Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[lapman]

Daryl heard a clap of thunder and a second later the bottom floors busted out and the building followed after that. Allowing a second for the sound to get to him, the explosion occurred about 2 to 3 seconds before the global collapse began.

Wow, you expect someone that is running for his life to have stopwatch accuracy. Those "2 seconds" could have been any amount of time.

 

[T.A.M.]

Abstract

Background : We describe the surgical response of two affiliated hospitals during the day of, and week following, the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center in New York City. The city of New York has 18 state designated regional trauma centers that receive major trauma victims. The southern half of Manhattan is served by a burn center, two regional trauma centers, and a community hospital that is an affiliate of one of the regional trauma centers. This report accounts for the surgical response by a regional trauma center (Hospital A, located 2.5 miles from the World Trade Center) and its affiliate hospital (Hospital B, located 5 city blocks from the World Trade Center) on September 11th when two commercial jets crashed into the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center mall.

Methods : Hospital A maintained a concurrent log of patients received during the first 5 hours, the first day, and the first week after the disaster which was kept by the Surgical Triage Officer. The trauma registry completed and verified this data by September 18th. Hospital B collected its data by hand counting and verification by chart review. Both hospitals, A and B, had established disaster plans that were implemented.

Results : Nine hundred eleven patients were received by two affiliated hospitals from the World Trade Center attack. Seven hundred seventy six patients (85%) were walking wounded, sustaining mild inhalation and eye irritant injuries. One hundred thirty five (15%) were admitted with 18 (13%) of these undergoing surgery. Twenty two of the 23 transfers were from the community hospital to specialized orthopedic or burn centers. Of the 109 patients admitted to Hospital A, 30 were to the surgical service. The mean ISS score of these patients was 12. There were 4 deaths (within minutes of arrival at the hospital) and 6 delayed deaths (day 1-14). Excluding walking wounded and DOAs, the critical mortality rate was 37.5% overall.

Conclusion : The September 11th, 2001, terrorist attack in New York City, involving two commercial airliners crashing into the World Trade Center, led to 911 patients received at two affiliated hospitals in lower Manhattan. One hospital is a regional trauma center and one was an affiliate community hospital. Eighty five percent of the patients received were walking wounded. Of the rest, 13% underwent surgical procedures with an overall critical mortality rate of 37.5%.

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtraum...BCRmz6zQHgqmfHd!-1035908147!181195628!8091!-1

notice something missing from the injury list (though I would like to read the entire article to get the exacts?

no mention of blast injuries or barotrauma, bot of which you WOULD SEE if explosives were used to bring down the towers.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Nine hundred eleven patients

Nine hundred eleven? 9/11? Coincidence? I think not!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtraum...BCRmz6zQHgqmfHd!-1035908147!181195628!8091!-1

notice something missing from the injury list (though I would like to read the entire article to get the exacts?

no mention of blast injuries or barotrauma, bot of which you WOULD SEE if explosives were used to bring down the towers.

TAM

Yes, that reminds me that I went digging for exactly that information back in '07, and I didn't find a whole lot of it. Individual anecdotal reports of someone claiming that someone else's eardrums ruptured, that sort of thing was it, but nothing more. Nothing concrete, and for the 2 or 3 that I dug up back then, all isolated. Now, this is not to say that no cases of barotrauma occurred at all, but if the Twin Towers collapse was truly due to high explosives, I don't see how such reporting could be avoided. I know absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence, but I still note that there's practically zero reporting of such injuries in any of the publications I went digging through, and I think the lack of widespread cases is in fact useable data itself, not merely "absence of evidence". T.A.M., you'll recall my posting of that Morbidity and Mortality Weekly article (as an aside, what a macabre name for a publication). Like you said, it doesn't tell us definitively that there were no barotrauma cases, but I can't help but compare that report to this one from Emergency Radiology where barotrauma after the Madrid subway bombings were so obvious they were prominently mentioned. As noted in that article, barotrauma is classified as a primary injury from explosions, whereas "bomb fragments and other displaced objects" are classified as secondary. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting things, but when barotrauma is considered the primary sort of injury, and when the research behind such a classification extends back to World War II (my point being that there's much scholarship behind that conclusions), then I'd wonder why there's such a conspicuous absence of such reportage during what would arguably be one of the largest bombings in history i.e. the supposed "Inside Job" on the World Trade Centers. If you argue that the government suppressed the reporting, then you're finally talking about suppressing the work of non-governmental doctors and emergency care givers, since they were the data sources to begin with.

At any rate, I'm with you. I'd feel more comfortable if we could find some data that directly addressed the numbers and severity of barotrauma, but it just doesn't seem to exist. And if explosives truly were used, I don't see how the presence of such could go unnoticed; it would have to have raised a red flag among the very post-event researchers you and I have linked, as well as among their colleagues studying this data. Despite the axiom about "absence of evidence", I feel this lack of numbers is indeed significant.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Hey psik, why didn't NIST compute the mass distribution in their model? Just asking?

.
The NIST admits that the 70th floor of the south tower deflected 12 inches as a result of the impact even though it was 130 feet below the point of impact. So shouldn't the NIST have needed to compute how much energy went into the deflection of the building in order to figure out how much energy did structural damage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The NIST does not even specify the total amount of the concrete in the towers so I suggest you ask them to explain their inconsistencies.

psik

 

[twinstead]

Why do you expect NIST to specify the total amount of concrete in the towers? You seem to be obsessed with that.

I rely on experts in the relevant sciences to help me understand this stuff. What qualifications do you have that make me want to listen to you? Regardless, you'll pardon me if I get a second opinion, right?

 

[beachnut]

.
The NIST admits that the 70th floor of the south tower deflected 12 inches as a result of the impact even though it was 130 feet below the point of impact. So shouldn't the NIST have needed to compute how much energy went into the deflection of the building in order to figure out how much energy did structural damage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The NIST does not even specify the total amount of the concrete in the towers so I suggest you ask them to explain their inconsistencies.

psik

Do you really look hard? You looked at each page of NIST?

I know when I read 10,000 pages; I miss something and have to go back.

Did you miss it? BTW, you could estimate the concrete. Each floor was 4-inches thick with lightweight concrete (most likely with some ash filler, you know the Gage/Jones magnetic micro-sphere came from here), and 5-inch floors on the core.

There is 3-inch wallboard on the core columns; do you need the weight of 3-inches of drywall? All of the information you need can be estimated or lifted from other work. You haven not paid attention and may never find what you look for if you are just trying to attack NIST.

I have no idea the exact reference for this 4-inch, 5-inch floor stuff because now to me it is common knowledge. You lack of math is showing of you can't figure out per floor weights, there are so many hints. However, it could take a year to figure this out based on the fact you have not started but you have been crying for what seem ages. Action is the key, the Passenger on Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes and took action. You on the other hand took had 7 years to develop delusions and not take action to figure out the things that math can do for you after you research it.

You can estimate things and get close if you try, but crying about it constantly will get you nowhere. Since your conclusion is based on lack of knowledge you may have to settle for impact, fire, and collapse instead of the thermite conclusion delusion of Gage/Jones.

After you get the mass you will figure out this energy issue? So if you had the weights you could get a Pulitzer Prize and save us from Dick Cheney and Bush? Too late, term limits kicked in and they are out.

There is a place where you can post you tripe and cry more:

BreakForNews.com is launching a review and evaluation of the key
evidence that 9/11 was not planned and carried out by terrorists --
unaided by any outside agency, group or political interest.

What a great research place, they start with the conclusion of an inside job and spew crazy stuff. I like their why did the building with the 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact fall first instead of the 1300 pounds of TNT impact energy. GEE, GOT ME! Besides the amount of weight above the impact zone there are difference that make the difference. Then they spew how the fires were only smoldering not big; how disrespectful and dirt dumb stupid. BreakForNews is just for you. The moderator, the owner wants woo from you.

The best part is his logic~!

Minds are like parachutes
They only function when open

Or should it be more like this for 911Truth

Minds are like marriages
When open the best half leaves

Better yet

the minds of 911Truth are like parachutes
They open but fail to have the knowledge to stop the fall into the pit of ignorance

4 inches of concrete on the floors, 5 inches of concrete on the core floors. Lots of wallboard, and ceiling tiles, and spray on fire protection, etc, etc. Figure it out and correct NIST and get your prize.
Why have Gage and Jones not helped with this critical piece of the evidence against the bad guys? Who are the bad guys again? Who did 911? 7 years and no clue how much things weigh?

Gage should be notified, and they can help you. All those experts that Gage has in his organization to find the truth.

I remember I only had small groups to work projects, but Gage has hundreds to help on the project! Hundreds of experts who don’t have to ask questions, they can answer them because they are experts. Gage is your man.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, that reminds me that I went digging for exactly that information back in '07, and I didn't find a whole lot of it. Individual anecdotal reports of someone claiming that someone else's eardrums ruptured, that sort of thing was it, but nothing more. Nothing concrete, and for the 2 or 3 that I dug up back then, all isolated. Now, this is not to say that no cases of barotrauma occurred at all, but if the Twin Towers collapse was truly due to high explosives, I don't see how such reporting could be avoided. I know absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence, but I still note that there's practically zero reporting of such injuries in any of the publications I went digging through, and I think the lack of widespread cases is in fact useable data itself, not merely "absence of evidence". T.A.M., you'll recall my posting of that Morbidity and Mortality Weekly article (as an aside, what a macabre name for a publication). Like you said, it doesn't tell us definitively that there were no barotrauma cases, but I can't help but compare that report to this one from Emergency Radiology where barotrauma after the Madrid subway bombings were so obvious they were prominently mentioned. As noted in that article, barotrauma is classified as a primary injury from explosions, whereas "bomb fragments and other displaced objects" are classified as secondary. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting things, but when barotrauma is considered the primary sort of injury, and when the research behind such a classification extends back to World War II (my point being that there's much scholarship behind that conclusions), then I'd wonder why there's such a conspicuous absence of such reportage during what would arguably be one of the largest bombings in history i.e. the supposed "Inside Job" on the World Trade Centers. If you argue that the government suppressed the reporting, then you're finally talking about suppressing the work of non-governmental doctors and emergency care givers, since they were the data sources to begin with.

At any rate, I'm with you. I'd feel more comfortable if we could find some data that directly addressed the numbers and severity of barotrauma, but it just doesn't seem to exist. And if explosives truly were used, I don't see how the presence of such could go unnoticed; it would have to have raised a red flag among the very post-event researchers you and I have linked, as well as among their colleagues studying this data. Despite the axiom about "absence of evidence", I feel this lack of numbers is indeed significant.

Absolutely. I could not remember where your posting on this was (another reason to get that "best of" list up and running). It was quite thorough.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

The crane collapse was never intended to serve as direct comparison to a collapsing building,

Gravy was using it to explain the clap of thunder.

When connections begin to fail they will make loud noises,

Yes, noises - plural, 24 columns failing over a period of 7-8 seconds.

The witness's description can be explained by the collapse initiation as the first primary structural elements began to fail.

No. The collapse started about a second after Daryl heard the clap of thunder. Column 79 failed about 7-8 seconds before global collapse.

Like Gravy, you are ignoring that the collapse was a series of failures lasting 7-8 seconds, not a single failure.

Gravy's comparison of a single event was wrong!

The clap of thunder just before the collapse was an explosion.

 

[GlennB]

Like Gravy, you are ignoring that the collapse was a series of failures lasting 7-8 seconds, not a single failure.

Completely unlike a CD then ? Nice to see you're regaining your senses.

 

[Christopher7]

Gravy's comparing a progressive collapse to the sound of a crane snapping was wrong.

Why is it that truthers never get comparisons right?

If someone said "Compare the color of this cube to the color of this sphere"

a truther would say

"The shapes are totally different! You can't compare them!"

Gravy compared a single failure to a series of 24 column failures over a period of 7-9 seconds.

The events are entirely different! You cannot compare them!

You can't deal with the fact that your hero was wrong to make such a comparison so you-all try to double talk around it or put up long posts trying to bury it.

 

[lapman]

The clap of thunder just before the collapse was an explosion.

Then you should have no problem finding other examples of people describing the sound of a CD sounding like a clap of thunder. Oh wait, you have refused to provide any other non-9/11 example so I guess you will ignore this request as well. So much for you being "in search of the truth."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Gravy was using it to explain the clap of thunder.

Because according to you, any loud BOOM is the resulting sound from an explosive device discharging. Should I conclude using that logic that the crane came down because an explosion destroyed the supports?

No. The collapse started about a second after Daryl heard the clap of thunder. Column 79 failed about 7-8 seconds before global collapse.

So if I am following you correctly... the collapse resulted from a single discharge? I thought controlled demolitions relied on destroying all of the major supports to cleanly implode the structure and ensure no damage to surrounding buildings. Isn't "inside the footprint" a classic argument you guys spit out?

Like Gravy, you are ignoring that the collapse was a series of failures lasting 7-8 seconds, not a single failure.

So now you agree that this was a progressive collapse resulting from the failure of an important structural element? Like Glann, I'm glad you're coming to your senses, but I'm afraid this isn't helping your simile deficient case.

Gravy's comparison of a single event was wrong!

So you agree that not all loud booms are the result of explosives? Why do you not apply this same reasoning to WTC 7?

 

[Christopher7]

Completely unlike a CD then ? Nice to see you're regaining your senses.

Good point.

I forgot to say "NIST claims it was a progressive collapse occurring over a period of 7-8 seconds."

This does not match the video evidence which clearly shows the screenwall and west penthouse failing simultaneously.

In the NIST progressive collapse this takes several seconds.

The clap of thunder was an explosion, not the failure of a single column as Gravy claims.

Gravy was wrong. Nobody's perfect.

 

[Christopher7]

Then you should have no problem finding other examples of people equating the sound of a CD sounding like a clap of thunder. Oh wait, you have refused to provide any other non-9/11 example so I guess you will ignore this request as well. So much for you being "in search of the truth."

You are running away from the point here.

Gravy's claim that the clap of thunder was a column failing was wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I forgot to say "NIST claims it was a progressive collapse occurring over a period of 7-8 seconds."

Dishonest with a capital "D"
The entire duration of the collapse from the collapse of the east penthouse to the end of the collapse was in excess of 16 seconds. NIST notes through their time line regarding this; the penthouse collapse, and several seconds transpired before the exterior walls began to fail. Then several more seconds for the remainder of the building came down. Why are you twisting NIST's data christopher?

This does not match the video evidence which clearly shows the screenwall and west penthouse failing simultaneously.

See above

In the NIST progressive collapse this takes several seconds.

The clap of thunder was an explosion, not the failure of a single column as Gravy claims.

Again, wrong... and on top of that you lied... congratulations... You coul not have made it more obvious.

 

[Christopher7]

The entire duration of the collapse from the collapse of the east penthouse to the end of the collapse was in excess of 16 seconds.

Wrong. Read NCSTAR 1A pg 43 again. The 16 seconds includes the collapse of the floors that led to the collapse of column 79.

You are sidestepping the fact that Gravy's comparison of a crane failing to a series of 24 columns failing was wrong.

 

[beachnut]

...
... was wrong.

There were no sounds of explosives on 911 at WTC7, were there? What big clap of thunder are you talking about at WTC7? Do Gage and his failed group of A&Es edit out sound of videos of CD? Yes. Why?

Does Gage konw you are failing to support his ideas?

 

[twinstead]

You are sidestepping the fact that Gravy's comparison of a crane failing to a series of 24 columns failing was wrong.

So? You're been sidestepping the fact that your insistence that the WTCs were CD is wrong for months.

 

[dtugg]

Wrong. Read NCSTAR 1A pg 43 again. The 16 seconds includes the collapse of the floors that led to the collapse of column 79.

You are sidestepping the fact that Gravy's comparison of a crane failing to a series of 24 columns failing was wrong.

Have you contacted KSM's lawyers yet? How about the insurance companies that paid out billions of dollars for the WTC. They'll give you a percentage if you can prove fraud, you know.