IPB




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

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

22 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation

SanderO
post Apr 16 2012, 07:30 AM
Post #21





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



When a steel structure comes down, you have to destroy the steel... cut it, melt it (weaken it) destroy the connections of the frame members so that the frame loses integrity... undo (if possible...the connections)... or explode enough of the structure so the remaining structure does not have the sufficient strength to support the entire building or structure.

AE911T asserts that all 81 columns had to be destroyed over 8 floors instantaneously to account for the observation of the 2.25 second 100 feet free descent of the building seen on the videos. While this could cause a similar observable... it hardly makes sense. Such demolition would be so loud... 81 columns x 4 (the columns were 2 stories each = 324 explosions all at once. Be real... this was not observed. 324 silent cutter charges all completing their cuts at precisely the same instant without any movement as they sut the cross sections of the columns smaller and smaller.... weakening them? I don't think so.

How did they cut explode the 57 perimeter columns just inside the glass line without severely damaging the curtain wall?

Most likely the collapse involved some sort of progression of weakening of the structure (axial support) which eroded the FOS to below one. As long as the aggregate FOS remain above 1 the structure had enough yield strength to support itself and the loads on the floors. The process of FOS erosion could involved any number of factors or any combination of them.

In the case of the twin towers there was some level of destruction of the axial load path (columns) from the plane impacts. Not so for bldg 7 which was not struck by a plane and falling tower 1 debris did not appear to destroy any columns .

Bldg 7's demise was at 5:20 pm almost 8 hrs after the WTC event began.

AE911T considers the event a collapse... one caused by explosion demolition, but a collapse never the less. Unlike the twin towers they do NOT claim its 45,000 tons of concrete slab floors were exploded in mid air. But they also don't explain how a collapse would cause all the concrete to be ground to grit sized *dust* (it wasn't really dust size particles and bits) If the 81 steel columns were *taken out* simultaneously at 5:20 over 4 floors... the collapse that ensued created the debris signature seen... a pile of steel beams and columns from the collapsed frame and the crushed contents... but few to no slab sections recognizable as such. When such huge buildings collapse the slabs and contents apparently are crushed up to fine sized particulates.

AE911T also bases their frame demolition claim on the illogical statement that the evidence of such is not there because it was all removed. How convenient!... You can't see evidence of the crime because the criminals removed it. But trust me.. it was there. That's hardly better than belief in the tooth fairy.

OSS tries to equate my theory of heat weakening with the heat from the office contents fires seen ranging around the OFFICE floors well above the sub station and the mech floors on 6 & 7. NIST completely side steps this area for some unstated reason... which I believe was because they were actively covering up one of the potential (and in my opinion likely) causes of the collapse - 7 hour diesel fires on the mech floors cooking the transfer trusses and the cantilever girder, which undermined the entire core at the level of floor 8.

There is no dispute that heated steel has a lower yield strength than room temp steel. Therefore the question is was there sufficient heating of some key structural elements to cause a progressive failure? A truss is the first place to look. If one truss *panel* fails... for whatever reason... the entire truss will fail very rapidly as loads are redistributed to remaining truss panels which are overwhelmed. If the 3 trusses let go, a very rapid progression of failures will occur and the core above will have no axial support.

The fuel load appears to have been not office contents, but 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel pumped up to floor 6&7 where these trusses were located. I am asserting that one consider that this fuel burned for 7+ hours slowly eroding the yield strength of the steel of the transfer truss panels to the point of failure. It seems plausible to me that this would be sufficient heat to do the job. It even could have been done intentionally... perhaps... one explosion to create a breech in the fuel system... ignite the fuel pouring continuously onto the floor and wait... I suspect it was not and was a result of explosions in the sub station below. And this goes to what I believe NIST was doing with their idiotic report... covering up for the flawed design... building a tower on a huge substation and supporting it on 3 transfer trusses. Yes it was likely fire that caused this tower to come down. But it was like no other high rise steel frame... And the fires were precisely in the vulnerable region. A walked off beam would not collapse the entire tower, but a failed transfer truss would.

It might be argued that the sub station explosions alone did not take the trusses out. This is true. It took the 20,000 gallons of fuel which was pumped up there emergency power to burn for 7 hours. That was a Guiliani decision associated with his (and his advisers) insistence that the EMC center be in that building. That may have been the stray that broke the camel's back. You didn't see that decision come under scrutiny after the collapse? Hell no... it was office fires!

This theory makes the NIST report and the OCT a cover up...but not the same one as many are asserting it to be. It does however go back to the plane strikes of tower 1 as being the first of several dominos to fall. The sub station may have been a predicted outcome of a plane strike by those who flew the plane into tower 1. I would find it hard to believe. it's predictable in hindsight or what a forensic analysis is about.

The collapse of the WTC exposed the hubris, greed and insane decisions associated with those designs... in my opinion reveals incompetence and negligence of PANY, the engineers and builders of the project and the architects and the DOB which allowed those ticking time bombs to be built and inhabited by people... who trusted officials and professionals to perform due diligence and care with respect to life safety issues in buildings.

"A building code, or building control, is a set of rules that specify the minimum acceptable level of safety for constructed objects such as buildings and nonbuilding structures. The main purpose of building codes are to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures..."

Who failed to protect the public with those designs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 16 2012, 11:46 AM
Post #22





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 14 2012, 03:53 AM) *
The 'non-fakery people' will of course claim this video to be "real".

The 'fakery people' will claim that this video could possibly be "real"

or possibly be "unreal" - until more corroboration comes to light.


In the meantime, i'll sit smugly on the fence on this one, recalling

these wise words:

'A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively sitting there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.'





Cheers


Penthouse is on the west side. Reversed video, flashes added. Total rrrrrrrrrrrubbish.

A very poor attempt to generate hits at YouTube.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Apr 16 2012, 03:08 PM
Post #23


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,016
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



the original poster of the original version of that video is a user here at this forum, check here for discussion about the clip:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21634

unfortunately he never adequately explained where the video came from or how he got it, so its authenticity and its exact intent remain a mystery. and as kawika has pointed out, the video itself contains inconsistencies that make it suspect, so its clear that at the very least the video/audio was manipulated and or doctored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 16 2012, 03:59 PM
Post #24





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



OSS...

You can read up on the analysis of the collapse of WT 7 here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/science-...-15.html#p18853
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 16 2012, 05:02 PM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 16 2012, 08:16 PM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Apr 16 2012, 08:24 PM
Post #27





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

Con-ED

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed, it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 16 2012, 09:10 PM
Post #28





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



Not exactly.

Con Ed was not responsible for power to Bldg. The report is silent on why the 13kv feeders went down but Con Ed does have the ability to re route power feeds with up to 2 sub stations down.

There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.

Further the entire sub station didn't have to fail or explode to do serious damage as happened in the explosions in the sub basement sub stations of tower 1 in 1992.

I wouldn't put it past Con Edison to not report accurately what happened inside that sub station... especially if their equipment contributed to the collapse of the tower... you don't expect them to come out and take responsibility for that... especially when the official explanation (which was pure hooey) was that fires above flr 13 at column 79 did it.

What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?

Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on. The report is obviously meant to say as little as possible ... and was mostly about the restoration of power not the loss of the sub station on 9/11.

Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?

You tell me...

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 16 2012, 09:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 16 2012, 09:42 PM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 14 2012, 11:10 PM) *
There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.


Please show us the testimony about WTC7 lobby explosions. I have never heard of this after reading many first responder accounts after arriving at WTC7.


QUOTE
What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?


There are no photos of fires in the substation. Given that there were many videos and photos taken around the north side of the station, you would expect to see evidence of a fire if one had occurred.

QUOTE
Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on.


WTC7 was not within the complex. It was a separate system from WTC7, that is why WTC7 was on all day and could be shut down independently at 4:15.

QUOTE
Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?


How about they were being attacked before or just as the planes were striking the towers, like William Rodriguez testified? But this thread is about WTC7 substation transformers, not about the transformers at WTC1 and 2.

You have theorized that the demise of WTC7 was due to some activity in the WTC7 substation. Please stay focused upon that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 17 2012, 04:54 AM
Post #30





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



There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything. No photos of any of the mech floors of the twin twin towers... no photos of the sub basement refrigeration plant. And so on. No photos doesn't mean X didn't take place.


kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?

WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.

Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.

I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.

3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.

4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in

6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.

7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility. CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?

8. I have provided examples of exploding transformers. There were 2 in tower 1's sub basement in 92. These transformers are oil cooled, but the oil is flammable and explosive. It's certainly likely that it did explode.

9. No you couldn't see the fires or the equipment within the sub station because there were no windows! In fact, have you seen any photos of that sub station?

I offered a coherent theory consistent with observations of the collapse of the tower and the witness reports... and the Con Edison report of lost feeders that morning beginning at 8:46. Even AE911T claims the tower collapsed. The difference is I have identified where the collapse was initiated and what was a possible and I believe likely cause.

Of course AE911T (Gage) goes on about 81 columns being destroyed simultaneously over 8 floors to explain the free fall observation of 100 feet.

I offer the more plausible explanation supported by the evidence of movement of the tower for 60 seconds BEFORE any collapse of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders failing and then then core dropping right through the building. The East penhouse sat 41 stories above and was supported by one of those transfer trusses. LOOK AT THE PLANS. The East penthouse came down before the facade/curtain wall did. it can be seen to descend all the way down through the building before the facade/curtain wall begins to descend. Then the West penthouse which was over the other 2 transfer trusses descends. THEN the facade curtain wall comes down.

The was a massive ejections of smoke from the NW corner of the mech at 6&7 floors just before descent

The north facade/curtain wall shows pronounced inward bowing as it is descending. This can ONLY mean that the curtain wall had nothing behind it to hold it in a fixed plane. The floors and spandrels and structure behind the facade/curtain wall was gone by the time you see it descending.

The north facade/curtain wall was supported a row of columns and spandrel beams bearing on the cantilever girders in floors 6&7 41 floors below. A good hypothesis of the inward bowing is that those columns and spandrels were gone by the time that the north facade / curtain wall is dropping.

The clocked free fall descent was over a period of about 100' or 8 stories. This is the elevation of the top of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders which were within floors 6&7 mech floors. There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall. If the transfer trusses and the cantilever trusses failed it would leave an 8 story high unsupported core.

If the structure on 7&7 failed and collapsed down through the sub station... it would certainly could pull the perimeter columns and spandrels inward separating it from the facade/curtain wall. Why?

The facade curtain wall was attached to and rested on angle clips bolted to the spandrels which spanned from perimeter column to perimeter column. The spandrel to column connection was obviously much stronger than the facade /curtain wall to spandrel connections. Curtain walls are named appropriately. They are light weight and non structural and literally "hang" off the framed providing a weather barrier. It's conceivable that the facade /curtain wall connections failed at floors 6&7 as the structure on those floors plunged down through the sub station. In so doing the structure took with it the facade/curtain wall up to floor 8 with it at it collapsed inward... leaving nothing below the facade/curtain wall from floor 8 up... no resistance to slow it's fall.

It's possible that some of the columns on the east and west and perhaps the south perimeter and the spandrels were still connected to the facade curtain wall... but that only the north row went down with the core because of the cantilever girders having failed on floors 6&7. If this was the case it would leave the facade/curtain wall unsupported on the north side and it would be able to bow inward as seen.

Whatever the cause of the collapse... the explanation must match the observables. CD is not an observation. CD is a means to cause a collapse by failing key structural members and then the rest of the structure drops driven by gravity after a progression of failures consumes all the safety factor or reserve strength of the structure and no alternate load paths exist for load redistribution to the foundations. The theory of the failure of the key structural elements - transfer trusses and cantilever girders on the mech floors 6&7 is entire consistent which such a collapse and the observables on that day.

What's your theory?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 17 2012, 10:50 AM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 15 2012, 06:54 AM) *
There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything.


I disagree. There are many photos of the substation and none show evidence of fire there. People were going around taking pictures of everything. Here are the names of people who took photos/videos of the north face of WTC7: George Miller, Vince Dementri, Shawn Hutchinson, Erik Freeland, Shepard Sherbell, NYPD, NYFD, Terry Schmidt and others still unidentified.


QUOTE
kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?


Off subject, we are talking about WTC7. But to put forth a theory, how about to disable elevators and other electrical infrastructure? I am not saying transformers were affected, you did.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.


I disagree. WTC7 was built in 1985, 14 years after the towers. It was outside the bathtub. It was privately developed/owned by Silverstein. There is no evidence that WTC7 was affected by the power outages at the towers.

QUOTE
Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.


Yes, he did testify about experiencing an explosive event on the sixth floor landing, which means it may have come from below on the 5th floor. This is all we know at this time. Help us discover the rest of the story. Again, what does this have to do with a transformer explosion at the WTC7 substation, that you have so far not shown any evidence of?

QUOTE
I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.


Are there transformers in the basement of the towers? I don't know. Again, off the WTC7 substation topic. If there are, show us some plans or something to make your case. But you should start another thread, for Towers Transformer discussion.



QUOTE
3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.


Regarding severed feeders in the core, Richard Huemann says otherwise. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE



QUOTE
4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in


How does it likely mean it was not OK? Show us some evidence of a fire or explosion in the WTC7 substation.

QUOTE
6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.


The explosion Jennings experienced could have come from the mechanical room on floor #5. The substation was floors one through three. One more time, show us some evidence that there was any abnormality at the substation.

QUOTE
7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility.


The diesel tanks have already been discounted by NIST. How do diesel tanks relate to transformer explosions? Jennings himself discounts the diesel tanks for what he experienced. The FDNY said there is no evidence of dark smoke indicating a diesel fire. SanderO, get back on the subject.


QUOTE
CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?


I do not know how high voltage transformers work, but I would guess they have this problem of exploding transformers pretty well worked out by now. I do have eyes and I do not see any evidence of fire, smoke or explosion from the substation.

QUOTE
There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall.


The substation was three stories tall. The third floor lobby of WTC7 was on top of the substation. That is where the escalators rose to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 17 2012, 11:00 AM
Post #32





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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 17 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #33





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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 17 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #34





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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 22 2012, 10:20 PM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 23 2012, 03:21 PM
Post #36





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



I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them

I believe that NIST has made errors and more like deceived us with bogus *work*. I think what they produced in the end for both towers amount to a *deception" or a cover up... and likely not incompetence as they have many qualified engineers and scientist who could do the work that I have done 100 times better and the same applies for the work of those at the 911 Free Forums. That they didn't get it right AND that with b7 they took so long (to get it wrong) AND it doesn't resemble the collapse (their FEA animation is a joke!) leads me to believe that they intended to hide the real explanation. Some will say it was because they real deal was CD.

I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.

I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision

I don't the think the NYC planning and zoning board, and the DOB want to be held responsible for approving the construction of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the PANYNY (developers and orginal owners) want to be held responsible for developing an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I think a lot of people did not want these decisions scrutinized and have to explain their decisions.... and what I believe amounts to negligence.

So blame it on office fires and the falling tower caused the the plane hijackers... or give all the aforementioned a pass and blame it on some bombs... and hang on to the MIHOP theories and let the creeps off the creeps mentioned off the hook.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 23 2012, 03:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 23 2012, 03:53 PM
Post #37





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



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 22 2012, 10:20 PM) *
What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.


I am not going to go into an online back and forth debate sniping quotes and so forth. I put forth a thesis and it's as coherent at the CD ones which have less "evidence". Take it or leave it.

My interest in 9/11 is to get a new investigation. I can't do it from my desk top computer... And I have no interest in that. I can see mistakes made by others and point them out... on various forums. I am not infallible and only an architect... with only so much time and limited technical experience.

I provided my reasoning... that's about as much as you'll get. If you don't feel it's worthy of pursuit or interest... ignore it and like many others label me an dis info agent or a NIST shill. I don't care because neither of these labels is true.

Have a nice day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 23 2012, 08:24 PM
Post #38





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 459
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 21 2012, 05:21 PM) *
I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them


Late day video of the substation showing no indication of transformer fires:

Dementri WTC7

@ mark 2:48, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 3:23, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 4:02, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage

Conclusion: No substation transformer explosions at WTC7


QUOTE
I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.


Must not be a valid argument, cuz they built the new WTC7 right over the new Con-Ed substation. See photos about 3/4 of the way down:

Con-Ed substation 2007


QUOTE
I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Pretty risky strategy-- Con-Ed is still suing for damages to its substation.

QUOTE
I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision


Originally the collapse was blamed upon the Salomon diesel tanks. Had nothing to do with Silverstein's 24,000 gallons, which fueled the OEM emergency generators (19K was recovered).

Who owned the two, 6K tanks Salomon operated? You'll be surprised to find out exactly who this was. Hint: Not Silverstein.

Again, there is no evidence any diesel was involved.


QUOTE
I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Irwin Cantor was the structural engineer. You need to do a lot more research if you are going to solve the mystery of WTC7.

Conclusion: CD looks like the only thing that could do what we witnessed: ~7 seconds collapse, 2.2 seconds of free fall, straight down, symmetrically; badly eroded steel. Fire cannot accomplish all of these.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 23 2012, 11:04 PM
Post #39





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



Thank you for posting this video.

If you study it you can see exactly what is burning extensively... floors 6 & 7 and observe the thick black smoke pouring out of the south windows... probably diesel smoke or transformer oil which burns black. You see this at several times in that video...

I did not see the sub station but I did set some pretty good evidence that the 6&7th floor structure was being cooked by very extensive fires throughout the entire floor.

That footage does nothing to *debunk* my theory... it supports it.

The sub station was well inside the location of the north grillageand well below it. An explosion needn't have blown up the entire floors 6&7. it only had to destroy the transformers..perhap damage the slab above and allow hot gas to escape up to floor 6 where it could ignite the diesel.

The transformer explosions did not destroy the structure but they were the beginning of the extensive diesel fires on the floors above. I don't think you understood what i was proposing by exploding sub station transformers. And it needn't have been all of them.

Con Ed suing... it's a hoot... they are trying to collect up the line. It would be great if this actually got into a court and there were all the lawyers for the parties I mentioned all pointing the finger to the other saying... they did it not us. hahahhahahaha The US government didn't give con ed any money.... only victims like people... I'll be at that trial if there is open court.

You don't know when and how the steel was eroded. You assume that the eroded steel is what caused the collapse...

I'd like to see the steel from the transfer trusses and cantilever girders. That's where you'll find BUCKLED steel... not eroded steel.

You don't know how much heat was generated by the destruction of the 41 stories of concrete slabs and the what sort of exothermic reactions could have taken place with all the ground up iron, aluminum, sulfur, water and lot's of heat...that sounds like a formula for thermite (not nano thermite) itself. Why not?

Irwin Cantor... Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers... fine same deal... equally incompetent and liable.

and lookie what I found on google:

"But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse....

He (Cantor) said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. ''It ended up with tenants who had diesels,'' Mr. Cantor said. ''I know none of that was planned at the beginning.''

Oh my the transfer trusses... who could have guessed...?

Interesting that the engineer's theory was dismissed by NIST and you and others... but the diesel tanks were an after thought he had nothing to do with so... don't blame him. Mr. Cantor was painfully candid in that remark.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 23 2012, 11:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 23 2012, 11:28 PM
Post #40





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



Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?

You don't think the same mistake can be repeated? It can be hubris and even an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the blunder. A sub station is hard to get planning approval for in NYC.... so it was a grandfathered use... And by doing it all over it again and assuming that lightning can't strike twice.... why not?

Bad logic my friend...

You can bet there are no transfer trusses over it...

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 23 2012, 11:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

22 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 31st October 2014 - 01:34 AM