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 Feb 27 2012, 03:39 PM
Post #21





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



Gents,
First I am not an agent of anyone or organization. I am, and have always been an independent and free thinker. As such towing the party line at AE911T was not something which fits my character. I won't repeat or go into the details about my work with and expulsion from AE911T. Anyone who is interested in more detail can PM me and I can send them more material to read. I've moved on and have been doing my own research.

I am not alone in my theories and understanding about the destruction of the 3 towers. I am in the PROCESS of understanding and each day I work on the *problems* I come a bit closer and have to revise my understanding.

My research indicates that we CANNOT RULE OUT EXPLOSIVES OR INCENDIARIES INVOLVED IN THE INITIATION of all three collapses.

However it must be noted that in ALL CDs gravity is expected to do MOST OF THE DESTRUCTION. And so it was with these buildings. In a CD the top mass is *freed* from the columns which support it and comes crashing down. If you were to drop a building from 15 feet to solid ground it would do exactly what a CD does... crush itself from the bottom up as it drops to the ground. That's what happened with bldg 7... and it likely originated at the 6th and 7th floors where the transfer trusses and cantilever girders were which SUPPORTED columns (core and north facade) above. Fail to transfer trusses and the cantilever girders and the tops drop.

The twins were different. They had a *CD* type collapse but originated at the plane impact zone. The huge mass of 16 stories in the case of the north tower and 32 stories in the case of south tower were enough to crush and crash through the lower stories in both towers. The only buckled columns were at the impact zones... The rest of the columns broke apart at their connections... fell and were mangled upon hitting terra ferma. Many toppled over with little damage. The collapse of the twins was a FLOOR collapse below the plane impact zone. The core survived to the 50th floor in both towers and then toppled from instability without bracing.

The problem with AE911T's theory, mini nukes and DEWs is that MOST of the steel ie all the steel BELOW THE PLANE STRIKE zones shows only mechanical damage from dropping ... not from explosives, cutting etc. There IS NO EVIDENCE OF STEEL BEING BURNED OR EXPLODED from BELOW the IMPACT ZONES. If there is.. please show some pics. Judy Wood claims the steel was *dustified*... but it was there on the ground... and hauled off and sold for scrap. She's wrong.

Mini nukes? There were MANY core and facade columns standing AFTER the collapse. How could the a mini nuke shatter only the area at the plane impact AND cause bucking of the columns at THAT level unless there was some MECHANISM for over loading the columns?

Buckling at the impact zone was the result of having SOME columns destroyed at the impact zone... and the remaining ones were then overwhelmed (over time as a result of multiple factors)... and they then buckled.

It's the multiple factors which needs to be looked at. They include:

plane damage to the core columns
heat weakening to the core columns
explosives placed at the core columns
incendiaries placed at the core columns
pre weakening (cutting or removal of bolts at column splices)
determination of the Factor of Safety

at the impact zone.

This is what the visual record AND, engineering and physics tells us. Gage is in denial. Or he doesn't understand the buildings. Woods is intellectually dishonest about the steel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 27 2012, 07:19 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SanderO)
My research indicates that we CANNOT RULE OUT EXPLOSIVES OR INCENDIARIES INVOLVED IN THE INITIATION of all three collapses.


Or fires..

QUOTE (SanderO)
You need to note that buildings such as WTC 7 would have many things exploding if they were on fire.... and they did have massive storage tanks of diesel fuel and it sat atop a Con Ed Sub station... which likely had transformers exploding. So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices. Considering that the building was likely a disaster to salvage... taking it down and lumping it in with the rest of the WTC destruction might have motivated someone to actually place those charges... We don't know but that seems like a possibility as well.


I don't know if I'm the only one who sees the problem with the above quote?

And who here has mentioned "mininukes and DEWs"?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Feb 29 2012, 07:29 PM
Post #23





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Seven observations about SanderO:

Master of the art of wearing you down with verbiage, strategic ignoring of evidence that contradicts his thesis, and use of irrelevant references that seem erudite and apt, except they are not, SanderO appears to be in league with the Frank Legge/Bursill/Woolsey campaigns to litter the 9/11 landscape with red herrings and questions that, while they are not direct challenges to the evidence that is widely accepted by the mainstream Truth community, contribute to the concept advanced by Mr. Sunstein called Cognitive Diversity. That is, stir up enough silt so that it is impossible for a newcomer to the movement to see the evidence clearly.

Being a veteran of several exchanges with SanderO (mostly cordial, some heated) and having witnessed others, all of which seem to follow the same arc as those in which I participated, I can offer the following analysis:

1. SanderO is an awesome, if not always accurate typist, or a copy/paste artist with a vast store of canned scripts. with which he will wear you down.
2. He speaks from the standpoint of being the smartest or most educated guy in the room/venue, and isn’t above speaking insultingly of the educational credentials of those who challenge his assertions. His views and assertions are contrarian. (e.g. no explosions can be seen in the towers; or if there are any they must be transformers cooking off) You are a fool to believe your lying eyes. His current theory on the towers is something called a “core-led collapse”, which sounds to me like saying that the strongest part of the towers, the massive central core, which, if explosives are discounted was undamaged for the vast majority of its length, decided to fall down, pulling the rest of the structure with it. Why and how it would do this is not explained.
3. He carries a torch for Gage and AE911T who are, by his lights, of no value to the Truth movement.
4. A two or three paragraph posting in one of the fora he frequents can draw out a two or three page response that can exhaust you just to read.
5. At some point he will refer you to Free Forums as the rosetta stone of 9/11 research that, like himself, is underappreciated.
6. You are not the first, or I suspect will you be the last, to wonder what the hell he is doing, and why, since I have yet to see evidence that he has convinced anyone else of his position. I think Tony Szamboti might have expressed partial agreement with one of his claims at some time or another.
7. To the extent he can be categorized, he appears to be one of those whose effect, if not aim, is to keep the inconclusive arguing going among the truthers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 29 2012, 10:50 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (maturin42)
His views and assertions are contrarian


Ahem..

QUOTE (SanderO)
You need to note that buildings such as WTC 7 would have many things exploding if they were on fire.... and they did have massive storage tanks of diesel fuel and it sat atop a Con Ed Sub station... which likely had transformers exploding. So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices. Considering that the building was likely a disaster to salvage... taking it down and lumping it in with the rest of the WTC destruction might have motivated someone to actually place those charges... We don't know but that seems like a possibility as well.


So, according to SanderO, any explosives involved were secondary to the "office fires plus structural damage" - the latter being totally random events seeing as the only visible "structural damage" was caused by the falling debris of one of the towers.

The audible evidence of explosions (whatever their source) were "likely transformers".

The visual evidence of explosive destruction inside WTC7 witnessed by Barry Jennings before the collapse of the towers (and before he was obviously pressured into changing his story)...haven't seen an answer to that one yet.

That destruction witnessed by Barry Jennings wasn't caused by "transformers". SanderO linked to two videos of transformers exploding (one made an impressive noise) but no physical damage was done to the immediate area.

Basically, SanderO tried to morph his thesis of what actually caused the collapse of the towers on to WTC7. Fire, structural damage and "a few well placed explosives"

Now I'm a layman on the subject but I can read English. Basically he's saying that "office fires and (random) structural damage" were necessary in conjunction with those "few explosive devices" to bring WTC7 down.

Can anybody see the logic in this stance? Or are the "few explosive devices" an afterthought while the "office fires and structural damage" are subtly pushed as the more likely reason for the collapse?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 29 2012, 10:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 1 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #25





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



Guys,

I realize some of my posts are long. But I so is the Blueprint for truth *thesis* long. My own thesis is EVOLVING. Here is where I am at now with the twins:

1. The destruction was the result of MULTIPLE factors. Those factors added up to the core being fatally damaged at the plane impact zone.
Plane strikes destroy and damage both facade AND core columns.

The loads supported by the destroyed columns were redistributed to the undamaged columns.

Heat from fuel and building contents burned and raised the temps of the structural steel. That steel grew weaker as it got hotter.
We don't know if fires were able to weaken the steel in the time of the burn. If not ADDITIONAL factors would be required and this could include: pre-placed explosives, pre-placed incendiaries. Note this may not require detonation sequence as the fires from the plane strikes could ignite them. THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED.

The Factor of Safety was key to how long the core and facade could remain with lost columns. The FOS or reserve strength is lost as the columns lose strength from heat.

The core columns buckle and the floors above have no axial support and descend. Buckling leads to some lateral displacement as the tops descend (WTC 2 core failure began at the SE corner and propagated NW causing the SE side of the top of the building to tip SE as it fell. The top of WTC tipped about 1 deg and translated to the SE enough for the upper and lower facade columns to by pass each other as the tops came down.

The descending tops in both towers mass (floors, contents, walls etc.) to crash down on the floors they tell upon. This represented tens of thousands of tons of materials. This over whelmed to typical floors which shattered and a progressive top down collapse of all the floors ensued.

The collapsing floor mass forced the 18,000 cubic yards of air from each floor outward it descended upon. The 18,000 cu of air was forced out in about one tenth of a second and reached speeds of over 400 mph destroying everything ON each floor, and carrying it through the windows which could not contain the over pressure. Most of the ejected seen was the result of this over pressure.

The collapsing floors were the bracing for the facade. With the bracing lost as the floors shattered the facade grew increasingly unstable. The facade was like a cage trying to contain the growing floor mass which was exerting an outward pressure (lateral force) along with the air pressure. The facade broke off at its weakest points - the spandrel to spandrel connections and the column to column connections which were only BOLTED (except at the mech floors which were also welded). The facade "peeled* off and *burst* outward.. landing up to 440 feet or so.

The collapse floor mass stripped the core of much of its bracing as well. It survived the floor collapse for a few seconds and its columns too were too tall and thin and unstable (the *spire*) and collapsed as well. Both cores had columns as tall as 50 stories survive the floor collapse with col 501 in wtc 1 standing to floor 78 before buckling. Columns which are too slender will self buckle as described by Euler. All the core columns except those at the impact zone which buckled from heat and mechanic destruction were found in the debris full length with no evidence of explosive damage or heat damage. All columns broke apart at their connections and were damage in the fall from as high as 1,300+ feet.

Parts of the facade stood in both towers at the conclusion reaching as tall as more than 15 stories. Several core columns were still standing poking through the rubble.

The no stone aggregate lightweight concrete and contents were crushed by the enormous weight of the descending mass... which was a mechanical process which produced enormous hear from friction. This heat along with the column of air from the collapse caused the dust and light particles to billow up and away in enormous clouds propagating from the collapses.

The debris was very hot and acted as an immense thermal mass. The hottest areas were at the bottom of the debris pile and insulated by the mass above. It is possible that anaerobic exothermic reaction such as thermite, were started and or continued at the very bottom of the debris piles.

The above does not preclude devices placed to assist the initiation (buckling of the core at the impact zones) or even additional fuel or devices delivered by the planes themselves. WE DON'T KNOW. Therefore more investigation is required.

Building 7 appears to have also had a core core collapse. This likely was associated with the unorthodox structure of the lower part of the tower (7 stories) which had to support many of the core and the perimeter columns on the north side on transfer trusses and cantilever girders because it was build over the Con Ed sub station.

Con Ed reported at it lost 13 VK feeders at the moment of the plane strike to tower 1. This likely caused large transformers in the tower 1 and bldg 7 to over heat / fail release insulating oil which broke down into explosive gas which ignited ans was witness as explosions by Jennings and others. Rodriguez also experienced an explosion at the moment of plane impact but the sound through the air was delayed by 1 second and so he heard the sub basement transformer explosion first (by a second).

Sprinklers in bldg 1 lost water as the main electrical system was lost. Back up gen sets kicked in and began pumping diesel up to the day tanks on mech floors on 5 and 7 where the transfer trusses and cantilever girders were located. It possible that that the transformer gas explosions breached the pipes and ignited the diesel which was being pumped up from the basement. This essentially could have cooked the transfer trusses and cantilever girders all day until they lost their reserve strength and buckled. The core above lost support at the 8th floor and came crashing down on top of the sub station destroying the entire structure below floor 8.

The facade without support then dropped at free fall for 100 feet (8 stories) before meeting the resistance of the ground and decelerated.

WE DON'T KNOW if there were placed devices on floors 5-7 in the mech floors or even in the sub station to kick off the "weakening" of transfer trusses and cantilever girders. THAT HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED and is a distinct possibility.

I realize that Maturin42 and others in the truth movement do not understand the technical aspects of a progressive floor collapse. The engineering community is equally derelict in their understanding. However, there are peer reviewed technical papers in the literature which detail a progressive floor collapse as the mechanism for destroying a high rise.
Bldg 7 was very much like a standard CD in appearance because the failure of the structure was below the 8th floor. The twin towers resembled a standard CD at the level of the plane impacts (collapse of the top sections). The collapsed top section then destroyed the floor system and the structural facade and the core without bracing succumbed.

Both cases... collapses in WTC 1&2 and Bldg 7 were possible because of bizarre structural designs. The falling debris onto bldg 7 and the fires they caused likely had little or nothing to do with the failure of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders which led to the collapse. The sagging trusses in WTC 1&2 has nothing to do with the core collapses at the impact zones which led to the tops dropping and the progressive collapse of all floors below. NIST and FEMA got it wrong.

All the evidence MUST be accounted for including the iron micro spheres. I am not a chemist nor a fire scientist/expert for steel framed building collapses, but I suspect that explanations can be found. THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. The red gray chips needs to to be further investigated as well. The work on Harrit et al needs to be repeated or discredited. Their work raises the specter of placed devices.

We know some things about the collapses. But we don't know all things.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 1 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #26





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I agree, OSS, and try to stay out of the discussions of subjects I'm not schooled in.

I also try to avoid discussing persons, and prefer to stick to discussions of inanimate subjects.

I too have had my share of criticism for some of his posts and apparent positions, but for the most part he seems genuine and sincere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 1 2012, 05:00 PM
Post #27





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 27 2012, 02:39 PM) *
However it must be noted that in ALL CDs gravity is expected to do MOST OF THE DESTRUCTION. And so it was with these buildings. In a CD the top mass is *freed* from the columns which support it and comes crashing down. If you were to drop a building from 15 feet to solid ground it would do exactly what a CD does... crush itself from the bottom up as it drops to the ground.


I've been following this forum due to my career in avionics, and find many items to be factual, but this is pure BS. I can understand why you were removed from AE911 now.

Have a look at this video and tell me how many of the failed demolitions "crushed" themselves from gravity alone. You should start at the 1:20 mark:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwDF58Hw9M...feature=related

This post has been edited by LevelDsimTech: Mar 1 2012, 05:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 1 2012, 05:51 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Con Ed reported at it lost 13 VK feeders at the moment of the plane strike to tower 1. This likely caused large transformers in the tower 1 and bldg 7 to over heat / fail release insulating oil which broke down into explosive gas which ignited ans was witness as explosions by Jennings and others


So Barry Jennings actually witnessed damage caused by "insulating oil which broke down into explosive gas".

Okay, got it. Case closed.

So, let's see if you can answer me once and for all SanderO. The "few explosives"..would they have brought WTC7 down without the "office fires and (random) structural damage"?

Simple yes or no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 1 2012, 08:01 PM
Post #29





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 1 2012, 05:51 PM) *
So, let's see if you can answer me once and for all SanderO. The "few explosives"..would they have brought WTC7 down without the "office fires and (random) structural damage"?

Simple yes or no.


No.

In both the twins AND bldg 7 there were MULTIPLE factors which led to the core failures. One can say it was a chain events where one failure triggers another until the structure fails (buckles) and what it supports collapses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Networkfailure.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_failure

I'll give you and example of a chain of failures - a hypothetical

You're single handing in your boat sailing along 20 miles offshore going to Montauk to Cap May and a hose from the water tanks leaks. The tanks empty into the bilger and the bilge pump kicks in to pump the water over board. You don't hear any of this because you are in the cockpit on watch. The bilge pump overheats and shorts and the short begins to drain the batteries. The autopilot stop steering as it needs electricity. The wind is strong and the auto pilot was doing fine but one it's lost power the boat begins to round up into the wind. You need to find out what gives with the batts/electricity... the instruments are off too. You start the engine which has its own battery and lock the helm in a down wind course to flatten the boat and then go below to see what's happening. You discover water sloshing over the floor boards as the bilge pump has died. The quartering seas are building along with the wind. The autopilot comes back on as the alternator charges the batteries. The a puff of wind and large sea comes and the boat rounds up into the wind and a huge wave crashes over the bow and runs aft and floods the cabin the engine stalls and stops and will not restart. The AP stops working and you have to hand steer with no navigation lights or electronics. Can't even call May Day. You are in major commercial traffic lanes into NY Harbor.

See a small leak in a hose in the water system has led to a cascading series of failures and the boat in eventually flooded with sea water, you having to hand steer in the night with the possibility of being run down by a super tanker who can see you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 1 2012, 11:10 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
No


So, the demolition of WTC7 was dependent on "exploding transformers/insulating oil which broke down into gas/(random) structural damage"

Seems like a risky strategy to me rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 2 2012, 02:18 PM
Post #31





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 1 2012, 10:10 PM) *
So, the demolition of WTC7 was dependent on "exploding transformers/insulating oil which broke down into gas/(random) structural damage"

Seems like a risky strategy to me rolleyes.gif


It's not risky if the owner gives the authority to pull the building!

I can't understand why forum moderators allow their message boards to be polluted with trash like SanderO is providing. It reduces credibility of the professionals that actually know what they're talking about. I mean, who provides a hypothetical response about water hoses and boats when the question was regarding a building collapse?

The guy says a building will destroy itself if dropped from one floor (15 feet) to the ground, yet there are several instances in the video where pre-weakend buildings, with placed charges tip over when dropped from several floors.

If it were my decision, I wouldn't let anyone post information without providing their name, and credentials. We shouldn't be giving these fools a method to spread their junk.

This post has been edited by LevelDsimTech: Mar 2 2012, 02:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2012, 04:57 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

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



Gotta love it when people come in here, with all of two posts on our forum, and tell us how we should run this forum....lol

QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 2 2012, 01:18 PM) *
If it were my decision, I wouldn't let anyone post information without providing their name, and credentials.


It can be your decision.

Start a forum.

Here are some links to get you started.... free.

Click...

However, if you want to start a forum like this one, you'll have to buy a license for the forum software, and of course hosting... domain name... etc. I can recommend a few if you don't want to go the free route. Then of course you'll have to hire a webmaster if you don't feel like learning php, sql/database implementation, software.. etc.

Let us know how you make out.

QUOTE
We shouldn't be giving these fools a method to spread their junk


I'm afraid you'll have to shut down the whole internet to resolve such an issue. Perhaps even jail some individuals so they can''t talk on the street.

I prefer to debate them head on in full view of an audience. Your mileage may vary.

SanderO hasn't broken any of our forum guidelines, and quite frankly, i want to hear what he has to say, and the rebuttals. If you aren't interested, don't read it. It's just that simple.

But please don't condemn a whole community just because we value Free Speech above all.

By the way LevelDSim, did you know that Richard Gage links to and recommends confirmed disinformation with respect to Pentagon analysis? I have tried to talk to Richard about it, but he turns a blind eye (and ear).

Considering the fact they have completely botched their analysis related to 9/11 aviation issues, combined with the latest analysis rebutting their Thermite/Thermate analysis in which they allegedly have expertise, I'm not too sure I would be defending their work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 2 2012, 06:22 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

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



Back to SanderO's claims on WTC7 on this forum. whistle.gif

SanderO, can you tell me where exactly "a few explosives" are mentioned in these posts at 911forums just 4 weeks ago?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-7-ve...ssion-t201.html

QUOTE
Jan 20th 2012

I've been thinking about bldg 7 and some of the observations and have been trying to *connect the dots*.. the so called observations and would like to toss out some points for comment / discussion.. in no order of importance or sequence.

Witness Wm Rodriguez reported hearing an explosion in the sub basement of tower 1, just before he heard the plane strike. I would suggest that they were simultaneous events with the time delay related to the the fact the explosion was caused by a voltage spike which exploded some transformers in the sub basement where there was one or two of the 8 sub stations in each tower. He heard the plane 1 second after it hit because it was 1100 feet away.

The Con Ed substation under Bldg 7 was massive and supplied much of lower Manhattan including the WTC with electricity. It's possible that the same voltage spike affected the sub station in Bldg 7 and caused fires and or explosions after gas was generated from the insulating oil ignited.

Witness Jennings who had rushed to the 23 floor NYC Emergency Response Center when the first plane struck, found no one there and took the stairs down and at the 8th floor, just above the Con Ed sub station he experience a massive explosion. This might have been caused by the explosion of the escaped gas from the transformers.

Exploding sub station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobg

Transformer explosions
"Transformer and oil-filled high voltage equipment may give rise to very strong explosions. A severe electrical fault inside the transformer may well generate pressure that the transformer casing cannot withstand, such that it ruptures. Due to the high temperature and energy released from the arc, the insulating oil will decompose and highly explosive gas mixtures will result (mainly Hydrogen and Acetylene). Upon transformer rupture, gas and oil mist will be ejected to the surrounding area, mix with air and a secondary explosion may occur. If transformers are located indoors or in subterranean stations the pressure loads can amount to more than a bar overpressure. In subterranean stations pressure waves may propagate through tunnels and corridors without weakening and pressure loads can become substantial in areas located far away from the actual explosion."

Bldg 7 was a rather unique structural design. It was built over top of a 7 story high Con Ed Sub station. See the plans:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... eport.html

Part of the central core area on the East side... was above the Con Ed sub station and supported by massive transfer trusses 1 and 2. And this was directly below the East Penthouse which descended right through the building.

The entire core above the East side of the sub station was like building a tower on the a bridge span. If the span fails, the tower above plunges down with no resistance... there wasn't any axial load support below the span of the trusses.

The height of the sub station corresponds to the distance of the free fall descent of the facade. If the failure was at the 8th floor decoupling the facade from the structure (spandrels) perhaps destroying or translating horizontally the facade of the first 8 floors.. it would allow the curtain wall facade to drop with no resistance. This however would mean that all connections of the facade to the structure above the 8th floor were no longer functioning. 

The inward bowing of the facade as it descends, plus the prior descent of the East penthouse before movement of the curtain wall suggests that by the time the curtain wall began to descend there was no structure at all behind it. The inward bowing also suggests that the core had gone first and the floors and structure may have plunged into it like water into a drain at the center of a sink.

There was not much if anything ejected through the facade as it descends indicating that not much was going on behind it at that point... What had been there was either gone or still connected (not likely) but certainly not being blasted apart as it would shatter the fragile glass of the curtain wall. The curtain wall's descent looks like a structure will little internal stress... as would be expected in free fall motion.

The fires were not fought all day as the water mains had been destroyed when tower one was struck or when it came down. This may have included fire suppression in the Sub station allowing the oil and gas released by the failed transformers to burn and attack trusses 1 and 2 as well as the 8 stories of 5 columns on the north of the core and south of the sub station separating core from sub station.

There were no sounds of explosions during the descent of the facade/curtain wall as this was a result of the transfer trusses and remaining core columns up to floor 8 giving way at the same instant having lost strength.

The above seems to suggest that the bldg 7 came down because of the design which put the mass of the tower over the Con Ed substation which when it failed provided the energy to destroy the transfer trusses and weaken the core up to the 8th floor to where they collapsed in on itself pulling free from the relatively weak bolted connections to the curtain wall.

What say you?


QUOTE
Isn't it odd that there is so little discussion about what was going in the sub station at the bottom of Bldg 7? ... of about things inside the towers which could explode... not placed explosives?

The massive smoke seen in the video emerging from down below seems like it was coming from the substation...

Why don't we have any diagrams of what was down there?


What say you? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 2 2012, 08:07 PM
Post #34





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



I may have two posts, but I'm no stranger to message boards. Sorry if I offended you with my suggestion, it's the lack of quality in this thread that has turned me off.
Instead of ignoring it, I chose to provide examples of why he's wrong.

I'm not familiar with Richard Gage linking disinformation, or any sort of rebuttal but feel free to provide sources and I'll take a look.
There is a sense that a little bad blood exists amongst these groups.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2012, 08:37 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 2 2012, 07:07 PM) *
I may have two posts, but I'm no stranger to message boards. Sorry if I offended you with my suggestion, it's the lack of quality in this thread that has turned me off.
Instead of ignoring it, I chose to provide examples of why he's wrong.

I'm not familiar with Richard Gage linking disinformation, or any sort of rebuttal but feel free to provide sources and I'll take a look.
There is a sense that a little bad blood exists amongst these groups.



Richard Gage recommends the work of Frank Legge (a chemist), and Warren Stutt (a computer tech), when it comes to aviation related issues regarding the Pentagon, published in a "Journal" whose main Editor is Kevin Ryan.

Such a paper is confirmed as disinformation. Click the links I gave you above.

You claim to not be a stranger to these boards, I find it odd that you are unfamiliar with such an argument, if in fact you frequent this board.

Click... read.. learn.

With that said, if you are not satisfied with the arguments made by SanderO, and the rebuttals offered, you have two choices...

Call him out on his claims.... within the guidelines of the board...

Or...

Ignore it.

Do not tell us how to run this board.

I hope I made myself clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LevelDsimTech
post Mar 2 2012, 09:15 PM
Post #36





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 2 2012, 07:37 PM) *
Richard Gage recommends the work of Frank Legge (a chemist), and Warren Stutt (a computer tech), when it comes to aviation related issues regarding the Pentagon, published in a "Journal" whose main Editor is Kevin Ryan.

Such a paper is confirmed as disinformation. Click the links I gave you above.


Had I known you would link the articles within underlined words mid sentence, I would have read them earlier. My apologies, the underlining appeared to be emphasis at first glance.

QUOTE
You claim to not be a stranger to these boards, I find it odd that you are unfamiliar with such an argument, if in fact you frequent this board.


I said I'm no stranger to message boards (in general). "Aviation forums". "Computer forums", "Electronics Forums", "Science Forums", etc. My join date on this board is not too long ago, so it would follow that my ignorance concerning this information should not be a shock to you. Maybe in a few months, I'll be able to get a hook on some of these topics.

QUOTE
With that said, if you are not satisfied with the arguments made by SanderO, and the rebuttals offered, you have two choices...
Call him out on his claims....


I did, and now I'm waiting for his response. See my first post above!

My first thread participation and I'm arguing with the head moderator. Awesome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2012, 09:29 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 2 2012, 08:15 PM) *
I said...


You said...

QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 1 2012, 04:00 PM) *
I've been following this forum due to my career in avionics, and find many items to be factual, but this is pure BS.



Then you proceeded to inform us how we should run this forum.

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

In case you haven't noticed my friend, people will debate on this forum. If forum guidelines are breached, we will crack down on the troll(s).

SanderO has not breached such guidelines. In fact, I know who he is... by name. This does not mean I agree with all that he claims.

If you feel that you "...wouldn't let anyone post information without providing their name, and credentials.", why not start with yours?

I see you are a LevelDSimTech, ... where? Name?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 2 2012, 11:23 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SanderO)
The above seems to suggest that the bldg 7 came down because of the design which put the mass of the tower over the Con Ed substation which when it failed provided the energy to destroy the transfer trusses and weaken the core up to the 8th floor to where they collapsed in on itself pulling free from the relatively weak bolted connections to the curtain wall.


Bump.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 3 2012, 11:19 AM
Post #39





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



My position on the twins is that the collapse phase can be explained by gravity and was enabled because of the rather flimsy floor system which when it went (progressively) both the facade and the core were unstable and each *failed* in a different mode.

I am just beginning to look at Bldg 7 and try to look for the initiation cause/location based on what I observe.

It appears to me that bldg 7 was from a core failure at or below floor 8. And when one looks at the structure you find these unorthodox transfer trusses and cantilever girders holding up the entire core and north perimeter columns above floor 7. This is the suspect area which needs to be looked at carefully. This is the area where one would place devices to drop the core and drop the building in a CD. Or the place where there was a runaway progressive failure when sh*t happened.

In looking at the CD scenario we would expect it to kick off just before the collapse. This would be evidenced by loud explosives or numerous squib ejections at the columns locations from the region below the 8th floor. If there were some sort of timed *cutter lances* attached to the columns and or transfer truss chords below flr 8 we likely would NOT see or hear evidence of this. Once the cuts were made the transfer trusses fail and the core above drops right through / onto the sub station in FREE FALL. Consider the sub station like a huge column free space about 6 stories tall with huge machines inside. Essentially no resistance or *support* for the columns above (when descending).

In the CD scenario all the failures are at floors 6 & 7 where the transfer trusses and cantilever girders are. When that goes the top drops 8 floors including the facades. Look at the moment of initiation in tower one when the tops begin to drop. Notice the material forced outward at the *crush zone*. The drop caused the facade to mis align and not see resistance (except when meeting a floor slab). In bldg 7 it's likely that the curtain wall facade was ALSO blown out at floors 6,7 & 8 at initiation and this allowed a relatively intact upper 41 story facade to drop at FF for the 8 floors.

Again we don't know what CAUSED the initiation. I am working on the theory that it took place on floors 6 & 7.

In the non CD scenario the extensive damage to the transfer trusses and cantilever girders would have to have a heat weakening cause. I don't think office fires could cause this even burning for 7 hrs and there were no offices on those floors anyway... they were mechanical equipment floors... so no office *contents* to serve as fuel. What there was was the emergency power generation systems and several 275 gallon diesel day tanks for the various gen sets for different floors/companies above. These main gen sets power lift pumps in the basement (I believe) which replenished the day day tanks.

It's possible that the plane strike caused a voltage spike (con ed reported this at 8:46 taking down several 13 KV feeders). This MAY have damaged the transformers (some may have exploded) others breached. The insulating oil when heated breaks down into an explosive and flammable gas (I believe). This MAY have damaged the equipment on floors 6 & 7 cause the supply piping for the diesel from the large tanks in the basement to be pumped up and continually provide a source of fuel. Diesel is hard to ignite, but once it does it burns quite hot. I believe there was little or no fuel recovered from the huge storage tanks. This implies it was burned.

I don't know if a 7 hr burn of 10,000 or more gallons of diesel being pumped up to floors 6 & 7 would generate sufficient heat to weaken and fail the transfer trusses or the cantilever girders. If it can, then it could explain the core drop. If it can't then this could not cause the initiation.

Structural failure is virtually always a rapid onset. Before global failure occurs the structure is coping by load redistribution working within its reserve strength. As strength weaken (loss of reserve strength)... the structure reaches a point of no return and has lost even the minimum strength to carry loads. It then begins a global collapse. *It* being the main structure of the building... the cores and what supports them in the case of bldg 7.

The observations are consistent with a failure at or below floors 6 & 7.

What we don't know is what actually CAUSED those failures but they were likely at the transfer trusses and the cantilever girders.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 3 2012, 01:33 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

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



Why are you talking about CD SanderO? Here we go again..

We all know that you're bent over backwards trying to push gravity collapse.

Barry Jennings and Hess...transformers

Explosions filmed and heard just before the collapse....transformers

Explosions filmed, heard and witnessed before the collapse....transformers

You just said

QUOTE
It appears to me that bldg 7 was from a core failure at or below floor 8. And when one looks at the structure you find these unorthodox transfer trusses and cantilever girders holding up the entire core and north perimeter columns above floor 7. This is the suspect area which needs to be looked at carefully. This is the area where one would place devices to drop the core and drop the building in a CD.


That is, that if this section could be compromised, collapse would occur

And in the very next paragraph

QUOTE
In looking at the CD scenario we would expect it to kick off just before the collapse. This would be evidenced by loud explosives or numerous squib ejections at the columns locations from the region below the 8th floor. If there were some sort of timed *cutter lances* attached to the columns and or transfer truss chords below flr 8 we likely would NOT see or hear evidence of this. Once the cuts were made the transfer trusses fail and the core above drops right through / onto the sub station in FREE FALL. Consider the sub station like a huge column free space about 6 stories tall with huge machines inside. Essentially no resistance or *support* for the columns above (when descending).


Blah.

If this section were also compromised by explosives, based on what you just said, collapse would occur. End of story.

The fact is that there were explosions filmed, witnessed and heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw...be_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64...be_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q...be_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg...be_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIIqKybSZE...be_gdata_player

You believe every event from Jennings, Rodriguez and Hess through to every explosion caught on tape or described as being caused by transformers. Go prove it.

Me? I prefer to let an already confused, brainwashed and ignorant public make their own minds up and supply all of the evidence of explosions without tagging what can only be described as OCT koolaid that will bring us no nearer to a public outcry to demand answers from those that have them.

Let me see if I've got this straight. If there were no "office fires" or (random) "structural damage", the "few explosives" that you mentioned would have been ineffective and the explosions that were heard and felt were actually "transformers" and that explosives couldn't have caused the collapse even if placed in the same section where you believe a natural collapse occured.

Who do you think you're kiddin man?

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: 17th October 2019 - 09:13 AM