IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Gage And Ryan Speaking At Farrakhan/nation Of Islam Conference This Weekend, causing discord among the ranks within AE

SanderO
post Mar 3 2012, 11:27 PM
Post #41





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



One,

There are two different things here. The collapse phase which I have always maintained was gravity driven and unassisted by explosive. The initiation MIGHT very well have explosive as a cause. In Bldge 7 it seems that the explosions were not DIRECTLY associated with the moment of initiation and collapse. Therefore I attribute the explosions not to DIRECT column or structural damage in Bldg 7 IF they were heard much EARLIER than the actual drop... such as Jennigs and Hess. What they heard was 7 hours BEFORE anything happened in bldg 7.

Those explosions likely set of a series of events which DID lead to weakening and collapse. HOWEVER... the weakening is a process as the structure goes from say 200% capacity to failing at 99% capacity. The 200% is representing a factor of safety of 2. One could take out one column and to total capacity might drop from 200% to 195%... and the structure would stand. As heat weakens steal in this example the original 200% capacity is dropping as the steel is *cooked*. One certainly could take out some columns (or truss members) when the structure was at 125% and push it 99% and global collapse.

It's conceivable to me, that the FDNY and the DOB might have assessed that the structure had lost capacity from the initial explosion (which I have suggested could have been in the sub station). Or the explosion could have destroyed the diesel fuel piping and starting fires which then cooked the 6th and 7th floor steel for 7 hrs. It's possible that they saw no means to prevent additional weakening if they could not fight the diesel fires and have the steel cool down. Again, I don't know. The DOB and the FDNY call for building evacuations if they think a structure is going to collapse.

If I have a propane tank for the BBQ on the terrace which explodes... and starts a fire... the explosion may not destroy my house... but the fire could burn enough of the bearing walls that it could collapse well after the explosion. Did the explosion cause the house to collapse or the fires caused BY the explosion?

The issue for a *natural* destruction would be whether there was enough heat created by the fires. It seems that office material fires could not supply enough heat. This is why NIST's column 79 explanation makes no sense. But perhaps diesel fires burning for 7 hrs on floors 6 & 7 COULD create enough heat. I don't know and I think this needs to be looked at.

Note that a truss can fail if one panel (diagonal) fails. Or if one chord, tension or compression fails. You don't have to destroy the entire truss for it to fail. Take out one member and the truss folds like a house of cards. There were only 3 transfer trusses.

If the tower dropped at close to FF acceleration it meant there was no resistance. Having the transfer trusses on floors 6 and 7 destroyed would allow the entire core structure above to descend the 8 floors at FF.

The bottom line is if you want to argue explosive controlled demolition you have to associate the explosions with the onset of collapse. They can't occur well in advance. What is going on in the structure between the time of the explosion(s) and the onset of collapse?

Could the *authorities* have assisted the weakening structure with some charges placed late in the afternoon? Why not? I find that unlikely and extremely dangerous to undertake on the 6th and 7th floor if there were diesel fires raging. Could there have been charges placed well in advance... set off during the course of the day? Why not? But were there powerful enough explosions heard at 5:20 pm to blow out the 3 MASSIVE transfer truss panels and some of the cantilever girders... or 8 floors of 81 columns which were 2 story per column... 8 /2 = 4 4 x 81 = 324 blown out columns? Didn't Gage claim that 8 floors of columns had to be disappeared for the structure to collapse?

Make sense.

What is your theory about how bldg 7 was destroyed?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 4 2012, 08:21 AM
Post #42





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



Here are a few clues:

- Larry gave authorization to "pull" the buidling. It's on video, go check it out.
- Jennings got stuck in a stairwell because an explosion ruptured the stair case before either Twin tower fell. Also on video, go check it out.
- Particles in the dust samples resemble thermitic material and produce more heat in shorter amounts of time than a control sample of known nano-thermite.
- Steel frame buildings don't fall at the acceleration of gravity from offices fires.
- Buildings don't crumble when dropped from 15 feet. See the video I posted.

Your theory is nonsense.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 4 2012, 08:35 AM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 2 2012, 08:29 PM) *
You said...
I've been following this forum due to my career in avionics, and find many items to be factual, but this is pure BS.


No, that is not what I said. You came into the discussion after I posted that. The quoted response was for another member.
Having said that, my time here has been minimal and I dont understand how reading a few posts in a variety of sub forums makes me an expert of 'all topics'?
By factual, I mean that most of the pinned topics I have read are backed up by facts and not opinion. The facts can be sourced by documents and do not speculate. For example, the max operating speeds of an airframe is a fact, not an opinion.


QUOTE
I am puzzled though, why did you elect as your first order to participate in a thread outside your area of expertise?

No need to be puzzled. My first glance into this story was through YouTube videos of building 7. I've watched several videos concerning the buildings. Some of your videos showed up in the mix, and that's how I found this place. Besides, my expertise would be flight sims., and I'm not sure how that relates to any of the stuff I've read thus far?

QUOTE
I see you are a LevelDSimTech, ... where? Name?

Sorry, but I'm not about to give out my employer's info. If you would like to ask me questions about sims., feel free to e-mail me via the info provided in my registration. I'll see what sort of help I can offer.

Thank you for your PM in any case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2012, 11:06 AM
Post #44





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 4 2012, 08:21 AM) *
Here are a few clues:

- Larry gave authorization to "pull" the buidling. It's on video, go check it out.
- Jennings got stuck in a stairwell because an explosion ruptured the stair case before either Twin tower fell. Also on video, go check it out.
- Particles in the dust samples resemble thermitic material and produce more heat in shorter amounts of time than a control sample of known nano-thermite.
- Steel frame buildings don't fall at the acceleration of gravity from offices fires.
- Buildings don't crumble when dropped from 15 feet. See the video I post



How do you know what *pull it" means to Silverstein? As he's not CD sort of guy he wouldn't know the jargon and could have meant stop the effort to fight the fires and get the men out of the building. He was likely informed by the FDNY and NYPD and NYDOB that the building was growing unstable and it was inadvisable to do anything until the fires burned out.

In the scenario I sketched out the explosion were triggered by the PLANE strikes at 8:46 an hour and a half BEFORE the towers fell. Jennings and Hess came down the stair AFTER the plane strikes but BEFORE tower 1 fell and the explosions in the sub stations occurred AFTER the plane strike and BEFORE tower 1 fell. This is perfectly logocal.

Nano thermite is an unproven hypothesis and recent reseach by Millette has shown that the dust contained NO nano thermite. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119Progr...1_030112web.pdf The battle begins.

Steel frame buildings NEVER fall at free fall. All three collapse show the roof line decent with some degree of acceleration. Bldg 7 for 2.25 second because the structure at 76 & 6 was destroyed and the core dropped 8 stories (100 feet) to the ground at FF acceleration. Then things decelerated. The cause of the structure destruction at 6 & 7 was not OFFICE fires.. there were no offices on those floors. The were mech equipment with several gen sets and fuel diesel tanks which were replenished by emergency power. The twins did not collapse because of *office fires*. There were accelrants present from the planes.

Some buildings will not crumble when dropped 15 feet... usually reinforced concrete. One needs to consider the mass of the building. The twins and bldg 7 were 20 to 40 times more massive than any DC. Apples and oranges my friend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 4 2012, 01:24 PM
Post #45





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 10:06 AM) *
How do you know what *pull it" means to Silverstein? As he's not CD sort of guy he wouldn't know the jargon and could have meant stop the effort to fight the fires and get the men out of the building. He was likely informed by the FDNY and NYPD and NYDOB that the building was growing unstable and it was inadvisable to do anything until the fires burned out.


Try listening to his words instead of making up your own version of his interview. "They made the decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". Pretty straight forward!

QUOTE
In the scenario I sketched out the explosion were triggered by the PLANE strikes at 8:46 an hour and a half BEFORE the towers fell. Jennings and Hess came down the stair AFTER the plane strikes but BEFORE tower 1 fell and the explosions in the sub stations occurred AFTER the plane strike and BEFORE tower 1 fell. This is perfectly logocal.


There is no logic because building 7 couldn't have started any sort of fire until the towers fell. No plane hit building 7!

QUOTE
Nano thermite is an unproven hypothesis and recent reseach by Millette has shown that the dust contained NO nano thermite. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119Progr...1_030112web.pdf The battle begins.


The "battle" begins? How about your source is invalid because the chip samples were only heated to 400'C. That falls short of the ignition temperature and therefore the study is incomplete.

QUOTE
Steel frame buildings NEVER fall at free fall. All three collapse show the roof line decent with some degree of acceleration. Bldg 7 for 2.25 second because the structure at 76 & 6 was destroyed and the core dropped 8 stories (100 feet) to the ground at FF acceleration. Then things decelerated. The cause of the structure destruction at 6 & 7 was not OFFICE fires.. there were no offices on those floors. The were mech equipment with several gen sets and fuel diesel tanks which were replenished by emergency power. The twins did not collapse because of *office fires*. There were accelrants present from the planes.


That is your opinion, and a weak one at that. Your story for building 7 doesn't even follow the NIST report, or have any backing source.

QUOTE
Some buildings will not crumble when dropped 15 feet... usually reinforced concrete. One needs to consider the mass of the building. The twins and bldg 7 were 20 to 40 times more massive than any DC. Apples and oranges my friend.


Please don't call me your friend, and use a cliche like "apple and oranges" when it is very apparent that you are not educated in science, or structural engineering. You didn't even catch the fact that your rebuttal link for the dust analysis missed the ignition point of the chips. Your orders of magnitude are also very far off. By saying building 7 was at least 20 times more massive than any "DC" (controlled demo CD?) is stating that the largest controlled demolition prior was only 2.3-2.4 floors high. Incredible that I'm even wasting my time responding to this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2012, 02:59 PM
Post #46





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The tallest building taken down in a CD was 22 stories tall and it's foot print was probably less than a quarter of bldg 7.

The fires which started in bldg 7 could have resulted from a sub station blow out from the PLANE strike at 8:46am when all the 13KV feeders went down.

As far as Silverstein's remarks and meaning... perhaps someone should ask him what he meant by this. The interpretation I presented is only a possibility.

Are there massive explosions AFTER the Silverstein remark? If it was as open as you claim why is no one else coming forward with accounts of the detonation?

Why does any theory have to follow NIST? I think they got a lot of it wrong!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 4 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #47





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 01:59 PM) *
The tallest building taken down in a CD was 22 stories tall and it's foot print was probably less than a quarter of bldg 7.


Less than a quarter is hardly 20x less! Even then, I don't believe you. Show me the link to the 22 storey building you are referring to.

QUOTE
The fires which started in bldg 7 could have resulted from a sub station blow out from the PLANE strike at 8:46am when all the 13KV feeders went down.


Why would the feeders for the North tower antenna be placed below building 7? The North tower was built much earlier than building 7. Your story makes no sense, and I'm guessing you have no blue-print/plan layout for the location of the feeders. My guess is probably right. If not, please present the proof of the feeder location, and please explain why they would be under a building that was constructed several years later.

QUOTE
As far as Silverstein's remarks and meaning... perhaps someone should ask him what he meant by this. The interpretation I presented is only a possibility.


Perhaps you should lose the imagination, and interpret Larry's interview as recorded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 4 2012, 11:38 PM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The "sandero show" in full swing here I see rolleyes.gif

Ask him if any of his claims/speculation regarding the collapse of WTC7 are contained in the NIST Report. If they aren't, he's no better than Stutt and Legge.

And using the "Silverstein's 'it' really referred to the firefighting effort" bs...wow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2012, 11:52 PM
Post #49





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 4 2012, 09:21 PM) *
Less than a quarter is hardly 20x less! Even then, I don't believe you. Show me the link to the 22 storey building you are referring to.

Why would the feeders for the North tower antenna be placed below building 7? The North tower was built much earlier than building 7. Your story makes no sense, and I'm guessing you have no blue-print/plan layout for the location of the feeders. My guess is probably right. If not, please present the proof of the feeder location, and please explain why they would be under a building that was constructed several years later.

Perhaps you should lose the imagination, and interpret Larry's interview as recorded.


"The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite facade. The building was 610 feet (190 m) tall, with a trapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (100 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[3][4] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[3] In March 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center. The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[5] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[6] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[7] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[8] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[6]

...... Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the 5th floor. Several emergency generators installed in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney, and other tenants.[1] In order to supply the generators, 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel were stored below ground level.[9] Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.[10]"

How about this:

Con Ed Report:

UNCLASSIFIED
Commission Sensitive
There were two substations in WTC 7 building, serving the twin towers, and one
substation by the South Street Seaport. A total of eight 13 kW feeders were located at the
WTC.
[/color]
Timeline on 9/11/2001:
08:46 a.m. Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
09:02 a.m. Two additional WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW went off
09:52 a.m. Four additional open/auto (O/A) 13 kV feeders went off
10:28 a.m. Status: '
Cortlandt 8 of 15 feeders were off
Battery Park City 6 of 8 feeders were off
Bowling Green 6 of 16 feeders were off
Park Place 1 of 12 feeders were off

[color=rgb(0,0,153)] Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled the

equipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed.

I think you can do your own research about the sub station. There were 23 sub stations in NYC and the one under bldg 7 contained 3 - 20' tall 168 ton transformers cooled by giant oil filled radiators.

You have a very aggressive attitude.

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
10/24/1998
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.
The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 5 2012, 12:44 AM
Post #50





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



And you are terrible at math, and making up stories:

QUOTE
(SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 01:59 PM)
The tallest building taken down in a CD was 22 stories tall and it's foot print was probably less than a quarter of bldg 7


QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 10:52 PM) *
"The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons. The building was 610 feet (190 m) tall, with atrapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (100 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.



QUOTE
CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure.


It appears Building 7 was a little smaller!


You also have no idea about the routing of electricity and cooling of the transformers. The substations for the Twins were located within the towers themselves, and transformers were air cooled!


SOURCE
QUOTE
From 1993 NFPA FIRE INVESTIGATION REPORT
World Trade Center Explosion and Fire New York, New York February 26, 1993
Pages 14-18


Substation Facts:
QUOTE
For electrical design purposes, Towers 1 and 2 have been subdivided into two vertical sections, i.e., Tower 1 — north and south sides; Tower 2 — east and west sides. Each vertical section is supplied by four electrical substations; one substation in each of the mechanical equipment rooms (MER) on the 7th, 41st, 75th, and 108th floors. Thus, Tower 1 and Tower 2 each have a total of eight electrical substations.

The arrangement of substation equipment is the same in both towers; that is, each substation has four air-cooled transformers. The transformers are rated as 1500KVA, 3 phase, 13.8KV-480/277 volt. Each is provided with a 600-ampere, 15-KV primary, no-load disconnect switch on the primary side and a 2500-ampere circuit breaker on the secondary side.



QUOTE
Electrical service to the towers was supplied by Consolidated Edison (ConEd) at 13,800 volts. This service passed through the World Trade Center Primary Distribution Center (PDC) and sent up through the core of the building to electrical substations located on the mechanical floors. The substations "stepped" the 13,800 primary voltage down to 480/277 volt secondary power and further to 120/208 volt general power and lighting service. The complex also was served by emergency generators located in the sublevels of the towers and on the roof of 5 WTC.


http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/det...d489f66894fac90

I believe this is the point that you would toss all of those scripts, and drawings of yours in the garbage and try to come up with a more sensible story that makes sense.

This post has been edited by LevelDsimTech: Mar 5 2012, 12:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 5 2012, 08:09 AM
Post #51





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The Con Ed report indicates that the plane strike blew the feeders to Bldg 7 And the twins had 8 sub stations in them 2 on each on the 3 mech floors and the sub basement. The Hudson Bldg was half the ht of blg 7 and 1/5 that of the twins. The point is that no building of the height of the WTC towers was ever taken down with a CD. The lower columns were so massive that the amount of explosives would be huge and make quite the bang... as did the 93 WTC blast which did not destroy a single column.


There was a very rapid cascading failure in the downtown electric grid and the bldg 7 transformer went off at the moment of the plane strike I believe.

And your sensible story is?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 5 2012, 12:53 PM
Post #52





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 5-December 11
Member No.: 6,512



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 5 2012, 07:09 AM) *
as did the 93 WTC blast which did not destroy a single column.


Why do you continue to lie!? You are so bad at research and getting your facts straight it's unreal.

SOURCE
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/tr-076.pdf


QUOTE
B-2 LEVEL (ground zero)
• An L-shaped crater, approximately 130 by 150 feet at its maximum points, was opened, collapsing reinforced concrete and debris onto levels below.
At least nine steel columns were heavily damaged and left without lateral support.
• Many walls collapsed, including a concrete block wall adjacent to the blast area that collapsed onto and killed five WTC personnel.
• Doors/enclosure walls of Tower 1 elevator shafts were heavily damaged.



QUOTE
And your sensible story is?

Read back to a previous post of mine concerning "Larry Pull-it", energetic chips in the dust, etc. << That post is on the previous page.

The evidence is overwhelming and obvious. You continue to ramble about transformers blowing up when I have proved you were wrong about the location, and the cooling type! They were not oil filled, they were air cooled!

If you're trying to press your garbage on the readers, at least make it logical. If you just stated that the bomb exploding in 1993 within the sublevels of the Twin Tower could not damage a single column (bzzzzzt.,..wrong! See FEMA report, and quote above), then how would an air cooled transformer be more dangerous?! You do not belong on a truth forum let alone trying to form a sequence of events from your dreams!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 5 2012, 01:07 PM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



93 damaged not destroyed

The radiators were oil filled.

Thank you for your opinions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 5 2012, 01:21 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 4 2012, 07:35 AM) *
If you would like to ask me questions about sims., feel free to e-mail me via the info provided in my registration.


Check your email...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 5 2012, 03:45 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (SanderO)
Make sense. 

What is your theory about how bldg 7 was destroyed?


I have no theories. NIST does though.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10804012

Hope that makes sense to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hdog
post Mar 6 2012, 11:03 PM
Post #56





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 22-October 06
Member No.: 137



The only explanation other than explosives that one should be concerned with is NIST's. Anything else is an utter waste of time.

This post has been edited by hdog: Mar 6 2012, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2019 - 05:16 AM