Loose Change

[bunker]

* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

* Fire-induced core column shortening detected. Due to heating from fires following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling, there was a shortening of core columns seen in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. Shortening of the core columns caused the floor system to pull the perimeter columns inward—the observed inward bowing that was seen minutes prior to the collapse of each tower. Significant thermal sagging of the floor system exacerbated the inward pull on the perimeter columns in WTC 2. Vertical loads carried by shortened columns were redistributed to perimeter columns, putting additional strain on their load-bearing capabilities.

You'll have to forgive me, sometimes my style of writing makes me seem smarter than I am. Could you explain this like I'm stupid?

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.

 

[Graham S1]

heres a video that ISN'T in Loose Change.

(put www in front of this)infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

tell me what is alleges, so I know you watched it. more evidence for consideration.

 

[bunker]

I've clickablized these links for you.

Thank you so much.

 

[bunker]

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.

Which leads me to another thought, allowing me to get one post closer to posting links: Is Dr. Greening accounting for the energy required to create this seismic data? The energy to simulate a 2.1 magnitude earthquake is being transmitted to the ground. Shouldn't this energy be accounted for in the Dr.'s calculations?

 

[Graham S1]

Welcome back, now are you going to go back and answer all the questions you've been asked in the thread you started?

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You'll have to forgive me, sometimes my style of writing makes me seem smarter than I am. Could you explain this like I'm stupid?

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.

If I am interpretting their synopsis correctly, they are saying that the weakening of the core support happened prior to the beginning of the collapse, thus reducing the load capabilities of all the floors and when the collapse began the support began to fail on the floors below the point current collapse prior to the collapse wave (*shrug* I don't know what to call it).

 

[DavidJames]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?

Fair enough, however, if you're not interested in backing up your claims with evidence or answering questions about them, why come here in the first place?

 

[brodski]

heres a video that ISN'T in Loose Change.

(put www in front of this)www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

tell me what is alleges, so I know you watched it. more evidence for consideration.

(link edited for those as lazy as I am)
So the allegations are
1) a company contracted by the Us government has links with the sex trade
2) The pentagon can't manage a computer contract and is generally inefficient and
3) There where some "war games" operations on 9/11.

Can you tell me how this is relevant at all to the topic in any way shape or form.

Even if all the allegations are true all it shows is that
1) The us government deals with some unsavoury people.
2) Large government bodies are hopelessly inefficient at managing IT contracts and
3) There were some military training exercises carried out (as well as a DOJ exercise and a response to some Russian bomber movements) on 9/11.

What do you think this proves?

 

[aggle-rithm]

We may have to agree to disagree, but this looks like a significant amount of material to me.

Shots of North Tower:

If it were solid, or even a liquid, it would be. But it's just dust.

Have you ever seen a building imploded? I saw a 20+ story brick building brought down when I was about twelve. When it hit the ground, a HUGE dust cloud was kicked up, much bigger than the original building had been. A nearby skyscraper, the tallest building in town at 36 stories, was completely hidden behind it.

Each WTC tower was more than five times larger than this building, and contained much more concrete. It was also not a controlled collapse, so the buildings came apart more chaotically as they went down. I'm not surprised at the size of the dust clouds at all, but I certainly don't think they represented more than a tiny percentage of the buildings' total mass.

 

[aggle-rithm]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

Yeah, critical thinking can be a real hassle. It's much easier just to turn your brain off.

 

[Aepervius]

Warning Ad Hominem Attack

I dunno if it has already been said or not, but when I see the premise and argument of the CT, It ain't "loose change" which come to mind, but rather "loose screw". sorry.

 

[delphi_ote]

delphi_ote,

This has been gnawing at me for months, and I think I just realized the fundamental flaw of the non-explosive free fall theory. It assumes that each impacted floor and its 1-floor worth of supports are taking responsibility for each impact alone. But we know that the intact, or largely intact, floor's supports are feeling the impact through all supports all the way to the ground. The falling mass is literally impacting the entire support structure from floor 96 to the foundation.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you need to work out some of the math and physics yourself. I've done quite a lot of work for you. I don't mind doing this if you want to understand things, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on. You seem to want to invalidate the model without doing any actual research yourself. I can't rush off and work for 20-30 minutes every time you have a question (especially if you want to take these dynamics into account! It would take some serious calculus!) Besides, how can you check my work if you don't understand what I'm doing?

I am not your dancing physics monkey!

The physics in the analysis we've been going over were simplified. The author also does not account for wind resistance, the total mass of the debris ejected from the building, the calculus involved in finding the mass disappated into the structure, the lengths of wires in the walls, the number of portable desk fans sitting on cubicle desks, or the temperature and humidity at Ground Zero that day. Literally every single particle in the universe was acting on those buildings! We're dealing with a first order approximation here. It is very accurate. This shows that the author's work most likely accounts for the largest factors involved.

Much more detailed simulations have been done, but they would take both you and me several years of study to fully understand. This study is a simplified version a layman can understand. If you want to go more in depth, read some of the links others have provided in this thread (especially the NIST links,) e-mail genuine experts (structural engineers would be a good place to start,) and start crunching some numbers yourself!

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

By George it looks like Plan 9 From Outer Space has finally come to life.

Grave robbers from outer space!



No seriously, a great post.

Imagine the scene:

You are in charge of a multi national, pan-corporate secret cabal. You want to inflict terror on the American population for political purposes (some wacky Hegelian scenario). Why would you choose such a complicated method? Why not just have a couple "black ops agents" (or whatever) release a bunch of nerve gas? With near unlimited resources (which a cabal like though would likely have) I'm sure we could come up with dozens of different scenarios that would involve far less co-conspirators or risk of discovery.

LLH

 

[Hellbound]

LotLH:

Yep. A few biological agents in subway stations, for example. Bomb a few churches or a schools. Nerve gas in a nunnery. Anthrax on Amtrac. Contaminate a hospital.

IN fact, a MUCH more dangerous plot, that could be done with a small handlful of people easily, would be to release a chemical or bilogical agent into all (or several) of the major hospitals in a large city (or a few cities). Not only have you killed and/or injured many, you've crippled any possible fast medical response by removing the medical resources. And it wouldn't take anything like the number of people required for this proposed 9/11 plot, with much less chance of discovery, and would have been just as horrifying as the 9/11 attacks.

ETA: Or even dirty bombs. With the power the cabal would supposedly have, obtaining some depleted uranium or some old fuel rods wouldn't be that difficult. Imagine 10 hospitals in New York all hit with dirty bombs at the same time.

 

[Aepervius]

Dirt Bomb

As far as I remmember there is a lot of radio source (cancer treament equipement for example) which need to be recycled at its end of life. Just fake some signature, grease some hands, and hoopla ! You have wonderfull radioactive material which will attract *less* attention than your average kilogram of depleted U or fuel rode, which are very well followed. And you can make *MORE* bombs, or even fill it up in a transport with half fuel, half fertiliezer and a lot fo radioactive material. Make it explode around various hospital.

And do not get me started with the water supply...

 

[Dave_46]

Folks

I was reading some older posts and came across a reference to a web site by Alek.
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
this contains the following paragraph.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).



Two things come to mind immediately.

1 The steel temperature is quoted at 800-900 C, when in post 601 Alek says

"In other words, look to the fires, for which I've already offered evidence that they should have been no higher than 280C (536F). They offer no scientific analysis of their vastly higher estimates. This is a big problem."

The fires in the Cardington experiments were fuelled by timber, which still managed to heat the steel to a temperature which cut its strength considerably.

2 The construction of the building used for the Cardington experiments was more modern than the WTC towers. It was specifically built to test modern construction techniques. The horizontal beams in this building are more substantial than my understanding of the WTC floor supports. The reason that the Cardington building did not collapse was due to load sharing as the individual components weakened and distorted. The building suffered severe local damage, and access to parts of the building was restricted after the tests due to the damage. To state the obvious, the structural integrity of the building had not been compromised by a severe impact.

I was present for two of the experimental fires on the Cardington building.

Dave

Edited to correct spellling mistooks

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Folks
...
The fires in the Cardington experiments were fuelled by timber, which still managed to heat the steel to a temperature which cut its strength considerably.
...

This is exceptionally important, as Alek claimed that, after the jet fuel burned out, the remaining cellulose based fire would reach an even lower max temp than the jet fuel could.

 

[delphi_ote]

Not sure if anyone else saw this...

New York has released partial tapes of emergency calls from the World Trade Center on 9/11 for the first time.

Nearly nine hours of calls show the responses of emergency operators to callers amid the chaos of the attacks.

The words of the operators - but not the callers - were released following a lawsuit filed by the New York Times and a group of victims' relatives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4866208.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

 

[azazal]

Grave robbers from outer space!



No seriously, a great post.

Imagine the scene:

You are in charge of a multi national, pan-corporate secret cabal. You want to inflict terror on the American population for political purposes (some wacky Hegelian scenario). Why would you choose such a complicated method? Why not just have a couple "black ops agents" (or whatever) release a bunch of nerve gas? With near unlimited resources (which a cabal like though would likely have) I'm sure we could come up with dozens of different scenarios that would involve far less co-conspirators or risk of discovery.

LLH

Guess I'm just a simple guy at heart. Instead of nerve gas of other agents, I would have used the resources to purchase truck loads of conventioal explosives and then have said trucks drive into the major population centers of a few cities - NY, DC, Chi, LA. Have them detonate in the middile of rush hour/commuter traffic.

 

[bunker]

My thoughts are that you need to work out some of the math and physics yourself. I've done quite a lot of work for you. I don't mind doing this if you want to understand things, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on. You seem to want to invalidate the model without doing any actual research yourself. I can't rush off and work for 20-30 minutes every time you have a question (especially if you want to take these dynamics into account! It would take some serious calculus!) Besides, how can you check my work if you don't understand what I'm doing?

I am not your dancing physics monkey!

The physics in the analysis we've been going over were simplified. The author also does not account for wind resistance, the total mass of the debris ejected from the building, the calculus involved in finding the mass disappated into the structure, the lengths of wires in the walls, the number of portable desk fans sitting on cubicle desks, or the temperature and humidity at Ground Zero that day. Literally every single particle in the universe was acting on those buildings! We're dealing with a first order approximation here. It is very accurate. This shows that the author's work most likely accounts for the largest factors involved.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. I was genuinely asking your opinion. And I've been addressing my questions to you because you seem like the most intelligent person here.

Dr. Greening's explanation is deficient. All that's left to do is calculate how much energy it takes to cause a 2.x earthquake, and then we will know how much energy he left out of his calculations. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to do that. But I am going to hazard an uneducated guess and call it a $hitload of energy.



After reviewing the paper once more, three things are clear:

1. Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine the approximate collapse times.

2. Dr. Greening assumes the energy of each collapse is being applied to one or two floors.

3. #2 is a huge mistake, because #1 proves the energy was being transmitted to the ground.

So the search for a workable theory explaining the collapse time without explosives continues...