Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Gage And Ryan Speaking At Farrakhan/nation Of Islam Conference This Weekend
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex
Pages: 1, 2
A. Syed
This weekend, Gage and Ryan will be speaking to what is almost certainly the largest live audience they've ever spoken for. There should be roughly 3,000 people in attendance and about 20,000 watching on live stream. Many of these thousands are non-truthers, so this will definitely be a large audience.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Na...icle_8611.shtml

QUOTE
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth told The Final Call he is looking forward to presenting the fact regarding 9/11 to those gathered.

“We’re excited to bring this information to a group of people who have already been primed for it by in this case the Minister,” said Mr. Gage. “He’s taken some very courageous stands for 9/11 truth and so we’re honored to come and speak to what I understand may be up to three thousand people at one time, which is about five times larger than any group of people we’ve ever spoken to. So we’re delighted that the information will get out all at once to that many people and live streaming as well to many times that many people.”


Despite the huge audience who will hear the message of evidence for controlled demolition, some people who work with Richard are upset enough with him to resign from the organization in protest. Now, to be fair to the upset ones: Farrakhan is seen by some as a man who uses divisive rhetoric. (A friend speculated to me in all seriousness that the reason he believes "they" haven't killed Farrakhan is because he's the perfect polarizing figure, far more so than the unifying nature of Malcolm X's character.)

In particular, Farrakhan blurs the line between responsible criticism of Israel/Zionism and ranting on about "the Satanic Jews" this and that.

So you can imagine how this has the self-anointed credibility cops' panties in a twist!

The former head of AE's verification team, Brian Romanoff (a.k.a. Nor Cal Truth @ 911blogger) has publicly denounced Richard and has made public his resignation from AE:

QUOTE
Richard and team are not sure they want to publicize the fact that they are going to be speaking at a Nation of Islam event a day before Louis FarraCON and a day after the discussion: “BUSINESS WARFARE: SECRET RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BLACKS & JEWS”

http://www.noi.org/sd2012/schedule.shtml

Richard wants to think this is the event that will catapault the new investigation. I have not heard anything more ridiculous and contrary to the obvious, and yes I told him exactly that many times before leaving.

Who is FarraCON:

Those "Satanic Jews have taken over BET..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K75EPrtBz4

"Jews manage black... artists." Jews own media, blacks only succeed with Jew help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQG23S2cZ4...feature=related

Whites "don't deserve any mercy....no sympathy!" "We and white people are mortal enemies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfZYqCOih8...feature=related

Remember it was NOI members that killed Malcolm X after Louis said Malcolm was "worthy of death":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Ef...ature=endscreen

Louis FarraCON prasied the death of Malcolm X and defended the actions of NOI, "I'll kill ya":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFwinVw4wQ

(Malcolms daughter later tried to have Louis killed for his direct involvment in her father's killing)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oj0DAAAAM...onepage&q...

After watching too many films of this guy, I feel like I was just at a Hitler rally.

Sorry Richard and my former teammembers @ ae911truth.org - but this is so stupid and irresponsible of you.


Romanoff's post was the first public posting about this event and the subsequent fallout by a truther, but I heard through the grapevine about it prior to anything being made public about it (Screw Lucy covered it prior to Romanoff's comment). I should probably leave it up to the other individuals who resigned to name themselves, though I've been made aware of who they are. Let's put it this way: at least two very well known members of the CD wing of the movement have left AE over this, resulting in an unprecedented schism between Richard/Kevin and other known demolitions advocates.

My own thoughts:

Usually when Richard gives his Blueprint lecture, it's in a college auditorium with maybe 150-200 people, 300 at most. In many vids I've seen of these, when Richard asks for the show of hands at the beginning, a good majority of the audience are already among the converted. So while Gage's speaking circuit might be a good morale booster for the troops, the audience he is reaching is limited. With the NOI conference he'll reach a brand new audience. Gage loves to recall how he was listening on the radio to a Griffin speech in the car, and he had to pull off the road, upon hearing DRG speak of the CD evidence. He says he felt like he was "hit by a two-by-four."

Imagine how many brand new people will hear this evidence and will feel like they've been hit by a two-by-four. Let's face it folks, it's no secret that the 9/11 truth movement's vitality has been hanging by a thread; we need some new fire, blood, troops, news- and blog sites on our side.

The 911blogger user "Simple Truths" posted what I felt was an excellent and sobering comment alluding to Nelson Mandela, in response to the outcry by the cred cops surrounding Richard:
QUOTE
Nelson Mandela went to speak to white racists ...
... and members of his African National Congress party were shocked that he was going to go into the heartland of white supremacy in a racist enclave. They asked him not to. They decried him. But Mandela quietly insisted even though his followers thought he would be tainted by talking at a white racist venue in Oranje - seen to be fraternising and entertaining 'the evil enemy'.

Mandela was smeared by some, Yes, I'm sure someone asked (even rhetorically): Do we need to 'babysit Mandela'?

But Mandela went to Oranje. He stood up and spoke, even though white racists had spoken on racial purity there the day before.

Mandela sat down and had a cup of tea with the wife of the architect of apartheid, Verwoerd.

Mandela spoke with quiet, fact-based rationality to a bunch of white racists.

Perhaps his instincts led him to do this. Perhaps Mandela changed two or three hearts that day. Perhaps Mandela helped avoid the bloodbath everyone predicted for South Africa?

A lot of ugly Islamophobia and anti-Semitism has emerged from USA over the last decade. (Remembers Arabs are Semitic people so the word anti-semitic applies to the Muslim situation too).

Perhaps Gage has a deeper instinct to reach out in rationality and fact-based discussion to this NOI group?


By far the best comment I've seen at that infiltrated site in a long time, and I definitely am not impressed by the counter-argument in response.

So what do other people in the truth community think about this?
Tamborine man
I know virtually nothing about Farrakhan, but judging from this video below

i can see no problems for Gage and Ryan using the same venue.

It seems to me that Nor Cal 'Truth' could be amongst the people who were

responsible for the mass banning of all enlightened people from blogger, so

i wouldn't waste any time at all on this bloke!

(It appear as if he's rather cosy with that weird 'snowcrash' fella, who behaves

in a way that strongly suggest he's in the employ of the Cass Sunstein crowd)!





Cheers
onesliceshort
I'm not really up to scratch on Farrakhan, although the video Tamborine Man linked to still has me smiling each time I see it.

I think you have to first define for yourself what "extreme" actually is in the whole scheme of things. Is this guy any more "extreme" than the culprits of 9/11? Isn't Richard Gage on a platform claiming that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition by somebody other than Muslims? Why not speak to that audience? Isn't the stance being taken by some racist in itself?

Wasn't 9/11 the launching pad for aggressive wars which have lead to the deaths and displacement of millions of Muslims? Isn't Farrakhan saying in public about one "race" what the self imposed leaders of said "race" are showing by deed?

Arafat was denounced as a terrorist when Israel were treating the Palestinians far worse than the blacks in South Africa.

It's all PR bullshit.

My opinion? The Sunstein brownshirts at 911blogger are actually licking their lips at this.

I am at square one with Gage and DRG since their illogical and weak stances on CIT/NOC and Pilotsfor911Truth but whether this possible audience should be neglected? No way.
amazed!
I think the poster SanderO is one of those who resigned from AE.
A. Syed
No, SanderO was kicked off a long time ago by the board after they suspected him of bad motives --- he rose all the way to the Board of Directors at AE, then started suggesting Richard drop controlled demolition! rolleyes.gif

I'm talking about really major figures within CD promotion.
onesliceshort
On a lighter note, another famous Muslim on being asked if he would like to be the first black president.

Tamborine man
Never saw that interview before, so thanks for that one OSS.

What an amazing insight the dear Ali had in those days.

Wonder what words of pure and simple wisdom he could have

spoken of today .......if only ....alas!!


Cheers
mrmitosis
QUOTE (A. Syed @ Feb 22 2012, 06:18 PM) *
No, SanderO (name redacted by admin paranoia) was kicked off a long time ago by the board after they suspected him of bad motives --- he rose all the way to the Board of Directors at AE, then started suggesting Richard drop controlled demolition! rolleyes.gif

I'm talking about really major figures within CD promotion.


Anyone with a mouth can accuse people of "bad motives". And anyone in charge of an organisation can use their leveraged position to blacklist members that don't share a common perspective on a particular issue.

Doesn't make it right.

Did you ask SanderO for permission to use his real name?
A. Syed
QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 22 2012, 11:24 PM) *
Did you ask SanderO for permission to use his real name?


I feel fairly certain he has signed off certain posts on here using it, and it's well known within the movement. If he has a problem with it I can always edit (I'm sure he's reading this thread).
mrmitosis
QUOTE (A. Syed @ Feb 23 2012, 04:53 AM) *
I feel fairly certain he has signed off certain posts on here using it, and it's well known within the movement. If he has a problem with it I can always edit (I'm sure he's reading this thread).


Well...technically, I think you only have a limited time period in which to edit posts on this forum. But in the case of SanderO, you're probably safe (for the reasons you mentioned above). I just think that in principal, it's a bit disrespectful. Anyway, I guess it's not really worth dwelling on.

Incidentally, I agree with the thrust of your argument in relation to the OP. Farrakhan certainly comes out with some controversial statements - to put it mildly - but for AE911T's members to be objecting (nevermind RESIGNING) in response to Gage and Ryan speaking in front of such a large audience on that basis is pathetic. In fact, I can't think of a single valid reason under any conceivable set of circumstances where I would say "spreading the truth to these people is a bad idea".

Having said that...Gage, Ryan and AE911T have credibility issues of their own, and I personally don't take for granted that everything they say or publish is "the truth".
A. Syed
QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 23 2012, 06:01 AM) *
Having said that...Gage, Ryan and AE911T have credibility issues of their own, and I personally don't take for granted that everything they say or publish is "the truth".


I agree, and neither do I.
SanderO
The problem with your post A Syed is twofold. First it's bad form to use a person's name in a forum where people post with a chosen screen name. Frankly I don't care and have nothing to hide. But, that was simply bad form.

Secondly you don't have the history of my association with AE911T correct. Volunteered in Fall of '09 and was not assigned to any particular team. Suggested BaseCamp for them as a virtual office and Gage liked the idea and had me train the others in the use of Basecamp. It had a discussion forum and I populated it with a few threads on TECHNICAL matters to stimulated discussion about the structure of the three destroyed buildings. No discussion - most on Basecamp were volunteers with no technical background in civil engineering or physics.

Gage was very pleased with my efforts for AE911T which included getting a mission statement and the wording down... planning the 100 Press conference and so forth. He suggested to me that I join the Board. I declined and he insisted and I relented. Once on the board I suggested that AE911T consider using the term - engineered destruction - as opposed to - controlled demolition - when referring to the destruction of the three towers. Gage and Deets liked the idea... Sarns, Cole, Roberts and a few others thought this was a sign that I was an infiltrator set to destroy AE911T from within. They agitated that I be removed from the board and expelled from AE911T.

The board would not yield to ultimatum and suggest a grievance procedure be set up to deal with dispute and allegations of misconduct and wrote a letter to the *reformers* offering such a process. The board then asked me to write the procedure and it was approved and the matter was to be postponed until the 1000 Press Conference was over. The Reformers had refused to work on the press conference and the precedure seemed to be a way to cool things down.

The Reformers decided to go back to work but continued to pressure Gage and expel me from the Board. Gage called me and pleaded with me to resign so the matter would all go away. As I had done nothing wrong I refused and said AE911T should go forward with their grievance procedure.

Justin Keogh and Jon Cole both board members brought up a motion to remove me. It was voted down because they did not have enough votes according to the bylaws. Next they called a secret board meeting. I was not invited or notified. They voted in new by laws which allowed expulsion for no cause and added a board member. Gage suggested Kevin Ryan. At the next meeting I voted Ryan on to the board... it was a unanimous vote. Next order of business was a motion to expel me with not cause, discussion or debate. I was not able to vote and Deets was the only vote not to expel. Ryan who was not even aware of the matter and should have abstained from the vote, voted to expel.

I was removed from the board and from working as a volunteer. I believe that the Reformers were suspended as well. I don't know whether the suspension was lifted.

I then engaged in my own research begining in Feb 2010. I discovered mistakes. misstatements, errors, deceptions or lies... choose your term. I wrote a detailed letter to Gage about one statement in their Blueprint for Truth which demonstrated that they had made an error. Gage said he would look into it and get back to me... He of course, said he liked me personally and professionally etc. He never responded to the letter.

I attended several 911 Truth events and spoke with him personally one on one a few times explaining to him the mistakes and so forth and suggesting he not keep repeating them... such as his statement that there was dust for miles around the site which was from 4-12" thick. As far as I can tell he has not stopped making these false claims.

In 2010 I wrote to Gage and told him that if he persisted in making false statements when he knows them to be so, I wanted my name removed from their petition. It was.

I want a new investigation because NIST and the OCT were inaccurate and deceptive... and not "the truth". On the other hand, AE911T is engaged in the same sort of deception and is essentially a PR operation to make money to stay in business. I've lost respect for the group and for Gage in particular who then wandered into the CIT controversy. AE911T is Gage's career. He's the CEO of AE911T and he's never made so much money nor enjoyed so much fame, credibility and adulation. AE911T does not do research nor consult with the vast majority of the architects and engineers who have signed their petition for anything BUT MONEY.

I know where the skeletons are buried... at least some of them.

By the way... I never used my real name here. Other posters did having dug it up somehow and thought they were being clever using it. I post under my name at Depp Politics on 9/11 topics.
onesliceshort
I don't want to turn this thread into the "SanderO Show" (there are too many already), but you have a fan over at True Faction SanderO.

QUOTE
Multiple volunteers quit over this. One ex-volunteer (who quit years ago over another dispute), former board member in fact, now hangs around the911forum and although I disagree with him on a great many things he usually makes more sense on the WTC topic and can explain the matter in more lucid detail than the organization he left.

Snowcrash


You should see the shite being posted over there about Muslims carrying out 9/11 and what I predicted when they had polluted the NOC evidence and the (attempted, failed) attack on the validity of verified pilots and documented research at this forum. The muddying of the waters on the destruction of the towers and WTC7.

Remember this ad which the same people at Blogger and TruthAction got their grimey paws on?



Now what? What the f**k is the next move now that these assholes are on Plan B?

"All 3 towers might have been gravity driven collapses/"explosions may have been transponders"...umm...crazy, extremely lucky Muslims did carry out the 9/11 attacks..blah, blah"

Are the participants in that video aware of who "carries the mantle" for them?

If people can't see the obvious machinations of all of this bullshit, they're either blind or dumb as a box of rocks.
amazed!
Thanks for all that, SanderO.

It's just a shame that politics and personalities have so much play in human interaction. It seems so many people are more interested in slamming another person than in discovering the truth.

And I agree that it was certainly rude to reveal a poster's name without his permission.

Have a good weekend.
onesliceshort
@Amazed!

I must have missed where in all your interactions with SanderO on this forum, you thought he was telling the "truth".

I don't even know how his "thesis" (whatever it is - because even his "initiation of collapse" scenario seems to be very vague) would advance 9/11 truth or the call for a new enquiry.
A. Syed
[Post updated and a few additional thoughts added. Thanks paranoia for deleting SanderO's name!]

My rudeness toward SanderO probably stems from my frustration with my email inbox having many times been overflowing with emails from him to a particular list serve (from which I recently withdrew), where he argues ad infinitum in favor of his "collapse initiation" scenario. I think that if there is any reason to suspect that SanderO is an operative, it's because of his fervent insistence on the idea that only a small number of explosives near the impact zone were needed to trigger the collapse, and that the rest was gravity-driven from there. (This could serve as fodder for the "al Qaeda snuck past security and planted the bombs" fall back.) I wouldn't suspect your motives for simply wanting to change the wording to "engineered destruction" but frankly I do question your motives when you put forth a thesis that strains credulity and ignores much evidence and testimony, and put many hours week in and week out to promoting it. Anyway, I agree it was in bad form to reveal your name, and a mod and I were able to edit it out, in both posts in which it appeared.

But actually SanderO, I'm not 100% convinced you're an op and maybe it's possible you sincerely believe your thesis. I consider myself as being generous here, as I have a number of friends in the movement who ARE at that 100% point w/r to you.

But anyway. Now that I've gotten my words of criticism and suspicion out of the way, I'll give you props as to where I agree with you. I personally regard many people on the board of directors at AE to be bad news, and likely infiltrators, or else people who started good but were corrupted along the way. There's little doubt in my mind that Justin Keogh is an infiltrator. I don't think it's just chance that the same person is (1) owner of 911blogger (2) BoD at AE and (3) chief technical officer for James Gourley at the International Center for 9/11 Studies. To me, this is a well-placed mole. He's not too visible; whereas probably 95-99% of the movement knows who Richard Gage is, I'd bet those same numbers would give you a blank stare if you mentioned Justin's name to them. However, much like Hoffman and Ashley, Keogh "has the ear" of many people of influence in the movement.

If he acted transparently and honestly, one could accept the possibility that Justin is a passionate truther who put a lot of food on his proverbial plate, combined with a bit of luck in being in the right places at the right time. However, his behavior is shady, to put it mildly. The way they dealt with you at AE is very similar to the way many of us have been shafted by Justin and his colleague Erik Larson at 911blogger. I am pissed as hell that Richard is so naive as to put is faith and trust in Justin, and for Richard to stand by the way Justin has run blogger gives me nausea.

As for Richard's/Justin's colleague Chris Sarns: Sarns has accused me of being an infiltrator and has tried to convince Richard of it too; the reason: I dared discuss holocaust revisionism for several minutes on Kevin B's radio show, after having written a review on Amazon for a book whose author Barrett had interviewed on the show a couple weeks earlier. Sarns insisted to the entire AE911truth list serve (I saw the emails), and also on a comment at 911blogger:

911blogger.com/news/2010-09-19/911-truth-fight-stage-dont-get-hit-sucker-punch#comment-237798

that I must be an operative for gaining credibility by doing good work before blowing it all by (1) promoting CIT and (2) questioning the holocaust. Heck I'll paste it here to save the site from getting more undeserved traffic:

QUOTE
On Kevin Barrett's radio show [Syed] promotes CIT/NSA, bashes Blogger, touts DRG and RG's "glowing endorsements" and ends with questioning the Holocaust. This is psy-ops IMO. Word association works. Adam and Kevin are tying the TM, DRG and RG to "Mossad did it" and Revisionism.
http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20100601-ke...d-adam-ruff.mp3


Anyway, Richard Gage has proven himself, for all the architectural expertise he possesses, to be rather people-naive. As someone who wants to be friends with everyone, he got taken in early on by the "buddy ole pal! We'll help ya out with yer website and speaking engagements..."

And before he knew it, he was surrounded by operatives, but living in bliss ignorance. I wonder if in the privacy of his heart he's woken up to how infiltrated his own organization is. Looks like with this weekend's speaking engagement he finally stood up to a few of them.
mrmitosis
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2012, 09:46 AM) *
...you have a fan over at True Faction SanderO.


Sliceman - you can't hold SanderO accountable for the fact that Snowcrash has signed up for his cheersquad. Besides, the quote:

...although I disagree with him on a great many things he usually makes more sense on the WTC topic and can explain the matter in more lucid detail than the organization he left... (- Snowcrash)

...hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement.

Similarly, anything that other posters or trolls at True Faction might have to say about SanderO should not be made his responsibility.

A Syed - if SO is an operative, then he must be the least efficient and worst value for money on the entire payroll. For example, he has exchanged a number of emails with me in an attempt to explain his findings so far - this must have taken up considerable time and energy on his part. Exactly what an infiltrator would hope to achieve by doing this I can't imagine...SO knows that my mathematical expertise is even worse than my scientific expertise, and that I am virtually unknown within the 9/11 Truth community. In spite of SO's patient attempts to guide me through his calculations and logical processes, I am pathetically ill-equipped to grasp barely any of it. And even if I did, I have no credibility in the fields of architecture or engineering so no-one would listen to me if I tried to convince them that SO's thesis is of any merit.

Also, we have just heard that Richard Gage practically had to beg SanderO to join the board. An operative would have leapt at the first opportunity.

SanderO's research needs to be further developed and independently evaluated for a very important reason. To me it is pure fucking logic that the real perpetrators of this crime would use only slightly more than the bare minimum necessary to bring the buildings down - whether that be in the form of DEWs, mini nuclear devices, military-grade incendiaries, backyard-grade incendiaries, common explosives or - yes, we have to consider it - commercial airline strikes and kerosene. One aspect of SanderO's hypothesis which I DO understand is that it seems to suggest that the Factor Of Safety (FOS) in relation to the Twin Towers has been seriously underestimated by Gage and his cohorts. If this can in fact be shown to be the case at some future stage, then it follows that AE911T may well have banked too heavily on the use of high-tech/exotic destructive materials, and therefore reached embarrassingly false conclusions. Clearly, this would be a disaster for AE911T, not to mention the Truth Movement as a whole. Regrettably, if SanderO is indeed correct, then I'm afraid it is already too late to avoid such an outcome. The AE911T locomotive can no longer be put into reverse.

YES, I realise that explosions were reportedly heard. I ALSO realise that iron rich micro-spheres and unreacted thermitic material were discovered in the dust samples, along with other evidence which points to a controlled demolition. I am NOT denying or ignoring this evidence. It is NOT the point I am making here.

I'm somewhat familiar with the discussions which have taken place between OSS and others questioning the validity of SanderO's reasoning. I DO understand the frustration. As it happens, I feel that SanderO has been overly-cautious myself when it comes to accepting what others regard as totally obvious. That's just my opinion, but I commend him for being so rigorous.

But please, let's keep the discussion alive. SanderO's research poses no threat to the Truth Movement, irrespective of its (lack of) validity.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (MrM)
I'm somewhat familiar with the discussions which have taken place between OSS and others questioning the validity of SanderO's reasoning. I DO understand the frustration. As it happens, I feel that SanderO has been overly-cautious myself when it comes to accepting what others regard as totally obvious. That's just my opinion, but I commend him for being so rigorous.


Hi MrM,

I'm actually in agreement that the towers would have been taken down with the minimum effort possible and that if it were me, I'd take most advantage of the initial impacts to mask other explosions (which were witnessed).

If it were me, I'd initiate the collapse at key points throughout the building (also witnessed and caught on tape).

The thing is, I've even acknowledged that gravity had a part in the collapse but that certain areas were weakened (caught on tape, witnessed, physical evidence) whether by thermitic material or whatever.

I'm about as green as you MrM on the mathematical and scientific aspect but I can't be blinded to witnessed, recorded and physical evidence that contradicts a simple gravity driven collapse.

The final straw for me was when even the flimsy "initiation of collapse" sans explosives/outside influence argument put forward by SanderO was also questioned/made debateable by him on this forum!

I was a bit over the top with the Snowcrash comment, yes, but I was only trying to point out that if SanderO's "thesis" is acceptable to this closet the J.REF, shill fraud and proven liar then I want no part of it. Not because of who is saying it but because SanderO uses the same dismissive opinions as to what the witnesses, recordings and physical evidence shows as snowcrash and his buds.

Not forgetting the Israelis caught by the short and curleys celebrating the first impact before news had reached the airwaves that a plane had actually struck. Or the signs of "explosives" in their van!

This should be decided by a new enquiry or by the "court of public opinion". Nothing should be offhandedly dismissed because it doesn't fit into his theory. And I certainly can't see how such vague claims about the collapses of all 3 towers that would most definitely fall within the "we'll never know" vacuum and be left to exclusive technobabble discussions, would forward our cause, when even a layman can see what happened. Or what didn't.

edit: typos
amazed!
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2012, 05:51 PM) *
@Amazed!

I must have missed where in all your interactions with SanderO on this forum, you thought he was telling the "truth".

I don't even know how his "thesis" (whatever it is - because even his "initiation of collapse" scenario seems to be very vague) would advance 9/11 truth or the call for a new enquiry.


My main criticism of SanderO here has been that he seemed to want to have it both ways.

That said, I have always thought he raised many valid and interesting points, and I say that as a layman to the architect and engineer world. Most of his comments and points are a bit too esoteric for me, but I understand his general direction. Maybe that is the "vagueness" you mention.

Eventually he seems to have made it clear that he doubts very much the official story, and in my book, that is the most accurate statement one can make in the discussion.
onesliceshort
QUOTE (Amazed!)
Maybe that is the "vagueness" you mention.


No, I usually stay out of the debates on the towers because they are way over my head (which I've repeatedly stated on this forum), but I wanted to get to the bottom of what SanderO is actually claiming!

I had a healthy debate with him not so long ago and even this layman could see the contradictions.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801072

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.


He goes into extreme detail outlining a gravity driven collapse, yet makes dismissive, speculative statements when substantiated concerns about evidence of explosive damage/explosions are raised.


I think I held my own:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801116

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801086

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801099

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801179

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801169

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801282

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801502

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801530

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...mp;pid=10801553

Why not see if there's any "vagueness" in his answers to my questions yourself?
SanderO
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.
onesliceshort
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"?

maturin42
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.
onesliceshort
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?
SanderO
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.


amazed!
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.
LevelDsimTech
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
onesliceshort
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.
SanderO
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.
onesliceshort
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
LevelDsimTech
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.
rob balsamo
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.
onesliceshort
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
LevelDsimTech
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.
rob balsamo
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.
LevelDsimTech
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.
rob balsamo
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?
onesliceshort
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.

SanderO
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.
onesliceshort
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?

SanderO
One,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make sense.

What is your theory about how bldg 7 was destroyed?

LevelDsimTech
Here are a few clues:

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

Your theory is nonsense.

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


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


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

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

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

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

Thank you for your PM in any case.
SanderO
QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 4 2012, 08:21 AM) *
Here are a few clues:

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



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

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

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

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

Some buildings will not crumble when dropped 15 feet... usually reinforced concrete. One needs to consider the mass of the building. The twins and bldg 7 were 20 to 40 times more massive than any DC. Apples and oranges my friend.
LevelDsimTech
QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 10:06 AM) *
How do you know what *pull it" means to Silverstein? As he's not CD sort of guy he wouldn't know the jargon and could have meant stop the effort to fight the fires and get the men out of the building. He was likely informed by the FDNY and NYPD and NYDOB that the building was growing unstable and it was inadvisable to do anything until the fires burned out.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Please don't call me your friend, and use a cliche like "apple and oranges" when it is very apparent that you are not educated in science, or structural engineering. You didn't even catch the fact that your rebuttal link for the dust analysis missed the ignition point of the chips. Your orders of magnitude are also very far off. By saying building 7 was at least 20 times more massive than any "DC" (controlled demo CD?) is stating that the largest controlled demolition prior was only 2.3-2.4 floors high. Incredible that I'm even wasting my time responding to this.
SanderO
The tallest building taken down in a CD was 22 stories tall and it's foot print was probably less than a quarter of bldg 7.

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

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

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

Why does any theory have to follow NIST? I think they got a lot of it wrong!
LevelDsimTech
QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2012, 01:59 PM) *
The tallest building taken down in a CD was 22 stories tall and it's foot print was probably less than a quarter of bldg 7.


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

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


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

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


Perhaps you should lose the imagination, and interpret Larry's interview as recorded.
onesliceshort
The "sandero show" in full swing here I see rolleyes.gif

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

And using the "Silverstein's 'it' really referred to the firefighting effort" bs...wow
SanderO
QUOTE (LevelDsimTech @ Mar 4 2012, 09:21 PM) *
Less than a quarter is hardly 20x less! Even then, I don't believe you. Show me the link to the 22 storey building you are referring to.

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

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


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

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

How about this:

Con Ed Report:

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

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

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

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

You have a very aggressive attitude.

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
10/24/1998
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.
The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors
LevelDsimTech
And you are terrible at math, and making up stories:

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


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



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


It appears Building 7 was a little smaller!


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


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


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

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



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


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

I believe this is the point that you would toss all of those scripts, and drawings of yours in the garbage and try to come up with a more sensible story that makes sense.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.