9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Ex

You raise a very good point, Dr. C. Your main argument then, is, given the amount of explosives required to control demo towers 1 and 2, when do we see anyone with the means and opportunity to plant these explosives?

There has never been a sufficient investigation into this question, other than there were some power-down situations and maintenance activities within the buildings just prior to 9-11. This would have been insufficient time and personnel to plant the explosives, but more than enough time to 'activate' already embedded systems that were put into the building during construction or afterwards, if we can identify a time period of massive maintenance activity and unexplained disruption in routine to the building. I am guessing that after the '93 attack with the truck bomb in the underground parking, there was an extensive period of building inspection to determine if it was sound. This is one such period.

The Mossad have freely admitted that some bridges in Iraq and Iran were constructed with explosives within them by agents on the construction teams. These were placed in order to have the ability to blow up bridges during a sudden conflict as a surprise move to catch the enemy off guard.

So far as the towers go, one theory goes like this:
- After the 1993 bomb attack, people, especially the owner, Larry Silverstein, were shocked about the possibility of the buildings falling over in New York, causing horrible damage. A team put together to study the danger decides that the best option, now that they know the buildings are a juicy terrorist target, would be to put explosives into the framework, that could be wired up quickly in the event of a catastrophe, and the buildings quickly brought down in a controlled demo to avoid excess damage to surrounding buildings.

This explains the mysterious 'pull it' order given by Larry for building 7, resulting in it's immediate demolition. That building too, was rigged for demo in the event of a crisis.

For motive on the decision to secretly also 'pull' buildings 1 and 2, one need look no further than pure greed. Silverstein made a huge profit on the insurance scam for the buildings, making considerably more than he paid to build the bloody things in the first place!

Such a fail-safe system would have to remain secret, of course. Who would volunteer to work in an office that was packed with thermite? Not me.

It's just a theory, and so far, has little supporting evidence. But I believe that the building owner and the security firm (Saudi, btw) that controlled access to the buildings, had the means, motive, and opportunity, to rig those buildings for demo and then carry it out.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Professional Engineers allowed Challenger to fly, knowing full well she was going to blow. Some of them resigned that day, but most, when ordered by their managers, who were being beat down by NASA, caved and gave the thumbs up.

Similarly, several engineers who questioned the 'official story' of 9-11 are no longer gainfully employed.

These engineers you speak of were asked by the government to come up with a theoretical explanation that could explain the government's wild and crazy conspiracy theory. They obliged, twisting and fudging and bending numbers like acrobats to make it fit. The similarity to the famous 'magic bullet' of the Kennedy assassination is striking.

I have tremendous respect for the engineering profession, and from your passion perhaps you too are one, some of my best friends are engineers.

But engineers are first and formost PEOPLE. They are not gods, they are not high priests to be obeyed and bowed down to. Just people, like you and me. Filled with the same personal greed, petty aspirations, frailties and imperfections as anyone else.

The mainstream media and the government would like you to swallow that the debate on this is over. It is not, it rages, and there are many professionals, many engineers, who question the official story, and find the collapse theory ludicrous.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Amusing that Popular Mechanics, one of the champions of the official conspiracy theory, is owned by Hearst.

A history lesson,

When the battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbour, most likely due to improperly stored ammunition, the Hearst-owned newspapers screamed the next day, SPANISH TERRORISTS BLOW UP USS MAINE!!!! despite complete lack of any evidence to support this.

And the war was on.

It would seem, False Flag is a Hearst family tradition.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

. . . I just gotta! :-)

Ok, first, you don't have to get metal to it's melting point to get it to weaken. It will begin to bend at much lower temps (eg: red hot). That is why ferriers can bend iron into horseshoes using only a wood fire.

Second, here's a little experement you can perform. Take a weight, something you are comfortable holding in one hand. Say, a pound in weight. Now, it's easy to hold that up for a very long time.

Now, take that weight, and put it in the middle of a piece of string, say 24" long, and hold both ends of the string so they are tight and the string is level. Pretty tough, right?

The force on your fingers to hold that string level is much more than one pound. You can feel that. Remove the weight, and just pull the string tightly. Now, have someone with one finger pull or puch the string in any direction. Why do they have to exert much less force to bend the string than you have to, to keep the string taught? This is angular force, and it is very large compared to the weight of the object being supported.

This is exactly the problem of holding up a large surface, such as a floor. The beams that support the floor are bolted to the inner column, and outer lattice of the building. When heat makes the iron soft, it droops, and extreme force is applied to the bolts in the core and lattice holding the floor up. In an open floor design, with no supports to hold the mass of the beams on the floor above it, the bolts cannot take the additional strain, and fail (explosively!).

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"It's just a theory, and so far, has little supporting evidence. But I believe that the building owner and the security firm (Saudi, btw) that controlled access to the buildings, had the means, motive, and opportunity, to rig those buildings for demo and then carry it out."

It is a theory, and I won't discount it. But I will continue to beleive the easier and plausible explanation that fits the available evidence. If that changes and the mystery men emerge that planted the 'explosives', I'm more than willing to change.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Deacon,

Structural steel begins to weaken appreciably when its temperature exceeds about 600 deg. F. (sorry but I think better with imperial units).

But...I have first-hand information (from the responsible design engineer) that structures have been built that can (and did!) withstand temperatures of just under 1200 deg. F.

It is up to the design engineer to decide, along with the owner who pays for it, what additional capacity is to be added to a structure exceeding the statutory requirements of the applicable building codes.

Liquid pool fires of hydro carbon fuel burn at roughly 1500 deg. F.

Did this weaken the structure sufficiently? I don't know; but it sure didn't melt it.

H.F. Wolff

I addressed my inquiry to Wolff for a reason, he stated he has experience in these matters.

Experience trumps theory.

Also Dr C, I took metal shop grades 9 through 11, I am aware of what heat does to metals, at least as far as can be ascertained by using small melting furnaces, oxy-acetylene welders, and arc welders.

You'd be surprised at what my physics teacher got me trying during times between finished shop projects.

Also, it is a possible explanation for 911, but it stretches the limits of believability to assume that the type of building collapse brought about in this scenario can toss large chunks of building weighing several tons 200-300 feet away from altitude.

Downward force vectors do not go massively horizontal without help.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Thank you for the reply Wolff, I appreciate it.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Dr Caleb

>>>"The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built to every standard of that current era, but it still failed because of something totally unknown at the time - the effects of wind!"<<<

Perhaps.

They did, however, ignore or did not research, some caveats regarding the road deck design of suspension bridges.

These were formulated by one Johann August Roebling, who designed and supervised the construction of the Brooklyn bridge crossing the East River in New York. The construction began about 1869, completion was 1883, supervised by Roebling's son Washington Roebling. Opening of the bridge was by President Garfield on May 14., 1883. The bridge is still in use and carries heavier traffic than ever. Planning and design of this bridge commenced in the late 1850's.

With over 10 years of study Roebling warned in his notes about any effort to make the bridge deck as light as the cable supports would permit. He emphasized that the deck required longitudinal stiffness (which from a purely strength point or view is not that important due to the close spacing of the vertical cable supports) to prevent vibration and oscillation, especially with vehicular traffic which in that day comprised horses and steam locomotives. (steam locomotives are terribly hard on bridges).

This phenomenon of forced resonant vibration has been known since antiquity; it is the reason why soldiers were ordered to "fall out", ie. break-up the in-step march, to prevent the set-up of forced resonant vibrations which could even bring down an ancient stone or a modern concrete bridge. It is not a great leap of faith to conclude that this vibration could also be forced by a breeze. It may, however, not have been appreciated how low a wind velocity was necessary to force the vibrations in the case of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. In any case it was NOT a storm, but a stiff breeze of about 36 mph.

Other suspension bridges were being built at that time; the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver, spring to mind. I seem to recall hearing of a suspension bridge in Newfoundland that required the addition of wind deflectors to reduce wind-forced vibrations.

BTW. the commemorative plaque at the base of one of the towers is in German and lists the names of Johann August, Oberst Washington (son), and Emily (wife). I haven't seen it myself and don't know if it wasn't removed during the first or second world war.

H.F. Wolff

Dr C
The World Trade towers did not rely on the outside walls for structurals integrity. They had 47 massive steel columns running up their centers.
You didn't explain why the south tower top tipped to one side and still had a symetric collapse ensue according to the official fairy tale. Trying to duck this one are we?

How did the fire retardent get removed from the steel throughout the buildings, NIST tryed all sorts of things to get it off the steel and they finally blasted it of with a shotgun blast. Did the plane break up into a zillion shotgun blasts? If the force of the top floors turned the concrete to aerosol how did the buildings fall at free fall speed and where are the top floors that should have fallen all the way to the street and how were they aerosolized when they did not have a mass of floors above them to supposedly supply the force necessary. The north tower collapsed much nearer the top, where did the force come from to aerosolize all that concrete and where are the concrete blocks that should still remain from the collapse.

Dr. Caleb

I appreciate your efforts to try and give me a step by step visual of the coat
hanger theory but I've had coats that have hung by one shoulder for days and
when they did come down the hanger was still on the rod.

Aside from all the expert opinions I am a person that trusts my instincts far
and above anyone's explanation of things. I saw what I did, my first thoughts
were not of horror but "The Americans did this". Mainly because I never
considered anyone else capable of what happened. Plain simple gut instinct
and so when the buildings came down the way they did that just added to
the "American Way" of doing things - drama.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

"The World Trade towers did not rely on the outside walls for structurals integrity. They had 47 massive steel columns running up their centers." 
 
If the outside walls had nothing to do with structure, what did the floors attach to to hold them up? As the one of the links I provided above states, the outside structure was designed to keep the buildings from swaying in heavy winds. 
 
"You didn't explain why the south tower top tipped to one side and still had a symetric collapse ensue according to the official fairy tale. Trying to duck this one are we?" 
 
Why do I need to explain anything? Why wouldn't we assume the outer structure did the job it was supposed to do and pull the floors level, or why would't we look at the actual scene and see that the collapse was anything but 'symmetric' considering debris destroyed buildings far outside the footprint of WTC 1 & 2 ? 
 
"How did the fire retardent get removed from the steel throughout the buildings, NIST tryed all sorts of things to get it off the steel and they finally blasted it of with a shotgun blast. Did the plane break up into a zillion shotgun blasts?" 
 
What happens when carbon fiber and high strength aluminum shatters? At 700MPH? 
 
"If the force of the top floors turned the concrete to aerosol how did the buildings fall at free fall speed and where are the top floors that should have fallen all the way to the street and how were they aerosolized when they did not have a mass of floors above them to supposedly supply the force necessary." 
 
What happens when you drop concrete 115 stories onto debris? Googling 'Ground Zero Concrete' there sure are lots of images of big chunks of concrete lying around. 
 
<a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg">http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg</a> 
<a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg">http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg</a> 
<a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1932.jpg">http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1932.jpg</a> 
 
"The north tower collapsed much nearer the top, where did the force come from to aerosolize all that concrete and where are the concrete blocks that should still remain from the collapse." 
 
Who said all the concrete was turned to powder? The photographs sure don't show that. And if it were, you never said how you think 230 stories of concrete floors turned to dust. 
 
Sorry, all my knowledge of 9/11 is purely theoretical, and I shouldn't waste anyone's time further.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

All this talk about the structural integrity of the twin towers is fine and dandy but once you start looking at WTC7, it’s all completely irrelevant. WTC7 magically just fell down. The lease holder is on camera saying that it was “pulled”. Demolition experts look at it and come up with only one explanation. Controlled demolition. Any other explanation just doesn’t add up.

This is where we can clearly speak of Occam's razor. The most obvious explanation is right in front of our faces.

Here's a physics experiment you can do in your head.

And please, no cheating.

Take a 4 legged chair.

Then, using the power of imagination, remove two legs from one side of the chair, or maybe even three from anywhere you want.

Query: does the chair fall vertically or off to one side?

The only way the chair will fall vertically ifs if all 4 legs vanish at the same time.

Fire or no, it is unlikely in the extreme that all 47 beams would fail simultaneously and bring about a vertical collapse.

If the beams buckled, the weakest would go first, and the building would begin to tilt off to one side.

It wouldn't necessarily fall over like a tree, but the falling mass of the building would be at the very least tilted.

That they fell vertically tells me something isn't right.

That happening once is unlikely.

That happening TWICE, stretches the laws of probability as I understand them.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

Dr. C, I spent some time going back to locate where I read about the dust being from the force of the explosives and not just a collapse, and got sidetracked on: 
“Thirteen reasons to challenge the government-sponsored reports and to investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis.” 
 
<a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf</a> 
 
At times it’s hard to remember all the mountain of details looked at reaching a position on what might have occurred. Page 27 the squibs are shown far below the area under collapse. That is what demolition with explosives looks like. 
“Concrete may seem very strong to us puny humans, but it really is just a hardened paste. Hit it with enough force, and it will go back to being a powder.” 
 
Well yes enough force is the key, force by collapse alone or aided by explosives is the question. 
 
”Demolition' is intentional structural falure. You will see concrete dust from just about every demolition there is.” 
 
No problem agreeing there, that would sort of suggest the explosives correlate to the dust, and intentional structural failure is indeed what demolition is about. However demolition when the aim is to fell a building into it’s own footprints is a symmetrical failure of structure with predictable and engineered results. My thoughts are that a random event like three buildings being subjected to random “blows” to structure in intensity, and time, and to different parts of their structure show amazingly similar paths to destruction. This uniformity is how demolition asserts controlled conditions over random variables. How does such random chaos align itself so symmetrically? When I look at the “falls” of the two towers and building 7, I see a range of control and predictability that and that goes further to explain mysteries like building 7 than the mere structural collapse. Of course as you so rightly point out: 
 
“I doubt all the demolition video in the world could convince anyone of something they are not willing to accept” 
 
With all due respect Dr. C that is a two way street.