Open Letter to Richard Gage

[GregoryUrich]

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Comments are welcome.

 

[R.Mackey]

This is outside the scope of your letter, but I'd be interested to find what other issues about "the official cover-up story" you believe have merit. If Gage reacts to your criticisms, which are well-founded, it isn't clear that will leave him with much material.

 

[BenBurch]

Very complete.

I echo R.Mackey's question; What room is there for anything other than the interpretation that the towers fell because freaking huge jetliners hit them?

At some point Wm. of Ockham's maxim surely enters into this?

 

[JamesB]

You could also point out that fact that for WTC7 he claims that falling into its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition, while for the twin towers, falling outside of its footprint is a sign of controlled demolition.

Well now that he has covered 100% of the possibilities...

Also "High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”." does not even fit into the category of "none of the characteristics of destruction by fire".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The twoof movement better start coming up with some new material soon. The 9/11 inside job boredom levels are absolutely peeking.

 

[Quad4_72]

What I find interesting about all of these claims that Greg debunked, is that they were silly claims to begin with. Any rational person simply applying the critical thinking process can easily come up with the same answers as Gregory. Why members of the twoof movement hold onto these claims for dear life and ignore all reason is simply a mystery. And am I to understand that GregoryUrich is indeed a twoofer?

If I may ask Greg, what is it about the NIST report that you find incorrect? You have demonstrated your ability to utilize critical thinking skills, so what is it exactly you have trouble believing about the "official" story?

 

[Brainster]

There is a mistake in #11:

"...that initiates high up in a 110-foot..."

You mean 110-story (or storey for Brits).

I can see what you mean, but #4 and #5 appear to be contradictory at first reading. You might want to spell out that the concrete generated an additional 5 pounds per square foot of dust.

 

[GregoryUrich]

What I find interesting about all of these claims that Greg debunked, is that they were silly claims to begin with. Any rational person simply applying the critical thinking process can easily come up with the same answers as Gregory. Why members of the twoof movement hold onto these claims for dear life and ignore all reason is simply a mystery. And am I to understand that GregoryUrich is indeed a twoofer?

If I may ask Greg, what is it about the NIST report that you find incorrect? You have demonstrated your ability to utilize critical thinking skills, so what is it exactly you have trouble believing about the "official" story?

My biggest issue with the NIST report is that the dislodgment of fireproofing is a necessary condition for their reasoning to hold. Nonetheless, they haven't demonstrated that the fireproofing would have been dislodged to the extent they use in their fire model. I have covered this on another thread so I won't get into it here. Mackey has pointed out that others have suggested that the dislodgement of fireproofing is unnecessary for collapse initiation. To be honest, I haven't looked enough at other arguments yet.

My other issue is the lack of an explanation for WTC7. Some day, maybe.

To answer Mackey, the parts of the "Official Cover-up Story" that I find questionable:

- Bush administration's foreknowledge and lying about it
- no one was held accountable
- the administration interfered with the congressional inquiry (something to hide?)
- the administration interfered with setting up the commission (something to hide?)
- the commission failed to interview potential whistle-blowers
- the commission was convinced that NORAD was lying but didn't do anything about it

There's probably a few more things, but this should really be on another thread.

 

[GregoryUrich]

There is a mistake in #11:

"...that initiates high up in a 110-foot..."

You mean 110-story (or storey for Brits).

I can see what you mean, but #4 and #5 appear to be contradictory at first reading. You might want to spell out that the concrete generated an additional 5 pounds per square foot of dust.

Thanks for catching those. I fixed it.

 

[Quad4_72]

My biggest issue with the NIST report is that the dislodgment of fireproofing is a necessary condition for their reasoning to hold. Nonetheless, they haven't demonstrated that the fireproofing would have been dislodged to the extent they use in their fire model. I have covered this on another thread so I won't get into it here. Mackey has pointed out that others have suggested that the dislodgement of fireproofing is unnecessary for collapse initiation. To be honest, I haven't looked enough at other arguments yet.

My other issue is the lack of an explanation for WTC7. Some day, maybe.

To answer Mackey, the parts of the "Official Cover-up Story" that I find questionable:

- Bush administration's foreknowledge and lying about it
- no one was held accountable
- the administration interfered with the congressional inquiry (something to hide?)
- the administration interfered with setting up the commission (something to hide?)
- the commission failed to interview potential whistle-blowers
- the commission was convinced that NORAD was lying but didn't do anything about it

There's probably a few more things, but this should really be on another thread.

you are more of a LIHOPer then, correct?

 

[R.Mackey]

My biggest issue with the NIST report is that the dislodgment of fireproofing is a necessary condition for their reasoning to hold. Nonetheless, they haven't demonstrated that the fireproofing would have been dislodged to the extent they use in their fire model. I have covered this on another thread so I won't get into it here. Mackey has pointed out that others have suggested that the dislodgement of fireproofing is unnecessary for collapse initiation. To be honest, I haven't looked enough at other arguments yet.

Sure. We discussed this recently, and I of course agree that NIST's method is awfully coarse. Also NIST's results seem excessively sensitive to this effect.

My other issue is the lack of an explanation for WTC7. Some day, maybe.

Scope creep. Some delay is inevitable. Tell you what, if the draft isn't out by end of calendar year, I'll join you on this issue.

To answer Mackey, the parts of the "Official Cover-up Story" that I find questionable:

- Bush administration's foreknowledge and lying about it
- no one was held accountable
- the administration interfered with the congressional inquiry (something to hide?)
- the administration interfered with setting up the commission (something to hide?)
- the commission failed to interview potential whistle-blowers
- the commission was convinced that NORAD was lying but didn't do anything about it

Those are all, to my mind, perfectly reasonable questions (except I think the Commission did react to NORAD's inconsistencies, within their extremely limited powers). I don't think any of this is going to lead us necessarily to "Inside Job," but I think we can all agree that some CYA occurred, and should be evaluated.

There's probably a few more things, but this should really be on another thread.

Agreed. I was just looking for a quick rundown. Your reply is quite sufficient and reasonable; if there's need for further discussion it should be split.

 

[roundhead]

Very complete.

I echo R.Mackey's question; What room is there for anything other than the interpretation that the towers fell because freaking huge jetliners hit them?

At some point Wm. of Ockham's maxim surely enters into this?

Hey, this is my very first post in this forum. Might as well have it be "common sense" based.


As even NIST and others have stated that dislodged fireproofing was the culprit behind WTC1/WTC2 collapses, it makes sense to me that the plane impacts were a non factor, so to speak.


Let me explain what i mean.
In other words, if in some way a construction crew had went in the towers, knocked off the exact same amount of fireproofing, did the exact same structural damage that occured, then set a fire that reached the same temps in all locations for the same duration as on 9/11, the towers would have fallen just as they did, correct?

Like having a finger cut off by a radial saw or snipped with a pair of dykes, the end result is inevitable. You lost the finger, or in the correct context, both buildings.

 

[BenBurch]

Gregory,

Hi! I think it comes down to fireproofing too, but I would like you to consider a few things;

1. A truss can fail without fireproofing having failed along its whole length. If you remove fireproofing from one member in one section of a truss, and then a fire heats that section to the standard 600C failure level, then instead of the whole truss sagging and redistributing its load under tension, the very fact that the rest of the truss is not compromised means that it will actually fail at that point with a break in one or more elements of the truss. This can cause the remainder of the truss to sag or allow a twisting moment to distort the truss depending on which member failed.

2. IF the above occurs, it is >not< unlikely that the spray on-fireproofing, which on buildings up to the late 80s is quite brittle, would just come off the remainder of the truss in large pieces. I have only worked on buildings that late; might be that later buildings had the same stuff, but it was trivial to remove it to attach clamps to beams, and often large sections would come off while you were trying to cut through a small section.

3. Occupants of buildings often dislodge sections accidentally and just clean them up while doing things like putting in white noise systems and running other services to their cube-farms.

So, even if we had no aircraft damage to the fireproofing, none at all, it seems likely to me that some of it would have been compromised enough at the start, and would likely have been sufficient to doom the building.

Also, given the brittle nature of he material, and the likelihood that the building "working" over the years in the wind and diurnal heating cycles would have reduced the adherence of even undamaged sections of the material to the truss members, how could the aircraft impacts have failed to remove enough to cause the sort of truss failure I describe?

 

[Kent1]

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Comments are welcome.

Not bad. Overall well done Gregory.
One small point:

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and inter-granular melting on structural steel samples
I believe that thisis a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NISTalike.However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

Just a note but NIST does cover some of this as sample K-16.
p 229-233 NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps
The sample was from a perimeter column below floor 53.
There also has been other studies done on the oxidation.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
It seems judging from the data that the oxidation happened on the pieces while there were in the prone position after collapse in the pile. I have also had a conversation with Barnett on the subject, and he has come up with various likely solutions. But I certainly don't object to further research.

Best Scott

 

[Sabrina]

Hey, this is my very first post in this forum. Might as well have it be "common sense" based.


As even NIST and others have stated that dislodged fireproofing was the culprit behind WTC1/WTC2 collapses, it makes sense to me that the plane impacts were a non factor, so to speak.


Let me explain what i mean.
In other words, if in some way a construction crew had went in the towers, knocked off the exact same amount of fireproofing, did the exact same structural damage that occured, then set a fire that reached the same temps in all locations for the same duration as on 9/11, the towers would have fallen just as they did, correct?

Like having a finger cut off by a radial saw or snipped with a pair of dykes, the end result is inevitable. You lost the finger, or in the correct context, both buildings.

You're forgetting the vast amounts of structural damage caused simply by the planes' impact into the buildings; both buildings had roughly half of their interior columns affected, weakening them by anywhere from roughly 25-100% (depending on where the column was placed in relation to the crashes and which floor you're referring to), and in addition, had large, gaping holes punched in their exterior structure, so strictly speaking, a team of people doing what you posited would NOT have the exact same effect as the plane impacts. There would be extensive damage, certainly, but I don't believe the towers would have necessarily collapsed from simple fire alone. It's why we stress that there were several factors that led to the collapse, the main two of which are the holes punched in the buildings' structure and the unchecked fires that had ample amounts of fuel in the office furniture, supplies, and sundry items that could be found in the buildings after being sparked by the burning jet fuel.

 

[Blender Head]

First off, thank you for this letter.

Secondly, I was wondering if I could use your points (credited to you of course) for my video series on YouTube? If you wish to discuss this via PM I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[roundhead]

You're forgetting the vast amounts of structural damage caused simply by the planes' impact into the buildings; both buildings had roughly half of their interior columns affected, weakening them by anywhere from roughly 25-100% (depending on where the column was placed in relation to the crashes and which floor you're referring to), and in addition, had large, gaping holes punched in their exterior structure, so strictly speaking, a team of people doing what you posited would NOT have the exact same effect as the plane impacts. There would be extensive damage, certainly, but I don't believe the towers would have necessarily collapsed from simple fire alone. It's why we stress that there were several factors that led to the collapse, the main two of which are the holes punched in the buildings' structure and the unchecked fires that had ample amounts of fuel in the office furniture, supplies, and sundry items that could be found in the buildings after being sparked by the burning jet fuel.

I am not "forgetting"the damage caused by the planes. My scenario stated if the exact same damage was done as was caused by the planes.


"Roughly half interior columns damaged"...you better read the Nist report again, or for the first time, whichever applies. I think the figure was 13-15 percent of EXTERIOR columns, if i remember correctly.

I guess my biggest beef with the official explanation is the heat the steel saw, and for how long.

I used to work as a Field Engineer for a computer company as a systems troubleshooter. I have a lot of experience soldering circuit boards to make repairs. As such, i am aware of what the term heat sink implies, and how any temp offered to a portion of a given metal will "creep"along the path given it.

The towers were nothing if not a huge interconnected phalanx of steel. It seems to me heat applied to any given area would be wicked away quite easily. Of this i have no doubt. The longer and hIgher the heat in a given spot, of course, the more likely local damage could result.

When i couple this "heatsink" thought, with the KNOWN temps Nist reports (i include in this thought the fact 157 of 160 pieces of impact zone steel were subjected to 500 degree temps at most according to Nist) and add to it the known duration of the hydrocarbon fires that were present, it doesnt add up to steel failure in any way to me.

And frankly, i think fireproofing(a huge Red Herring) had zero to do with the outcome, one way or another. Until i see evidence of 1500-2000 degree temps in given zones for the duration of the fires before collapse, i find it VERY unlikely fire and fire proofing had anything to do with the demise of the towers.And even those unlikey tems could have been present for long, if at all.Way to much black smoke.

I wouldnt miss a wink of sleep tonight if i took my cheapest pot, put it on the stove, maxed the temp, and went to bed, of waking up alive in the morning with a perfectly usable pot.




Show me the heat

 

[R.Mackey]

The towers were nothing if not a huge interconnected phalanx of steel. It seems to me heat applied to any given area would be wicked away quite easily. Of this i have no doubt. The longer and hIgher the heat in a given spot, of course, the more likely local damage could result.

No, it won't. As noted hundreds of times, any blacksmith can demonstrate that a steel bar can be heated, at one end, to a working temperature, while the other end can be held in one's hand.

Heat transfer is also limited by length and cross-section. There is no reason at all to expect significant heat transfer more than a few meters away from the hottest steel.

And frankly, i think fireproofing had zero to do with the outcome, one way or another. Until i see evidence of 1500-2000 degree temps in given zones for the duration of the fires before collapse, i find it VERY unlikely fire and fire proofing had anything to do with the demise of the towers.

Show me the heat

The evidence exists. NIST has bales of steel heated so much that it can't even be tested via microscopic analysis -- this simply gets overlooked because it can't be identified where it came from. We also have a full-scale live test in NCSTAR1-5E demonstrating these temperatures. And we have reports of glowing structure from NYPD helicopter crews. It's there.

And... we're off-topic. Sorry Gregory, some of this is my fault.

 

[Blender Head]

"Roughly half interior columns damaged"...you better read the Nist report again, or for the first time, whichever applies. I think the figure was 13-15 percent of EXTERIOR columns, if i remember correctly.

Just so you know, Sabrina never said that:

both buildings had roughly half of their interior columns affected, weakening them by anywhere from roughly 25-100%

And you refer to exterior columns when Sarbrina mentions interior columns, unless your point was that since the outisde was relatively undamaged then the interior would be better off.

 

[BenBurch]

Roundhead. There is a REASON that heat sinks are aluminum and not iron. LEARN.

Now, back to topic.