and ductile metal known. Pure gold has a bright yellow color and luster traditionally considered attractive, which it maintains without oxidizing in air or water. Chemically, gold is a transition metal and a group 11 element. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Leo Strauss was big into numerology. Since the number "79" has nothing to do with science, it must have something to do with numerology. That it is the number of the element gold, a subject of huge concern to the Straussian alchemists, cannot be ignored.
| Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli wrote: | The Discourses are devoted to the first ten books of Livy's History, or to the history of Rome up to about 292 B.C. Livy's History consisted of 142 books. Strangely, the Discourses consist of 142 chapters, for the prefaces to Book I and Book II are, of course, not chapters. Machiavelli would seem thus to convey his intention of elucidating the history, not only of early Rome, but of Rome from its beginning until the time of the emperor Augustus. A glance at the list of the events discussed in the Discourses bears out this contention. [66] The strange fact that the number of chapters of the Discourses is the same as the number of the books of Livy makes one wonder whether the number of chapters of the Prince is not also signficant. Since the Prince consists of twenty-six chapters, and the Prince does not give us any information as to the possible meaning of this number, we turn to the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses. That chapter is the only chapter of the Discourses which is devoted, according to its heading, to the "new prince," i.e., the chief theme of the Prince. Moreover, the chapter deals with what the authors call tyranny, as Machiavelli says at the end of the preceding chapter; but the term "tyranny" (or "tyrant") is avoided in the twenty-sixth chapter. If we turn from the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses to the Prince, which consists of twenty-six chapters, we observe that the terms "tyrant" or "tyranny" are avoided in the Prince too: the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses imitates the Prince in such a way as to give us a clue to the Prince. Since this observation leads to further relevant observations concerning the Prince, some of which have been noted before, we gain some confidence that in taking seriously the number 26, we are on the right path. But before pursuing this line of thought, it may be wise to dwell for a while on the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses. The first of the two examples which Machiavelli uses in that chapter is King David, according to the Gospels, the ancestor of Jesus. The measures that men like King David must employ at the beginning of their reign, i.e., in order to found or establish their states, are described by Machiavelli as "most cruel and inimical, not only to every Christian manner of living but to every humane manner of living as well." One measure of King David was to make the rich poor and the poor rich. In speaking of this measure Machiavelli quotes the following verse from the Magnificat: "He filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty." That is to say, he applies to the tyrant David an expression which the New Testament, or Mary, applies to God. Since he characterizes as tyrannical, a way of acting that the New Testament ascribes to God he leads us to the conclusion, nay, says in effect, that God is a tyrant. In his own strange way he accepts the traditional view according to which David was a godly king or walked in the ways of God. It is for the sake of making this extraordinary and shocking suggestion that he uses the only quotation from the New Testament which he ever uses in either the Prince or the Discourses. [67]
The most superficial fact regarding the Discourses, the fact that the number of its chapters equals the number of books of Livy's History, compelled us to start a chain of tentative reasoning which brought us suddenly face to face with the only New Testament quotation that ever occurs in Machiavelli's two books and with an enormous blasphemy. It would be a great disservice to truth if we were to use any other words, any weaker words for characterizing what he is doing. For it would be a mistake to believe that the blasphemy which we encountered is the only one or even the worst one which he committed. The blasphemy is, so to speak, only the spearhead of a large column. We have no compunction whatever about using a term which expresses very strong disapproval, although its use is likely to be regarded by our fellow social scientists as a "culture conditioned" reflex and therefore as an aberration from the straight and narrow path of scientific correctitude; for we believe that failing to call a spade a spade is not scientific. Someone might say in defense of Machiavelli that he does not speak of God in the incriminated passage or that the blasphemy is so well concealed as to be non-existent for the majority of readers. Over against this one might well urge that a concealed blasphemy is worse than an open blasphemy, for the following reaosn. In the case of an ordinary blasphemy, the hearer or reader becomes aware of it without making any contribution of his own. By concealing his blasphemy, Machiavelli compels the reader to think the blasphemy by himself and thus to become Machiavelli's accomplice. One cannot compare the situation of the reader of Machiavelli with that of a judge or a prosecutor who liewise re-thinks criminal or forbidden thoughts in order to bring the accused to justice and thus establishes a king of intimacy with the criminal without however incurring the slightest suspicion of thus becoming an accomplice and without for a moment having a sense of guilt. For the criminal does not desire and invite this kind of intimacy but rather dislikes it. Machiavelli on the other hand is anxious to establish this kind of intimacy if only with a certain kind of reader whom he calls "the young." Concealment as practiced by Machiavelli is an instrument of subtle corruption or seduction. He fascinates his reader by confronting him with riddles. Thereafter the fascination with problem-solving makes the reader oblivious to all higher duties if not all duties. By concealing his blasphemies, Machiavelli merely avoids punishment or revenge, but not guilt. When we turn from the twenty-sixth cahpter of the First Book of the Discourses to the twenty-sixth chapter of the Second Book, we find Machiavelli uttering strong warnings of a calculating character against huring men's feelings with words of scorn; he concludes the chapter with quoting a sentence which Tacitus pronounces when speaking of an enemy of the tyrant Nero: "Smarting jokes, if they draw too much on truth, leave stinging memories behind them." A liberal theologian once said within my hearing that the traditional judgment on blasphemy is based on too narrow a conception of God's honor. He used the analogy of a very wise and very powerful king who would tolerate and even enjoy jokes about himself however smarting, provided theya re graceful and do not create a public scandal. This argument seems to us so patently inappropriate that we may dismiss it without any discussion. We prefer to submit the following consideration. The kinds of unbelieve with which we are most familiar today are respectful indifference and such a nostalgia for lost faith as goes with an inability to distinguish between theological truth and myth. Are not these kinds of unbelief much more insulting to belief than is an unbelief like Machiavelli's which takes seriously the claim to truth of revealed religion by regarding the question of its truth as all-important and which therefore is not, at any rate, a lukewarm unbelief? Furthermore, if, as Machiavelli assumes, Biblical religion is not true, if it is of human and not of heavenly origin, if it consists of poetic fables, it becomes inevitable that one should attempt to understand it in merely human terms. At first glance, this attempt can be made in two different ways: one may try to understand Biblical religion by starting from the phenomena of human love or by starting from political phenomena. The first approach was taken by Boccaccio in his Decameron, the second approach was taken by Machiavelli. In Discourses II 12, which is a parody of scholastic disputations, he indicates how political or military truths can be transformed into poetic fables, or how the political or military truths underlying such fables can be elicited: Antaeus was not the son of Earth nor therefore invincible as long as he stood on the earth and was not lifted from the earth; but being a son of a human mother, he was invincible as long as he waited within the confines of his realm for the attack of his enemy. Similarly the fable according to which the ancient princes were taught their art by a centaur means nothing other than that princes must be half inhuman. In the same way, "reading the Bible judiciously," Machiavelli discerns that the actions of Moses were not fundamentally different from those of Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus or Hiero of Syracuse: to "read the Bible judiciously" means to read it not in its own light but in the light of the fundamental political verities. [68] But even if we grant that he was compelled to raise the question regarding the political phenomena or the political hopes which in principle perfectly explain the Bible and the Biblical conception of God, we do not yet understand why he had recourse to blasphemies. After all, that question is being discussed today and has been discussed for some generations by many scholars who are and were perfectly innocent of blasphemy. The answer is simple: for some generations, the authority of the Bible has not been generally recognized and supported by law; Machiavelli on the other hand was compelled to use subterfuges. Many features of his writings, which to us may appear to be caused by mere levity, are also caused by the necessity in which he found himself of combining simply political or military lessons with indications of what he thought to be the human or natural phenomena that make intelligible the belief in the super-natural or the desire for it. This necessity must not be disregarded when one reads his praise of necessity in general: men's hands and tongues would not have carried the works of men to the height to which they are seen to have been carried, if men had not been driven on by necessity. [69]
To repeat, we do not believe it to be accidental that the number of chapters of the Discourses is the same as the number of books of Livy, and hence we believe that one should wonder whether the number of chapters of the Prince, which is twenty-six, is not of some significance. We have seen that the twenty-sixth chapter of the Discourses is of eminent importance for the understanding of the Prince. We note that when discussing the Roman emperors in the Discourses, Machiavelli speaks explicitly of the twenty-six emperors from Caesar to Maximinums [70] To say nothing of the fact that Caesar was not an emperor, Machiavelli does not give any reason for making this particular selection from among the emperors; the only evident fact is the umber of the emperors selected. It might appear that there is some connection between the number 25 and "prince," i.e., monarch. This is not the place to give further examples of Machiavelli's use of the number 26 or, more precisely, of 13 and multiples of 13. It is sufficient here to mention some further features of his work which would seem to indicate that numbers are an important device used by him. There are three chapters of the Discourses which open with a quotation from Livy; they follow each other at an interval of 20 chapters. [71] The only two chapters of the Discourses which contain exclusively modern examples are the twenty-seventh and the fifty-fourth chapters. If a given chapter presents difficulties which one cannot resolve by studying its context, one will sometimes derive help by simply turning to a chapter which carries the same number either in another Book of the Discourses or in the Prince. For instance, the key passages regarding silence are chapters 10 of Book I and Book II of the Discourses. The key passages regarding "continuous foundation" are chapters 49 of Book I and Book III of the Discourses. Discourses III 48 deals with deceit practiced by a foreign enemy while I 48 deals with deceit practiced by domestic opponents. The parody of scholastic disputations occurs in Discourses II 12; Discourses I 12 is explicitly devoted to the harm done by the Church. The eleventh chapter of the Prince is devoted to ecclesiastical principalities; the eleventh chapter of the Discourses is devoted to the religion of the Romans. The most important discussions of M. Manlius Capitolinus occur in Discourses I 7 and III 8, and so on. [72] It would be foolish to apply this suggestion mechanically, for Machiavelli's devices would defeat his purpose if he had applied them mechanically. It would be almost equally foolish to try to establish the meaning of his teaching by relying exclusively or even chiefly on his devices. But it would also be imprudent to read his writings in the way in which they are usually read. Machiavelli's devices, judiciously used, lead the reader to the nerve of his argument. The order of finding is, however, not necessarily the order of proving. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strauss's friend Kojeve was also into numerology.
| On Tyranny, by Leo Strauss wrote: | Diairesis [6] → Ordinal numbers
In a neo-pythagorean fragment it is said: "He [Pythagoras] said not that everything arose from number, but that everything was fashioned in conformity to number, since essential order resides in number, and it is only in participating in that order that the very things that can be numbered are placed first, second, and so on. "Theano" in Stob<aeus > Eel. pol. I, 10,13.
In Philo (for example, De origine mundi (ed. Cohen) 91-102), the ideal numbers are also interpreted as ordinal numbers. He further says (in conformity with the tradition) that a distinction has to be drawn between the (ideal) numbers of the same type within and without the decade; for example, there are "infinitely" many numbers of the type 7 (= seventh) that share the same "qualitative" character ("law of formation"), but are quantitatively differentiated from one another. One might then perhaps say that the first ten ideal numbers (the only ones which, according to Aristotle, Plato "deduced") are "categories" in the modern sense, whereas the "kinds" (to which, according to Aristotle, numbers also correspond, but which surely number more than 10) correspond to the ideal numbers > 10, and are distributed among the 10 "categories." But all this is, as I have said, most problematic.
While searching in the (translated) neo-Platonists for indications about Plato's theory of numbers, I made a discovery that will amuse you in case you do not already know the relevant texts. Indeed, I discovered, one right after the other, three authentic and entirely unknown philosophers, namely the emperor Julian (Speeches), "Sallustius" (On the Gods and the World, and -- [5] last <but> not least [5] -- Damascius (Life of Isidor). These three "mystical enthusiasts" have revealed themselves as first-class Voltaires. (I vaguely recall that Burkhardt (Constantin the Great) had already said that Julian does not believe a single word of what he tells the "people.") Before reading these three, I was prejudiced, and expected to read "mystical" texts. And after a few pages I was pleasantly surprised. So, up to the 6th century there were men who preserved the philosophical tradition in all its purity, and who despised the neo-Platonic nonsense as much as they did Christian "theology." In this they were completely consciously imitating Plato's "Socratic" irony. It is a nice example of "the art of writing" which you discovered! And with that, on the one hand "highly placed" (JuIian), and on the other, literarily first class (Julian and Damascius). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then Strauss replies:
| On Tyranny, by Leo Strauss wrote: | Regarding "ideal numbers" I trust you have read Klein's detailed analysis in his book on logistics and algebra. I was extremely interested and gratified but not altogether surprised to learn of your discoveries regarding Julian &c. Mysticism is one form in which philosophy can appear (cf. beginning of the Sophist). Your discovery makes the possibility of Farabi more intelligible. As regards Sallustius, if the division into chapters is authentic, 17 is of course the right place: 17 is the number designating  [1] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Going towards Strauss's secret interest in alchemy, one of his favorite philosophers was Spinoza. One of Leo Strauss's first books was "Spinoza's Critique of Religion." Spinoza was a Rosicrucian. Leo Strauss said: "Spinoza will be venerated as long as there are men who know how to appreciate the inscription on his signet-ring ("caute") or, to put it plainly: as long as there are men who know what it means to utter [the word]: independence [Unabhängigkeit]." Spinoza's signet ring had a rose wreathed with the word "caution" on it, and the "independence" Strauss refers to is Spinoza's independence from his fellow Jews, in the same way Strauss was "independent." Strauss belonged to a Jewish youth group in Germany during Hitler's time that excluded Jews.
The title page of Spinoza's Theological and Political Treatise contains the Latin phrase apud Henricum Kunraht. Heinrich Khunrath was a Rosicrucian alchemist whose major work, Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom, contained seven Arcanes, or Rosicrucian Keys. This work contains a passage about "ring insurance," which says that a virtuous Catholic shall receive anything he asks of the Father "in his name, the finger with the RING-MAKER." On one of the book's plates, there appears the symbol of the Hieroglyphic Monad designed by the English Rosicrucian John Dee, who Khunrath personally met in Prague. The hieroglyphic monad also appears next to the invitation to Christian Rosenkreuz in the third Rosicrucian Manifesto, the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz. Khunrath was also a disciple of Paracelsus, a totally nut-case magician. Spinoza was also in contact with two known Rosicrucians: (1) Wilhelm Gottfried Leibnitz, whose affiliation with the Rosicrucians is established by a published letter stating that he was the secretary of a Rosicrucian Lodge, and (2) Dr. Helvitius, whom Spinoza commented about in a letter to Jarig Jellis about how he observed one of Dr. Helvitius's alchemical transformations. Additionally, Spinoza's well-known friend, Jan de Witt, the Grand Pensionary of Holland, was tutored by Isaac Beekman, a known Rosicrucian.
Assimilationist Jews are often found among Rosicrucians. According to Clement A. Wertheim Aymes,who wrote the Pictorial Language of Hieronymus Bosch, the initials "I.A." mentioned in the Fama Fraternitatis, another Rosicrucian text, may refer to Jacob van Almaengien, who was also a Jew. If this is true, Jacob is one of the first disciples of Christian Rosencreutz. Philip the Fair, Duke of Brabant, son of Maximillian, emperor of Rome, baptised Jacob as a Christian. Johan Brouwer, in Johanna de Waanzinnig (Philip's wife), describes how a priest of Salamanca denigrated Philip the Fair by calling him a "friend of Jews". John Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica is dedicated to King Maximillian.
Of course, alchemy is all about transmuting base metals into gold. And of course, 9/11 has been a gold extravaganza for the neocons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.
World Trade Center 7
8: Experts Agree
[Richard Gage, AIA] What do these professionals conclude about the destruction of World Trade Center Building Seven?
[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] There had to be some agent that was destroying the connections in Building No. 7 at over 400 connections per second. And the only thing that I can see that would be capable of doing this, would be explosive devices at the connections. And this is why I think that there has to be a new investigation to find out the real physical causes for all these members to act in an atypical fashion.
[David Topete, S.E., Structural Engineer] And I certainly believe that it had to have been controlled demolition, controlled charges, explosives, something of that type. Because it was a sudden failure.
[William Brinnier, Architect] Controlled demolition. There's no way that fire did what they said it did to that building. Impossible. Couldn't happen. It just did not make sense that a building that had a few minor fires in it could possibly succumb the way it did. If there was damage, it would have been minor. There might have been some deflection of a beam or two here or there. But not a total and unequivocal complete collapse. It just doesn't ring true.
[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] A few fires in that building -- I mean, they weren't even raging! And how could that cause a building to collapse as if it were imploded? Couldn't happen.
[Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect] To me it was obvious that there was some controlled demolition and some explosions involved.
[Steve Luce, Former U.S. Army Combat Engineer, Explosive Demolition of Structures] When I saw Building Seven fall, it to me appeared to be controlled demolition. Because it fell in freefall manner into itself. It is my opinion, as a former 12 Bravo Combat Engineer, well-trained in the use of explosives, that this building, all three buildings, were brought down as a result of controlled demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.
World Trade Center -- Twin Towers
1: The Myth Unravels
[Richard Gage, AIA] This is the original site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Construction is now underway where dramatic new facilities are being directed. Just ten years ago, the planes hit the towers, cutting through some exterior and interior supporting structural steel columns. The fuel from the planes ignited office fires across several floors. According to the official reports, the structural steel frame was weakened and failed, causing a total progressive collapse of each tower. Does the official explanation make sense? Was there a comprehensive investigation that examined all of the evidence? Let's look at the details.
[Joel Miller, High-Rise Architect] These buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from airliners.
[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] I walked into the office, and the first words that I heard was, "A plane's just run into the World Trade Center." And my initial thought was, "Well, that's okay. It's built to withstand a 707."
[Alfred Lopez, P.E., Structural Engineer] They stated that the fuel would be dumped into the building, but the building would still be there. Although most of the fuel blew out the opposite side of the building.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] These buildings are built to handle several times the load above them. Those corner columns could handle five times the load above them and the core columns could handle three times the load above them.
[Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect] The majority of the jet fuel was burned up instantly in the big fireball, and it was gone. The fires that were left were office furnishings and carpet, and things like that. A lot of things in these kinds of building have to be fire-resistant by nature. It's required by code. So there really isn't a whole lot of fuel in there to begin with.
[Edward Munyak, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer] The media portrayed these fires as being extremely hot, but the fires were not that hot in World Trade Center 1 and 2. If you look at NIST's own data you can see this. And to use our own powers of observation, you could tell by seeing these fires, and seeing black smoke come out the windows. That means that the fires were oxygen-starved, and it was incomplete combustion. And so it was a low-temperature fire.
[Robert Podolsky, M.S., Physicist/Engineer] I am Robert Podolsky. I have a masters degree in theoretical physics from Xavier University in Cincinnati. I worked for ten years as a professional physicist/engineer/systems analyst for government and for industry: companies like AVCO, GE, Bendix, and also Airforce Avionics Lab, and the Coast Guard Electronics Division. I looked up in a manual the burning temperature of jet fuel, and found that under the conditions that existed at the World Trade Center on 9/11, that jet fuel had to have been burning at about 750 degrees fahrenheit. I also noticed that the official explanation of what happened there was that the heat from the fire supposedly softened the steel and thereby brought the buildings down. If you have a flame at 750 degrees, you can hold that flame under a steel beam forever and you'll never reach a high enough temperature to bend steel, let alone melt it. So immediately I knew at that point that the official explanation was dead wrong. There was no way those flames could have possibly brought about the collapse of the building.
[William Brinnier, Architect] It did not seem possible that these towers, that were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, could possibly collapse in such a short order of time from the time that they were hit. There's no way! The building was designed to take the impact of one, if not more, multiple airplanes. They were designed to withstand hurricane force winds of up to 140 miles an hour.
[Steve Luce, Former U.S. Army Combat Engineer, Explosive Demolition of Structures] My first reaction was, "That looks like controlled demolitions." However, I believed the official story because it was played to me over and over again. I heard repeated experts telling me that this was terrorists that did this, and that it was planes that brought those buildings down. So I accepted the official story.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] The NIST testing of the Twin Tower Floor assemblies done at Underwriter's Laboratories, this was done per ASTM E119 in a 2 hour, 2,000 degree fire test. We're going to test -- the main trusses sagged approximately four inches after 60 minutes and six inches after 100 minutes, yet NIST had the main trusses sagging well over 40 inches in their models. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXPLOSIVE Evidence Cont'd.
World Trade Center -- Twin Towers
2: Sudden Onset of Destruction
[Richard Gage] Rather than the slow-groaning collapse that we might anticipate, the Twin Towers showed in the videos a very rapid, sudden onset of destruction. What does this imply?
[Frank Cullinan, P.E., Civil Engineer] I'm Frank Cullinan, a practicing civil engineer in the State of California. I have a bachelor's of science from Chico State, which I received in 1988. I've been a licensed civil engineer since 1993. I specialize in bridge construction, retaining wall construction, small building construction, bridge demolition, and I have experience in bridge design and building design. Structural steel is required by building and design codes to prevent catastrophic failure and loss of public life. Everybody's seen the building collapses on 9/11, and it was shocking how fast the buildings collapsed.
[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] The way the buildings fell was not indicative of the way a building that's in distress collapses.
[William Rice, P.E., Civil Engineer/Professor (Ret.)] This doesn't happen with structural steel buildings, and never has, and never will again. We assume that fires could destroy a building. Why people select steel buildings is because they would destroy slowly. It would gradually twist and bend, and give people plenty of time and safety in getting out of the building.
[Steven Dusterwald, P.E., Structural Engineer] The basic philosophy of the building codes in the last 75 to 80 years has been to ensure ductile failure of the members, to provide for the public safety. Under this philosophy, members that are overloaded will deform elastically, within the elastic range of the material, with increasingly large deformations and deflections. This gives rise to large deformations that are visible and apparent to the occupants of the structure. This gives them time to evacuate the structure.
[Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect] I would not have expected the whole building to just give in at once. And I thought it rather odd that they fell almost perfectly in very similar ways. It seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.
[Casey Pfieffer, S.E., Structural Engineer] On further review of the videos of the tower's destruction in the 9/11 Blueprint for Truth DVD, I was surprised to see the upper floors of the north tower, the upper 15 floors of the north tower, implode prior to any destruction of the tower below, because it would be logical that as a result of the plane crash that the upper 15 floors would start to damage the floor below, not the floors above.
[William Rice, P.E., Civil Engineer/Professor (Ret.)] And it certainly would stay in the damage zone. It would not drop down through 80,000 tons of insulated, undamaged structural steel, and do it in 12 seconds.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] I discuss NIST's claim that the upper section of each of the towers crushed the lower section. However, when you watch the video closely in the case of World Trade Center 1, you'll see that the upper section disintegrates itself. It's lower stories are breaking up before it even impacts the lower section. It appears to be a controlled demolition of its own of the upper section.
[Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect] The tops of the buildings were basically disintegrated.
[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] The top section pushing on the bottom section, it's going to meet equal forces as it goes. Both sections are going to be demolished at the same rate. So by the time you've crushed up 15 stories below it, the top 15 stories are also going to be crushed. And so there's nothing left now to crush the rest of the building. So there's so many paradoxes here. A little tiny chunk of the building can't possibly fall and crush the entire structure below it.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] Well, there's demolitions done in France which use what we call the Verinage technique, where they take out a couple of floors worth of columns with hydraulics. They take the columns out, and they let the building, the upper section of the building drop two full floors, and when it impacts the lower section, there's a very definitive, observable jolt, deceleration, and velocity loss.
[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] You're looking for a jolt, that this thing, if it actually comes down and hits, you should be able to see the point at which they actually impact, because it would actually slow down the motion of the falling block.
[Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E., Mechanical Engineer] And you can see it in the graph. It is not there in the case of the North Tower.
[David Chandler, M.S., B.S. Physics, M.A. Education, M.S. Mathematics] It never slows down. It accelerates the entire time. And that was what was extremely significant. So I published a paper about that in The Journal of 9/11 Studies. And so if you have the top section acting as a pile driver, if in fact it actually hit and made an impact effectively crushing anything, pushing hard on this core structure below it, the core structure is going to push back equally hard, and that's what's going to cause the top section of the building to slow down. But the fact that it's constantly accelerating downward is evidence that it didn't slow down. It's not actually hitting and engaging with the structure below it in any way that could demolish it. The top section is not crushing the bottom section of the building, or it would meet resistance.
[Richard Humenn, P.E., Original WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer] I am Richard Humenn. I am a retired professional electrical engineer. I went to Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and received a bachelor of electrical engineering degree in 1954. I worked for Joseph Flooring for 41 years and was principal chief electrical engineer for the World Trade Center complex. I was very familiar with the Twin Towers' elevator systems, because we took over conceptual maintenance and improvements of the elevator systems after the project was completed. I actually ran and rode up and down elevator shafts on the top of a car going 1,200 feet a minute. You can imagine the experience. I'm very familiar with the interior structure that surrounded the elevator shafts and the accessibility which the elevator companies had 24/7. The only way that I can see that the towers could have collapsed is that the interior columns were compromised. In Tower 1, unless my eyes were deceiving me, before the tower started collapsing from the top, the antennae started to fall, and the antennae, of course, was over the middle of the elevator shafts. And of course their access to the elevator shafts gave them total access to the surrounding core columns, the interior of the core columns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
