• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

September 11th: The History of 9/11

techybloke666 said:
Yup oversap intengra reactive mole-thingy quantum leap inelastic collick did it for me, he must be right

here here Mr MG, Jr

Well to be fair, he knows a damn sight more about the physics of engineering than I do and I'll wager more than you do. These articles brought home to me just how difficult it is for the layman to even correctly understand the forces involved, let alone make a guess from a video. ;)
 
Heckler20 said:
techybloke666 said:
Yup oversap intengra reactive mole-thingy quantum leap inelastic collick did it for me, he must be right

here here Mr MG, Jr

Well to be fair, he knows a damn sight more about the physics of engineering than I do and I'll wager more than you do. These articles brought home to me just how difficult it is for the layman to even correctly understand the forces involved, let alone make a guess from a video. ;)
Yes, I too can be blinded by science.
Heckler20 said:
We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist
The Physics of 9/11
By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.

Five years after the events of September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories abound as an anxious public seeks to find a comprehensible story for that day and more broadly for their socio-political world. People need reliable foundations upon which to base the many assumptions and conventions they use to carry on their lives.

...

Manuel Garcia a native New Yorker who works as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California with a PhD Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, from Princeton His technical interests are generally in fluid flow and energy, specifically in gas dynamics and plasma physics; and his working experience includes measurements on nuclear bomb tests, devising mathematical models of energetic physical effects, and trying to enlarge a union of weapons scientists. He can be reached at [email protected]

Source

Mighty interesting.

...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a United States Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory, managed and operated by the University of California, in Livermore, California. Along with Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is one of the USA's two laboratories whose mission has included the design of nuclear weapons.

The laboratory is self-described as "a premier research and development institution for science and technology applied to national security."[1] It is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable through application of advances in science, engineering, and technology. LLNL also applies its special expertise and multidisciplinary capabilities to prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction and strengthen homeland security.

...
I predict fast promotion for the good professor. 8)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Yes, I too can be blinded by science.

I predict fast promotion for the good professor. 8)

Presumably you are suggesting then that some guy watching a video can come to a more valid conclusion than someone trained in the physics of engineering then?

The collapse of a building appears to be a little more complicated than a few puffs ;) . Whether the conclusions are correct or not at least he is applying some specialist knowledge to the subject rather than a vague gut feeling (a la Charlie Sheen) that it seems 'wrong'.
 
Heckler20 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Yes, I too can be blinded by science.

I predict fast promotion for the good professor. 8)

Presumably you are suggesting then that some guy watching a video can come to a more valid conclusion than someone trained in the physics of engineering then?

The collapse of a building appears to be a little more complicated than a few puffs ;) . Whether the conclusions are correct or not at least he is applying some specialist knowledge to the subject rather than a vague gut feeling (a la Charlie Sheen) that it seems 'wrong'.
And, someone working on the upkeep of nuclear weapons would almost certainly know more about the properties of thermite based devices and their effects, than the ordinary man in the street too. ;)

And is it the right kind of engineering? Usually you skeptic chappies are soo picky about the kind of experts that fit your exacting requirements. ;)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
And, someone working on the upkeep of nuclear weapons would almost certainly know more about the properties of thermite based devices and their effects, than the ordinary man in the street too. ;)

And is it the right kind of engineering? Usually you skeptic chappies are soo picky about the kind of experts that fit your exacting requirements. ;)

At which point the roundabout reaches my stop and I go home for my tea...... ;)
 
Heckler20 said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
And, someone working on the upkeep of nuclear weapons would almost certainly know more about the properties of thermite based devices and their effects, than the ordinary man in the street too. ;)

And is it the right kind of engineering? Usually you skeptic chappies are soo picky about the kind of experts that fit your exacting requirements. ;)

At which point the roundabout reaches my stop and I go home for my tea...... ;)

Just to avoid confusion - the 'good professor' was debunking the popular conspiracy theory that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition.

He concludes, as NIST did, that the most likely explanation was that the bottom 2 thirds or 3 quarters of the buildings were not designed to cope with 1 third or 1 quarter of the building dynamically putting pressure downwards.

He also concludes the matter was speeded up with something akin to elastic shockwaves.

Nice. ;)
 
Waiting for the scale models........five years & still waiting.The models are the real world proof,without them you just got opinon....& you know what opinons are like...everyone's got one....even engineers.
 
I believe models were made by Nist and they didnt do what they wanted so they moved to computer generated.

as we know a good computer can even prove the Magic bullet theory.

so it must the fire and brimstone that brought down WTC7

Anyway how the towers eventually collapsed is not as important as

Did the CIA etc know about the plan early on ?
 
Anyway how the towers eventually collapsed is not as important as

Did the CIA etc know about the plan early on ?

But now you're moving the goalposts. If you believe that the towers were demolished by the use of remote controlled explosives then we are talking about probably the most audacious conspiracy in history involving large numbers of people going all the way to the top.

That's a long, long way from speculating that some people in the intelligence services may have had an inkling that there was a plot to attack aviation targets.

The latter is wholly credible, indeed probable IMO. The former, well, seems less likely.
 
All very interesting stuff.....now compare it with the work of Dr Jones from Brigham Young University....(just look on google video) - an expert in fluid dynamics - and you get the other side of the argument.

To date I am inclined to side with the good Dr Jones..

JWS
 
And now, a view from someone who was actually there when the towers came down:
HERO OF 9/11 WON'T STOP SPEAKING OUT AGAINST BUSH

11:00 - 02 December 2006

One minute he was going about his business, the next he was looking at a vision from the depths of hell. Still reeling from a blast which rocked the World Trade Center, William Rodriguez could hardly believe what he was seeing."A man came running into the office shouting 'explosion, explosion!'" Mr Rodriguez soon saw a third of his body had been badly burnt by the blast. "When I realised, I started screaming. I looked at his face and it was missing parts."

It was the start of a day that transformed Mr Rodriguez from a maintenance man to the hero of 9/11. He ran back into the crumbling tower three times, and helped save hundreds of people.

In the months that followed, his role would change again, from the "face" of the rescue effort to an outspoken critic of the government.

For Mr Rodriguez, a native of Puerto Rico, swears his ordeal began before the first plane hit the Twin Towers. He claims that the White House failed to act, and accuses the government of being involved in "sponsored terrorism" in a bid to find a motive to invade Iraq. He brought his argument to a Westcountry audience on Wednesday, when he spoke in Torquay as part of the Global Truth movement.

Before America's trade epicentre was reduced to rubble, Mr Rodriguez routinely ate breakfast at the Windows of the World restaurant, on the top floor of the North Tower, where his friends would feed him free of charge. On 9/11, he was running late, so he skipped the treat.

It was while he was in basements of the North Tower that Mr Rodriguez says he felt an explosion from below. "It was so hard that it shook the foundations of the building and the walls cracked," he said. "The ceiling fell on top of us."

Mr Rodriguez, 45, had worked in the building for 20 years, and survived the 1993 bomb blast. As the sprinkler system came on, he was mentally transported back. It was only then that he claims he heard the sound of the first plane hitting the tower, at 8.46am. "It came from far away - all the way at the top of the building," he said.

The handyman's thoughts immediately raced to the plight of his friends on the top floor, and he spent the rest of the ordeal battling his way through the building, trying to reach them.

Mr Rodriguez, one of only five people to hold a master key which opened the doors to an escape route, repeatedly encountered people in need of help. He saved scores from the crumbling tower, including two who were stuck in a lift shaft that was filling with water from the sprinklers.

"I could hear them shouting 'we're going to drown'," he said. "I was always an agnostic, but in that moment, I prayed."

He suddenly remembered where ladders were stored, and found the longest one unlocked, so he was able to drop it down the shaft and escort two workers out to waiting ambulances.

Mr Rodriguez dived back into the building to try to reach his friends, but again he encountered a casualty in need, this time on the 34th floor. "There was a blonde woman, lying on the floor shaking. I told her she had to get out, but she was new and she didn't know where to go."

Mr Rodriguez helped her down the stairs, and ran back into the building on his third trip. This time, he played a role in helping a man in a wheelchair to the waiting ambulance crew.

"It was like a scene from The Towering Inferno," he said. "Pieces of rock kept falling all over us and hitting us. I said to the man in the wheelchair 'when we get out we will go for a drink'. His face was just a dust mask."

Mr Rodriguez was set to make a fourth trip up the stairs when he heard police outside ordering him not to look back. "Of course, when they tell you not to look back you always do," he said. "It was the worst memory I ever had."

The blonde woman he had helped save lay dead, just outside the exit of the building, her body mangled by falling debris.

"I looked around, and saw all the bodies of people who had jumped out of the windows, and they looked as if they had melted into the ground," he said.


Mesmerised by the apocalyptic vision, Mr Rodriguez realised the ground was trembling. To cries of "run", he dived under a nearby fire engine as the huge building tumbled down. "I thought I was going to die from asphyxia," he said. "I thought 'God, please don't let my mother see my body cut in half'."

But the media saw Mr Rodriguez dive, and soon rescue workers were hauling him free.

Today, Mr Rodriguez is grateful to be alive, but he said: "I never found my friends. I saved hundreds of people, but the reason I do what I can to get the word out is that I lost 200 friends who have no way of claiming justice."

In the aftermath, Mr Rodriguez was hailed a hero, and felt he was playing a big role in the 9/11 Commission. "I thought they were going to do the right thing," he said.

But Mr Rodriguez soon felt his evidence was being covered up, when he became the only person to be interviewed behind closed doors. And his account was omitted from the final report. He claims evidence he collected from scores of other witnesses was overlooked.

The final straw came when he was asked to give a public address on why Iraq should be invaded. "I said no - 9/11 was nothing to do with Iraq. I helped organise the families, and we voted against the President using us for his political motive. That's when the thrust changed, and the invasion suddenly became about weapons of mass destruction."

These days, Mr Rodriguez fears for his life - and says his plight is relevant in the wake of the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB spy many believe was poisoned by the Russians.

But Mr Rodriguez continues to speak out. Once a prominent magician, he said: "The 9/11 attacks are just an illusion. It never happened in the way they say. It's all manufactured to give the impression that it happened like that."
http://tinyurl.com/ycpg2w
 
rynner said:
It was while he was in basements of the North Tower that Mr Rodriguez says he felt an explosion from below. "It was so hard that it shook the foundations of the building and the walls cracked," he said. "The ceiling fell on top of us."

And this is the contentious point with Rodriguez. If, as the conspiracy theories would have us believe, this is first hand evidence of demolition then why didn't the building fall down when he felt the explosion?

It's difficult to know from his position in the basement exactly what it is he experienced, whether the plane's initial impact, a secondary 'explosion' caused by the fire or even the beginnings of the building buckling, unfortunately like the witness who hears a gunshot but doesn't see the shooter we're never going to be sure.

None of which of course takes away from the fact of his incredible bravery and the shabby treatment he has received because of his anti-war views.
 
But now you're moving the goalposts. If you believe that the towers were demolished by the use of remote controlled explosives then we are talking about probably the most audacious conspiracy in history involving large numbers of people going all the way to the top.

That's a long, long way from speculating that some people in the intelligence services may have had an inkling that there was a plot to attack aviation targets.

The latter is wholly credible, indeed probable IMO. The former, well, seems less likely.

I've always argued that its LIHOP by a small few of in the know influencial people.

Just becouse I argue the more extreme parts does not always say I believe in them ;)

I do however think WTC7 was demolished.
 
techybloke666 said:
Anyway how the towers eventually collapsed is not as important as

Did the CIA etc know about the plan early on ?

surely how the towers collapsed would be crucial? :?

if they collapsed with the assistance of explosives then somebody of authority within the US (and it would be hard to imagine the cia not being involved in some way) must have known about the plan early enough for it to be relevant. if the towers came down unaided after the planes struck then it would not only remove from the "evidence" of cia involvement but would also disprove the many theories about how the towers couldn't fall without explosive assistance.
 
surely how the towers collapsed would be crucial?

if they collapsed with the assistance of explosives then somebody of authority within the US (and it would be hard to imagine the cia not being involved in some way) must have known about the plan early enough for it to be relevant. if the towers came down unaided after the planes struck then it would not only remove from the "evidence" of cia involvement but would also disprove the many theories about how the towers couldn't fall without explosive assistance.

Nope not really.

WTC1 and 2 probably collapsed due to inferrior planning for the event of a plane hitting them.
Fire, bad worksmanship, poor design, and a bit of bad luck.

WTC7 was not of a similar design
It was not hit by a burning plane.
It was considerably more substancially built and shorter in stature.
and a demolition expert who was showed the footage said it was demolished !!!!!!!! we have all seen his video ;)

The Most telling part for me is what appears to be covered up afterwards by the commission report.
 
techybloke666 said:
Nope not really.

WTC1 and 2 probably collapsed due to inferrior planning for the event of a plane hitting them.
Fire, bad worksmanship, poor design, and a bit of bad luck.

WTC7 was not of a similar design
It was not hit by a burning plane.
It was considerably more substancially built and shorter in stature.

so why would the cia be involved in a massive insurance fraud? at what point did the neo-cons turn to the cia and say "if there are any spectacluar terrorist attacks planned don't stop the. oh, and if it's on the world trade centre let larry silverstein know cos he could do with the money".

techybloke666 said:
and a demolition expert who was showed the footage said it was demolished !!!!!!!! we have all seen his video ;)

not all of us. ;)
 
The video is posted by me go and look for it.

Silverstein has links with some dodgy people , not a completely impossible thing to happen.
 
techybloke666 said:
Silverstein has links with some dodgy people , not a completely impossible thing to happen.

Not impossible just extremely extremely unlikely.

So are you suggesting that the CIA handlers of Bin Laden supplied him with with a target (and a plan presumably) in order to participate in an insurance fraud?
 
So are you suggesting that the CIA handlers of Bin Laden supplied him with with a target (and a plan presumably) in order to participate in an insurance fraud?

I think the plan to to fly the planes was formulated months before.
That the CIA or whomever knew of it
and that information was passed to Silverstein as he is in the loop.
Hence he took out the lease and made the money.
 
techybloke666 said:
The video is posted by me go and look for it.

Silverstein has links with some dodgy people , not a completely impossible thing to happen.

re the video: you'll need to be more specific. there are quite a few.

re: silverstein - what dodgy people (and what's dodgy about them)?

also at what point did the cia learn about the attacks, who did they pass it on to and when did they pass this information on?
 
techybloke666 said:
I think the plan to to fly the planes was formulated months before.
That the CIA or whomever knew of it
and that information was passed to Silverstein as he is in the loop.
Hence he took out the lease and made the money.

Trouble is how did he know that WTC7 would fall down?

There is evidence from the fire crews of the building physically bowing and 'travelling' prior to it's collapse, if you're suggesting that this damage was somehow created I'd be intrigued to know how?
 
There is evidence from the fire crews of the building physically bowing and 'travelling' prior to it's collapse, if you're suggesting that this damage was somehow created I'd be intrigued to know how?

If that was true how did fall in line with a demolition ?
as stated by our resident expert in the video ?

More to the point how did that bowing of the beams lead to that nice clean 45 degree cut on the main supports ?

Resident expert also said it would not take very long to rig WTC7 for a demolition due to its already damaged state.
 
also at what point did the cia learn about the attacks, who did they pass it on to and when did they pass this information on?

I really must get my pastport up to date and pop over and ask them.
:imo:

Are you going to ask some more over the top questions.

Like what did they have for breakfast that morning too ????
 
techybloke666 said:
If that was true how did fall in line with a demolition ?
as stated by our resident expert in the video ?

More to the point how did that bowing of the beams lead to that nice clean 45 degree cut on the main supports ?

Resident expert also said it would not take very long to rig WTC7 for a demolition due to its already damaged state.

Presumably said resident expert would have entered a burning building that was in an apparently iminient state of collapse to rig it to collapse then?

This is an argument that will run and run in a circular style to infinity, no decent information on the interior damage to the building because no-one went inside it after it was evacuated (apart from your valourious demolition expert of course ;) ) so the only info we have is exterior. The exterior information, the bowing and moving, points to fairly severe damage (as do the few exisiting photos) which convinces me there is no need for demolition. Of course it's entirely possible given the scarcity of information that I'm wrong......and there you go.
 
Presumably said resident expert would have entered a burning building that was in an apparently iminient state of collapse to rig it to collapse then?

This is an argument that will run and run in a circular style to infinity, no decent information on the interior damage to the building because no-one went inside it after it was evacuated (apart from your valourious demolition expert of course ) so the only info we have is exterior. The exterior information, the bowing and moving, points to fairly severe damage (as do the few exisiting photos) which convinces me there is no need for demolition. Of course it's entirely possible given the scarcity of information that I'm wrong......and there you go.

Quite possible I'm wrong too M8, was quite convinving tho the three videos from the demolition veteran, all relating to WTC7.

He was quite adamant that it was a demolition , until of course he found out that it was a pro conspiracy interviewer, when he found that out he quickly undid what he been saying for 3 hours . LOL

One does not want to be branded a nut job does one TED ?

anyway got to trot for a bit
Be back later

maybe worth pointing out at this stage the steel used in WTC7 was tested well over the temperatures that fire would produce !
and there was only damage to the facade not the core like in WTC1 and 2.

of course its all my opinion ;)
 
techybloke666 said:
maybe worth pointing out at this stage the steel used in WTC7 was tested well over the temperatures that fire would produce !
and there was only damage to the facade not the core like in WTC1 and 2.

of course its all my opinion ;)

I posted this before but it's worth another look as it give a very believable collapse scenario (without explosives):

Manuel Garcia's report on WTC7
 
My my your man certainly has a strong view on lots of subjects.



http://www.idiom.com/~garcia/

quite a prolific little writer.

Funny I thought that power to the pumping system was cut and could not have pumped all that Diesel to the heart of the fire.

Just goes to show what I know ;)
 
techybloke666 said:
also at what point did the cia learn about the attacks, who did they pass it on to and when did they pass this information on?

I really must get my pastport up to date and pop over and ask them.
:imo:

Are you going to ask some more over the top questions.

Like what did they have for breakfast that morning too ????

no more over the top than suggesting that somebody discovered the plot (presumably the cia), reported it to senior members of the bush administration which probably included bush himself and then stayed silent while before, during and after the deaths of thousands of people. oh and into the bargain they thought they'd risk telling larry silverstein.

imo.
 
techybloke666 said:
My my your man certainly has a strong view on lots of subjects.
http://www.idiom.com/~garcia/

quite a prolific little writer.
:

Well I wouldn't call an average of 9 articles a year particularly prolific, but hey you say Tomato etc. Oddly with his anti-government (but not rabidly so) views I would've thought he was just your bag? To me his non-9/11 articles (not that they are relevant to this thread) seem quite balanced.


tetchybloke666 said:
Funny I thought that power to the pumping system was cut and could not have pumped all that Diesel to the heart of the fire.

Just goes to show what I know :wink

The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system. Operating as intended -- the lack of utility power triggering the "need", and the lack of pressure due to a severed pipe signaling the "demand", the SSB system pumped oil up from its 12,000 gallon basement reservoir, maximally with a pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch) and flow rate of 75 gpm (gallons per minute), onto Floor 5.

Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10)

Additionally, "Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath." (7)

Source as above

It appears that the loss of power to the building was the trigger for the diesel spill. Go figure.....
 
Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10)

Pipe cut by what exactly ?


The fuel oil pumps were powered from the generator sets. Note that the pumps where powered by electricity. Fuel oil would have been pumped from the tanks when the emergency power system sensed a power interruption. The pump then operated in response to the pressure difference between the supply and return, and the pump would circulate oil as long as such a difference existed. Upon sensing a power interruption, the system would automatically switch to emergency mode. This would have been done with a transfer switch that monitored the building power supply and transferred to the emergency power system if the power from the Con Ed source was interrupted. It was also possible for the transfer to be made manually. Relative to continuity of power to the building, Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m." It is believed that the emergency generators came on line immediately. It is also believed that some of them may have stopped operating because of the contamination of the intake air flowing into the carburetors and radiators. Except for the SSB system, where it is understood that a UPS system provided backup power to the 75-gpm pump, the flow of oil would stop and, as soon as the day tanks were empty, the involved generator set would stop running.

The SSB generators did not use day tanks. Instead there was a pressurized loop system that served all nine generators. As long as the 75-gpm pump continued to operate, a break in the line could, under some conditions, (Pity, the article does not mention the conditions that might cause the double pipe safety mechanism to fail (just an "unimportant" detail I guess)) have a full or partial break that would not cause the system to shut down and could discharge up to the 75-gpm capacity of this positive displacement pump. It is understood that the SSB pump was supplied power from both the SSB generators and from the UPS.

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Based on the listings in Table 5.2, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons that were recovered were from the Silverstein Properties' emergency power system. The data obtained from Silverstein indicate that the pumping rate from their tanks was 4.4 gpm. If the Silverstein pump had started pumping at 10 a.m., when Con Ed shut down power to the building immediately following the collapse of WTC 2, and continued pumping until the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 p.m., less than 2,000 gallons would have been used. The residual 20,000 gallons found in the two 12,000-gallon tanks, therefore, can not be used as an indicator of whether or not the Silverstein generator sets were on line and running.

Similarly, the SSB pump, which had a pumping rate of 75 gpm, would have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks serving that system in less than 3 hours. This could have accounted for the lost 12,000 gallons reported by EPA or the tanks could have been ruptured and the oil spilled into the debris pile.

This is very dishonest. The figure of 12,000 gallons was the maximum quantity of fuel oil that could possibly be missing. This figure would include, for example, the difference between the actual quantity of fuel oil in the tanks at the time (which would not necessarily be known) and the maximum quantity that the tanks could hold. Consequently, this estimate of 12,000 gallons would include a provision for fuel oil that never existed.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

site is much easier to read as good bits are in red text
 
Back
Top