Video Shows Concrete Core Wall Falling Into Core., No steel core columns ever seen in the core area. Options

[painter]

Stan and Chris:

This forum has special posting rules, a bit more stringent than other forums and sub-forums here. This is posted and pinned at the top of this forum: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8354

First of all, any topic discussed in this forum is not to be construed as being supported by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization. This forum is for the discussion of hypothesise that are of general interest to members of our community.

NEW RULE: All discussion in this forum from now on (August 13, 2007) must remain civil. By this I mean more than refraining from obvious insults. if you state or imply that someone is "stupid" or "crazy" or in any other way insult a poster's intelligence, you will be given a warning from an Administrator or a Moderator. I will allow TWO such warnings, beyond that your posting privileges will be suspended. This rule will apply to everyone in this forum -- Administrators, Moderators, long time members as well as more recent members alike. If you do not feel you can be civil, polite and refrain from even the most subtle ad homonym attack I encourage you to NOT post in this forum.

One further note: I define DISINFORMATION as any information which makes claims of fact that cannot be reasonably drawn from the evidence provided. I base this definition on the observation that most of the claims of fact by our government concerning the events of 9/11 are not substantiated by their evidence (when they bother to provide any at all). You may very well "believe" that your "theory" is correct based on your research and your evidence -- as, indeed, most people "believe" that the 'official conspiracy theory', or the 'official narrative' of 9/11 is accurate. However, it is one thing to state "such and so MAY be true" and back that up with information and evidence that reasonably substantiates your contention, evidence which can be evaluated by others. It is quite another matter to state unequivocally that "such and so IS true," when the evidence provided is not sufficient to reasonably draw that conclusion. The former is a statement to be evaluated, the latter is stated as fact not warranted by the evidence and is, therefore, disinformation.

In other words, MAKE YOUR CASE -- and don't insult those who aren't persuaded by it.

I created this special rule for this forum because, in days long past, we used to have very emotionally charged discussions on certain topics. I haven't enforced this rule here for a long time but this recent exchange is putting us in the position of having to reintroduce them here. BOTH of you need to stop personal attacks -- including insulting innuendoes. Now.

[dMz]

i have a wonderful pdf file made by a professor Hoo Fatt and grad student Karim at the Mechanical Engineering Dept of the University of Akron, showing the results of modeling the 767 crash into the WTC. it was written in jan 2005 and despite making some assumptions (500mph plane speed, full fuel load, no flooring) it is a stellar piece of work. they used LS-DYNA for the FEA (finite element analysis) and can be read by the layman. how can i make that available? upload?

It looks to be subscription only from my search. Here is the abstract of the paper at ASCE:

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767

About the author, Michelle Stephanie Hoo Fatt:

http://www.researchcrossroads.org/index.ph...;user_id=821057

If it's not too large, I'd say upload the .PDF to a file server, GP. TN and I discussed this a bit here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16090

Just be sure to opt for the free/trial version (apparently it went pay after I signed up, but it sounded like the trial just defaults to free with smaller storage space).

[DoYouEverWonder]

states he heard a saudi concrete contractor ask "Where they should put the explosives?"

The notion was also put forth to a guy working on the elevator motor certifications.

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

May I ask what's the shelf life of the material these explosives were made out of? Especially in a salt air environment.

Hi Rise Construction is very dangerous. I seriously doubt you'll find many hardhats in NYC who would be willing to work on a construction site with explosives, unless they were still doing excavation. They certainly wouldn't be too keen to handle this stuff during construction.

However, it is possible that the Towers were designed in a modular way, with the idea that at some time in the future, they might want to take the buildings apart for some reason. This would be a 60ish concept and might explain why they didn't bother to weld the joins, in the perimeter curtain walls.

[Christophera]

Can you prove this claim Chris ??

I find it very objectionable being accused of "secretly supporting mass murder"

Stann

An error has been made with intentional misinterpretation. I have not said or done what you say I have said.

You misinterpret again, proving your evasive agenda. You are supporting that the methods of mass murder remain secret with your stalking, misinterpretations, misrepresentations and eventual ad hominum.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 23 2009, 11:56 PM

[Christophera]

May I ask what's the shelf life of the material these explosives were made out of? Especially in a salt air environment.

Ten year in what I believe to be a 12mil thick mylar package.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

So cast in concrete within 60-90 days of exposure to moderate weather then encapsulated would keep it fairly well for many decades. There was some talk of the alkaline aspects of concreter being an issue because at munitions factories akaline pond are used to decomposed water highly contaminated with RDX, the base explosive of C4. Completely different conditions and not applicable.

Hi Rise Construction is very dangerous. I seriously doubt you'll find many hardhats in NYC who would be willing to work on a construction site with explosives, unless they were still doing excavation. They certainly wouldn't be too keen to handle this stuff during construction.

The documentary, which now, in hindsight, I can say they knew something was up because there was focus on;

Secrecy generally.

Security, in that there were 2 sets of plans, one for steel and one for the concrete core. The first concrete contractor threatened to sue because the PA was not going to let him take th plans home at night. They were checked out monday morning to a few supervisors and then checked back in on friday night. Everone had to sign non disclosures and copy prohibitations.

The fact that welders had to have a security clearance in order to do the butt weld joining sticks of the 3 inch, custom high tensile steel rebar that went on 4 foot centers around the 80' x 120' core vertically that is actually seen on 9-11. This was left undetonated because a sudden and long storm hit the north east early in 1969 I believe. The rebar stood unprotected in freezing weather for 4-5 months and lost it's viability. The documentary referred to the "special anti corrosion, vibration resistent coating" as having lost it's ability to protect the rebar, but the decision to continue building was made rather than break the concrete off of it and replace it.

The rebar was kept in a container with an armed guard only released on written material requisition to tightly supervised crews that set the steel and tied it.

The DOC. exposed that there were forced evacuations of floors in the very beginning that had not been announced. The concrete contractor threatened to sue if all wasted wages were not reimbursed. BTW, Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll remembers hearing about the forced evacuations of floors.

Paul Laffoley says a saudi company was doing the concrete and I feel I do remember something like that happening. The US concrete contractor got sick of the control and secrecy and bailed out.

Basically, no one except the welders with a security clearance knew what that thick plastic coating was. They had to so they would clean it all off and properly shield the rebar from arc spark.

However, it is possible that the Towers were designed in a modular way, with the idea that at some time in the future, they might want to take the buildings apart for some reason. This would be a 60ish concept and might explain why they didn't bother to weld the joins, in the perimeter curtain walls.

The different engineered explosive containers built in the shape of architectural elements can be fairly easily identified in the demolition itself.

The outer ring of floors were comprised of explosive circuits and the tower had redundant security phone lines used for distribution of detonation signal to timers that controlled the delayed descent of detonations. They are visible here with about 75 ms delay per floor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...h&plindex=0

The core detonated with a 300 ms delay 3-4 floors behind the last detonating floor. The thick concrete core walls protected the detonation system for the core while the floors detonated. This is WTC 2 from the south with the core detonating in the lower half which may have had a different delay than the upper.

(IMG:http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg)

The red lines are the bottoms of vertical valleys formed by the debris waves uniformly expanding perpedicularly away from the respective core wall faces. Note, the right side, the east side, which was a long axis face of WTC 2 core has a longer front. Whereas the south debris wave has a shorter slightly deeper front. Another image from a NE perspective shows the same valley.

http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069b_3_t...osion_below.jpg

Also, note the darkly striated columnar particulate streaming upwards. I feel that must be the interior box columnns undergoing the detonation of built in cutting charges set to be the last detonation of every third floor before a section of core detonated. The dark particulate is steel.

Very sophisticated demo.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 23 2009, 11:55 PM

[stannrodd]

To Admin ..

I still find it very objectionable to have this asshole (Christophera) .. a member here.. making comments along the lines of .. an almost direct accusation of complicit behaviour of "secretly supporting mass murder on 9/11"


This member keeps insisting that I am doing such .. when all I am doing is critiquing his bullshit theory.

You can allow him his voice .. but by doing so you are avoiding your own rules.. Is he allowed to make such accusations without adjudication ?

I was invited to join your forums .. OK !

I did that happily.. I saw a truth and was engaged.


Stann

[dMz]

Topic closed pending staff evaluation. Please don't continue various accusations on the other threads.

[Sanders]

Christophera, I've placed a warning in your profile. That is for the 'mass murder' comment. I read all the posts, I read what you said, I know you only accused Stann of supporting the "means" of said MM - but that's over the line too. I don't care if Stann has been "stalking" you around the web or not. You are essentially accusing me, and anyone else who have not been persuaded (that the core was reinforced concrete) of the same thing.

This thread remains closed. In the future, Christophera, please don't make claims without specific sources to back them up.

In case you are not sure what I mean, in this thread you say -

"The rebar was kept in a container with an armed guard only released on written material requisition to tightly supervised crews that set the steel and tied it"

"Basically, no one except the welders with a security clearance knew what that thick plastic coating was. They had to so they would clean it all off and properly shield the rebar from arc spark."

Where are you getting this from? What's your source?

I'm not saying I want you to open a thread and reply to that request, I don't. I am simply using this as an example. In the future, statements like these need to be accompanied by a source, or a reason why you believe so.

Here's how it should work - one has a hypothesis, they support it using specifics which are backed up with sources, and finally a conclusion is made based on the information presented. You aren't following this method much of the time, you are not being rigorous IMO ... and it just leads to confusion and discord.

I have one other request - please take a break from this concrete core business for a while. You've had ample opportunity to make your case, everything is right here, people can read it all and judge for themself.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[GroundPounder]

It looks to be subscription only from my search. Here is the abstract of the paper at ASCE:

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767

at the time, i tried to get the doc from the site and it was a hassle. i contacted Hoo Fatt directly, and she was kind enough to email it to me.

the abstract was informative by itself. what intrigued me was the statement : 'It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns.' That was based on a 500mph speed w/ full fuel load. Both of which aren't accurate (at least in the case of WTC1), but if you're going model something, acceptable.

working backward (and i don't remember the exact numbers any longer) 46% of 3.0GJ (modeled aircraft energy) = 1.38GJ required to break outer wall. if subtracted from a closer real world energy, it leaves no energy available to impart to the core, since the remaining energy would have been needed for deformation of the aircraft and floors.

in an email exchange, she stood by her numbers, which refuted bazant's and wierbicki's (shills imho).

[DoYouEverWonder]

at the time, i tried to get the doc from the site and it was a hassle. i contacted Hoo Fatt directly, and she was kind enough to email it to me.

the abstract was informative by itself. what intrigued me was the statement : 'It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns.' That was based on a 500mph speed w/ full fuel load. Both of which aren't accurate (at least in the case of WTC1), but if you're going model something, acceptable.

working backward (and i don't remember the exact numbers any longer) 46% of 3.0GJ (modeled aircraft energy) = 1.38GJ required to break outer wall. if subtracted from a closer real world energy, it leaves no energy available to impart to the core, since the remaining energy would have been needed for deformation of the aircraft and floors.

in an email exchange, she stood by her numbers, which refuted bazant's and wierbicki's (shills imho).

Even if a plane could break through the steel curtain walls, the floor slabs would have slice and diced the rest of the plane, way before any of it got near the core columns. In the sims that I've seen from folks like Bazant is they have to ignore the floor slabs and other interior structures, in order to even get close to working.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 24 2009, 03:59 PM

[GroundPounder]

Even if a plane could break through the steel curtain walls, the floor slabs would have slice and diced the rest of the plane, way before any of it got near the core columns. In the sims that I've seen from folks like Bazant is they have to ignore the floor slabs and other interior structures, in order to even get close to working.

agreed! that was the beauty of the Hoo Fatt paper. so then the question becomes ' how does the building come down w/ an intact core and 75+% of exterior columns uncompromised?'


answer: it doesn't w/o 'help'

[saturnaspider]

Even if a plane could break through the steel curtain walls, the floor slabs would have slice and diced the rest of the plane, way before any of it got near the core columns. In the sims that I've seen from folks like Bazant is they have to ignore the floor slabs and other interior structures, in order to even get close to working.

I agree, DYEW.

As well as ignoring the floors, I feel that they made it easier for themselves by "covering up" the steel and concrete core. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

As I see it, the PTB replaced the reality of a substantial and strong core with the falsehood of beams and drywall in order to support their fiction of planes behaving like penetrator missiles and unleashing fatal damage to the buildings' inner structure.

Christopher has lent all seekers of the truth much assistance in so earnestly putting forward the concrete core evidence, IMHO. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[stannrodd]

... Christopher has lent all seekers of the truth much assistance in so earnestly putting forward the concrete core evidence, IMHO. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

Wouldn't it be useful if he could substantiate what he purports .. from a perspective other than his own ..

The importance of being earnest .. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Stann

[stannrodd]

GroundPounder,

The Hoo Fatt paper .pdf .. can you email it .. rather than publish .. ?

The physics of "alleged" collisions must be valid and reviewed.. not just by subscription .. if it is 9/11 related, then it should be assessed if it is going to be used as evidence.

You can email me a copy.

Stann

[GroundPounder]

GroundPounder,

The Hoo Fatt paper .pdf .. can you email it .. rather than publish .. ?

The physics of "alleged" collisions must be valid and reviewed.. not just by subscription .. if it is 9/11 related, then it should be assessed if it is going to be used as evidence.

You can email me a copy.

Stann

i emailed it to you 2/23 @4:22pm eastern

[stannrodd]

i emailed it to you 2/23 @4:22pm eastern

Hmm .. Not received it yet.

PM coming 4 U

Stann

[dMz]

I'd like a copy of the paper too GP, but my PM box is full right now. Could you upload it to a file server and post the link here?

I have looked at LERA's SAP2000 files that were actually used for the NIST report as I understand it, and I saw a 6 story "impact zone" IIRC. The immediate problem here is that 80-90 stories of building flexes much more than 3-5 stories of building. There weren't nearly enough details on the aircraft either IMHO (and there were no aircraft in the SAP2000 files that I saw).

It gets technical in a hurry, but:

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/education/calc-in...beam/cross.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler-Bernoulli_beam_equation

http://d.scribd.com/docs/1p92847hx3ait4yuawoi.pdf

[dMz]

May I ask what's the shelf life of the material these explosives were made out of? Especially in a salt air environment.

I know that salvage divers are quite leery of WW2 era wrecks, mines, and submarines due to the torpedoes and other munitions. Composition C4/P4 lasts for years, is waterproof, and you can shoot it with a rifle and not get detonation. It is extremely stable until properly detonated. Think of it as "silly putty with a bad attitude."

[painter]

It is extremely stable until properly detonated.

Are you saying that rebar coated with an incendiary material that could remain viable within concrete for decades is a legitimate possibility? If so how would it need to be "properly detonated" to create the cascading effect witnessed?

(One of the places I'm having trouble with all this is the idea of controlled detonation in sequence both up and down from impact zone. Also, with the idea that an incendiary coating could cause multi-hundred ton steel segments to be hurtled laterally hundreds of feet. Pulverizing concrete, certainly, but it takes a lot of force to hurtle steel girders 350 feet.)

[dMz]

Well Primacord detonates at about 7000 m/s (or about 7 times the velocity of most rifles), so I think that the top-down, bottom-up thing has been a red herring all along regarding a building about 1400 feet high. Radio detonators would likely be computer controlled and operate at nearly the speed of light, so that's a non-issue too. I would have put the operational control center on that 23rd floor of WTC7 too, with its bullet resistant glass and separate oxygen supply.

http://www.dynonobel.com/NR/rdonlyres/209B...0/Primacord.pdf

With all the talk of "fireproofing" and the post-1993 bombing "reconstruction," I would think that all sorts of "modifications" could have been made to the WTC.

Painter is right on the energetics and forces needed, though. I haven't seen a good explanation yet for this fact:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747793

From what I saw in the "collapses" and the ~30 foot length debris afterwards, I would think that charges would have been applied every 3 stories (or possibly closer). The overlap of the perimeter column panels would complicate things a little, but I would think the joints would be the places to attack there, and the perimeter panels shown flying in various photos would tend to support this.