Loose Change - a must see

by **911 Eye Witness** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:54 pm

911 was an inside job. The Loose Change video has gotten many people to start questioning for the first time. It's not perfect, but it is verrry useful. It always gets a good response at public screenings. Loose Change is a 'must have' for any deprogrammer. Another effective video is Barry Zwicker's "Great Conspiracy, the 911 news special you never saw" (www.greatconspiracy.ca). It was even shown on Canadian TV. There are a ton of new videos out too that I haven't had time to screen. www.911eyewitness.com might be worth viewing among others. And not just 'cause of my user name. Is anything being accomplished with the longwinded detailed stuff? Or are those just deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic?

by **thoughtographer** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:59 pm

How many of you have actually melted metal before? I've done it occasionally over the years, and it's not as magical as you might think. Shit -- my friend does it pretty much every day to make a living, and he does it in a back alley in a city slum. You can do it with a propane tank, a large can, some plumbing fixtures and whatever refractory is cheap -- concrete would do in a pinch, as long as it's dry. It's harder to do without the modern fuel, but it's still pretty easy if you have some coal. How many engineer wannabes out there posting their pet WTC theories even understand the fucking venturi effect? How many even consider all of the possibilities? None is my guess, because they've stuck a pin in the map that represents their conclusions, and they're just trying to find the right angle to line everything up. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Loose Change is a 'must have' for any deprogrammer.<hr></blockquote> Deprogrammer? You're so noble. What are you reprogramming the empty holes with? Paranoia based on half-truths. You're no better than the fundies and clams. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/1/06 5:12 pm

by JD » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:19 pm

Answer is yeah. This "wannabe engineer" had a dad who had a welding business, and I've worked extensively in steel fabrication. (Not demolition!) We had a forge. So yeah, I've worked metal. And I'm not at all convinced I could melt large quantities of steel by a smoldering (low oxygen content) fire from kerosene + some old building materials. The key to getting high temperatures is to get the proper amount of oxygen in place. You need more than will feed in on its own - hence bellows are employed. (Interestingly enough not too much air - too much will cool things). OK enough talk of this; whose worked a forge, etc. The point is can smoldering fires RELIABILY take down WTC buildings (3 for 3 in one day?) That is what we are told to believe. My thought is - no this is not a reasonable thing to accept. Of course mini-nukes, pod planes, or any number of other tin-hat theories are not reasonable either. CD? Maybe, maybe not. Some interesting points to be made both for and against. Crazy-making, the whole thing makes no sense. (Oh PS - being a VP Engineering of a company worth over $100mm that I started with others from scratch - and having almost 20 years engineering experience - does that make me a "wannabe engineer" or "the real deal"? Rhetorical question - I don't really give a shit what anyone thinks - I KNOW and that's all that matters)

by **thoughtographer** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:33 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed [edit: stupid ezboard. I didn't try to post HTML comments.] "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/1/06 6:37 pm

by **thoughtographer** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:36 pm

Well, I wasn't fingering you, but thanks for speaking up. Financial worth won't impress me. Experience and a willingness to boast will only cause me to stop taking you seriously. A simple experiment using a small, partially hollow column (filled with air) with fuel burning at the top of the column will probably yield some interesting results. I know the dreaded "official report" discusses the venturi effect, so that means it will be dismissed outright by the 'noids as a piece of the puzzle. My point is that people need to stop trying to prove what they think happened, and examine what actually happened. I know that the subject has been tainted, but credentialed "researchers" and "college professors" with axes to grind and books to sell are only further poisoning the well. Experimentation yields RESULTS. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **Iroquois** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:37 pm

Dreams End, The point I was making about oxygen is that a thermite reaction needs a lot and it needs it fast. Locked in gypsum board or stuck to the side of a massive steel beam would not be remotely adequate, it really needs to be mixed together and in large concentrations. The idea that this happened at such an ideal rate and the resulting thermite reactions affected so many strategic points in the structure that it resulted in the collapse of the buildings is remarkable to say the least. This idea, according to Greening's paper, was first promoted years ago. There's a reason why it was dropped. If there was any merit to it at all, the NIST scientists tasked with the WTC collapse reports would have latched onto it like a drowning man to a life preserver, in my humble opinion. My point about aluminum was not limited to just high structures. Aluminum is used in many applications in homes, offices, schools, and industrial environments. Window frames, doors, diamond plate on walkways and other areas, appliances, furniture, wiring, other conduit, storage tanks and other pieces of industrial equipmen,...whatever. My point is that despite the fact that such places catch fire many times a day, this spontaneously occurring thermite reaction is not being reported as a problem. Here's what State Farm Insurance has to say about the dangers of aluminum wiring: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Copper vs. Aluminum -- The Test Results are in! Tests have demonstrated aluminum wiring has inherent properties that make it more susceptible to fires when it was not installed correctly. Here are some of the problems with using aluminum wiring to conduct electricity. * Aluminum does not conduct electricity as well as copper. An aluminum wire generates more heat. * Aluminum is more brittle than copper. Wire is more likely to break or crimp if it is brittle. Arcing can occur if a wire breaks or crimps. This can cause very high temperatures inside the wall or ceiling * Aluminum is more likely to corrode than copper. * Aluminum will oxidize if it comes in contact with moisture. This oxidation removes the pure aluminum and makes the wire thinner. A thinner wire creates more heat when electrical current is running through it. * Oxidation also causes the wire to expand, puts pressure on the protective plastic coating on the wire, and can cause the plastic to split. If any of these occur, arcing may result which can cause fires. * Aluminum expands and contracts more than copper. This puts additional stress at all connections such as outlets and switches. If these become loose, arcing can occur at these points. If contemplating buying an older home with aluminum wiring or updating a home with aluminum wiring, contact a certified electrician to gain their expertise and opinion regarding the dangers of aluminum wiring. <hr></blockquote> There's no mention at all of occasionally melting during house fires, mixing with oxidants, and spontaneously having thermite reactions. This is fairly crazy stuff, but I'd give Greening more credibility if he at least cited some scientific evidence to support his claims, rather than an anecdote from an obscure usenet forum.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:01 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by JD » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:14 pm

"Well, I wasn't fingering you, but thanks for speaking up. Financial worth won't impress me. Experience and a willingness to boast will only cause me to stop taking you seriously." The point is don't accuse people of being "wannabe engineers" when there are people that are participating here that STF are not "wannabe's". So you stop the insults about engineers and I'll stop the boasting, OK? And as per financial wealth not impressing (NOTE ALL THE QUALIFIERS) - acquisition of financial wealth honestly acquried via that individual's smarts and hard work is probably the strong indicator of intelligence and drive. So yeah, when someone's done well for themselves and I understand it was arrived at via a respectable route, I usually pay some good attention to that person. Financial wealth acquired via inheritance, dishonest means, or political ass-kissing does not fit into the statement above.

by **StarmanSkye** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:48 pm

Fourthbase said: See: "www.otis.com/otis150/sect...C5,00.html www.usatoday.com/life/sep...iths_x.htm Those are two unscandalous links. Read them as soon as you can. There's no way a jet fuel fireball raced down that shaft." Hmmm ... VERY interesting, but they don't invalidate the jet-fuel fireball info/theory. Each tower had 33 elevators occupying some 11-12 vertical tunnels, including a large freight elevator that went all the way up and down. In addition, and as I posted, the elevators were separated by nothing but double-panels of gypsum sheetrock attached to metal wall-studs. This would be a very flimsy barrier, prone to blow-thru breaching from impact-collision, enabling a large volume of jet-fuel to plummet through the utility races, mechanical spaces and elevator shafts -- the fuel would have mixed with air as it fell, essentially vaporizing in a diffuse-mist as it fell 70-stories or so, increasing temperature through friction until it reached an extremely volatile state and explosively-ignited -- whether by electrical short-circuit or static-electricity or hot/burning debris fragments -- and THIS fireball explosion would have caused an enormous overpressure blast-wave of expanding hot-gasses to shatter areas of the relatively flimsy sheetrock between adjoining spaces and floors as well as rupturing the nearest-affected elevator roofs and floors, as well as blowing-out doors and other room-space walls. IMO, it's this explosive fuel-mixture igniting that caused the basement and lobby damage Rodriguiz described, and accounts for the kerosene-stink the WTC 1 evacuees experienced even in the middle-floor areas. DBD said: "I can't believe I am reading this! Qutb an De and others seriously discussing "jet fuel"--it's nothing but kerosene and it simply can not melt steel, not ever. Even if they filled the entire elevator shaft with it, nothing would have happened to the steel." Aw, c'MON dbd -- an aluminum semi-cab and trailer will burn to the axles if one of its tires catches on fire -- once aluminum is heated to a certain temperature, it readily oxidizes and burns at 2467 C (6920 F) and spreads -- thereby becoming a dense heat-source to ignite other materials including metals ordinarily not considered combustible. A main factor here is particle density and size -- as even steel will burn in the form of fine steel wool fibers. In commercial aircaft accidents, it's not uncommon for wings and fuselage to get so hot they oxidize (burn). I think what is being overlooked here is how the WTC central-core elevator and utility shaftways worked as a massive chimney-forge to supply enormous amounts of oxygen to fires initiated by the jet-fuel fireballs which numerous witnesses have described -- There were thousands of tons of plastic wire-sheathing and insulation, plastic furniture and office equipment, doors and woodwork, ceiling panels and sheetrock and metal wall-studs, carpetting and painted-surfaces that would have initially been ignited on the impact-floors and via the central elevator-utility spaces, in addition to the aircraft frame and loquid-fuel that wouldn't burn until it had effectively become sufficiently vaporized by expansion-aereation. In addition, numerous volatile gasses were created and liberated by combusion of such materials as plastics and carpets and furniture, which then burned at even greater temperatures, in turn heating and oxidizing yet-other materials like electrical equipment and wall-studs and ceiling tiles -- we're likely talking about several-thousand degree temperatures that would have burned almost everything in contact with it, and providing the necessary heat-source to severely weaken the tower's central core and joist-connections. Great links, Qutb, re: USA-today and Physorgforum on WTC elevators. DBD, you said: "Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.' NO -- I don't agree. The contiguous central-columns above and below the burning-floors would have been a far-greater heat-sink than the perimeter columns and cladding. The greatest temperatures were likely in the areas closest to the central core with the draft-function providing oxygen for burning the sheetrock, wall-studs, ceiling panels and utility-materials. Please note: There were 33 individual elevators using at least 12 vertical pathway-spaces -- NOT one. I overlooked responding to this in my previous comment. DE: Interesting theory re: reactivity of plane's aluminum supported thermite-like burning -- that supports what I've been thinking about the elevator-spaces supporting inferno-type combustion. Good info: <a href="http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081.html#ZZ0">www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/s...1.html#ZZ0</a> PYROPHORIC METALS This section covers the pyrophoricity of combustible metals. Properties of various combustible metals are discussed as well as the conditions in which they become pyrophoric. Nearly all metals will burn in air under certain conditions. Some are oxidized rapidly in the presence of air or moisture, generating sufficient heat to reach their ignition temperatures. Others oxidize so slowly that heat generated during oxidation is dissipated before the metal becomes hot enough to ignite. Certain metals, notably magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, lithium, zirconium, hafnium, calcium, zinc, plutonium, uranium, and thorium, are referred to as combustible metals because of the ease of ignition when they reach a high specific area ratio (thin sections, fine particles, or molten states). However, the same metals in massive solid form are comparatively difficult to ignite. Some metals, such as aluminum, iron, and steel, that are not normally thought of as combustible, may ignite and burn when in finely divided form. Clean, fine steel wool, for example, may be ignited. Particle size, shape, quantity, and alloy are important factors to be considered when evaluating metal combustibility. Combustibility of metallic alloys may differ and vary widely from the combustibility characteristics of the alloys' constituent elements. Metals tend to be most reactive when in finely divided form, and some may require shipment and storage under inert gas or liquid to reduce fire risks. Hot or burning metals may react violently upon contact with other materials, such as oxidizing agents and extinguishing agents used on fires involving ordinary combustibles or flammable liquids. Temperatures produced by burning metals can be higher than temperatures generated by burning flammable liquids. Some metals can continue to burn in carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, or steam atmospheres in which ordinary combustibles or flammable liquids would be incapable of burning. Properties of burning metal fires cover a wide range. Burning titanium produces little smoke, while burning lithium smoke is dense and profuse. Some water-moistened metal powders, such as zirconium, burn with near explosive violence, while the same powder wet with oil burns quiescently. Sodium melts and flows while burning; calcium does not. Some metals (e.g., uranium) acquire an increased tendency to burn after prolonged exposure to moist air, while prolonged exposure to dry air makes it more difficult to ignite. . . . For spontaneous ignition to occur, the rate of heat being generated through oxidation must exceed the rate of heat removal by conduction, convection, and radiation (thermal). As the temperature of the material begins to rise, the rate of heat generation will often increase. The result is a "runaway" reaction which ultimately causes ignition. If the rate of heat removal exceeds the rate of generation, the material will cool and will not ignite. The rate of heat removal may be increased through physical contact with a thermally conductive surface, by rotating piles of combustibles to cool hot spots, and by circulating inert gases through the piles to cool hot spots and displace oxygen. . . . The specific area of a combustible substance is a measure of the surface area of the material exposed to an oxidizing atmosphere per gram of material and is expressed in units of cm{sup 2}/g. Materials which have a high specific area are more prone to heat and ignite spontaneously. For example, it was mentioned earlier that combustible liquids on fibrous material pose a spontaneous fire hazard. This is because the fibers of the material allow the liquid to spread out over a larger surface area, allowing more contact with oxygen. Therefore, porous combustible materials are more likely to ignite than tightly packed solid materials. --unquote-- Despite my best efforts, I've been underwhelmed by the readily available information on the net that takes into full-account the likely involvement of the WTC tower's void-spaces (elevator, utility, mechanical/stairway spaces) as a chimney providing a huge volume of oxygen from the vast underground spaces that connected all the WTC buildings in the block (excluding WTC 7), and which ventilation-ports included truck-ramps and elevators and subway-passageways. The underground concourse-system was a HUGE space -- obviously, since most of the 200,000 TONS of mass-material comprising the two 1300 ft. towers fell-into and filled these spaces with their mostly finely-crushed, pulverized components. <a href="http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm">www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...Center.htm</a> -- This is a brief, good overview of the FEMA/NIST conclusion re: WTC 1 and 2 collapses, which I think everybody with an interest in what happened to the towers needs to at least be familiar with, in order to effectively critique and analyze what happened or to propose alternative theories. What I find esp. suspicious is the offhand reference which minimizes the significance of the core-spaces as flues feeding the fires. (Thoughtographer refers to this as 'venturi', but I think it's more appropriate to think of them as chimneys or flues venting a forge). FEMA/NIST does acknowledge that fires likely spread to other floors through these compromised spaces, and possibly goes into greater detail in their full reports. But key here is that a decision was made when designing these towers that the elevator, utility and mechanical spaces would be compartmentalized by double gypsum panels on metal studs giving a theoretical 2-hour fire protection-rating instead of reinforced concrete walls (to save weight) -- while tenant-space walls were single-layer gypsum filled with soundproofing-insulation giving a one-hour fire rating. IMO: A conventional, non-CD origin for the WTC collapse-mechanism doesn't minimize the enormous crime of top political/military officials who were complicit in LIHOP or MIHOP -- and using impassioned arguments or sloppy-thinking instead of the most rigorous critical reason to promote one's personal theory isn't useful and is NOT convincing. And too, again -- What's with the insults and cheap-shot slams? That doesn't accomplish anything but show one is willing to be boorish and smugly disrespectful and intolerant of other's opinions. It shouldn't have to be said that such intimidation has NO place here, folks. 911 Eyewitness has posted here 6 times and gets insulted for suggesting Zwicker's Great Conspiracy is a useful debunking tool -- Ger Chrissake he's not saying he personally is a vested-interest REprogrammer! Sheeeeit .... Starman

by **Dreams End** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:13 am

well, my "html comments" went into the same thing. I'll only repeat that thermite is an oxidation reduction reaction..it gets it's oxygen from the other compound, such as iron oxide, or calcium oxide. Needs heat to kick it off, but doesn't need separate 0xygen. In fact, you can use thermite to weld under water: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>3. Why should one not allow the molten iron to come into direct contact with water? The contact of molten iron with water will mass produce hydrogen gas. This presents a large danger considering the fact that hydrogen gas explodes. One should take the precaution of removing all sources of water and open flames. 4. What are some practical uses for a thermite reaction? The thermite reaction has many useful applications. The first of which is the purification of metals. This has been done with various metals, including chromium, magnesium, uranium … etc. This reaction can also be used to quickly cut through or weld metal without using complex or heavy equipment. The thermite reaction can actually be performed underwater. The thermite reaction can also be used in combat as a grenade or a bomb used to burn through armor or fireproof barriers.<hr></blockquote> I posted the first part so you could see how explosions might also come about. The components of the ENTIRE reaction look like this: Fe2O3(s) +2Al(s) == Al2O3(s) +2Fe(l) All the oxygen comes from the (in this case iron) oxide. Another quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, when they are exposed to sufficient heat to ignite (usually by igniting with a burning magnesium ribbon, but can be done through other methods such as potassium permanganate and glycerine or a sparkler), they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (with iron (III) oxide, commonly 3000°C (5432°F) or more). Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source (such as air). Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment (it will burn merrily underwater, for example), given sufficient initial heat. This, combined with the extremely high temperatures generated, makes thermite reactions extremely hazardous unless appropriate precautions are taken.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Thermite">www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Thermite</a> Now, Iroquois's point about the conditions to bring this about seeming to be rather coincidental is a good one, especially when you take into account that the second tower collapsed. In the second tower, the plane was off center and whatever molten aluminum there was would not have hit the center shaft. If it was thermite that brought down one tower, are we to believe that some other conditions brought down the other tower in a similar amount of time? Seems unlikely, to me. So I don't know where that leaves us. But as far as the thermite needing oxygen, no that's not correct.

by **thoughtographer** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The point is don't accuse people of being "wannabe engineers" when there are people that are participating here that STF are not "wannabe's". So you stop the insults about engineers and I'll stop the boasting, OK?<hr></blockquote> I wasn't accusing anyone here, per se. I was actually just going off because I see so many people parrotting theories and engineering concepts that they don't fully understand. I can now see why you thought I was talking about you, but I honestly was speaking generally. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And as per financial wealth not impressing (NOTE ALL THE QUALIFIERS) - acquisition of financial wealth honestly acquried via that individual's smarts and hard work is probably the strong indicator of intelligence and drive.<hr></blockquote> Congratulations for being successful on your own terms. It still doesn't mean shit to me in this context. Boast away if it makes you feel good. I don't blame my failures on others, but I certainly give credit to those who have helped me succeed wherever I have. Humility does not preclude honesty, so I call them like I see them. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/1/06 9:42 pm

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:07 am

I've been busy all day, so haven't been able to look at this. I see there has been much stewing since then. Well, to make a long story short DE, I am saying that if indeed the almuninum did ignite on the inside of the building and reach those high temperatures causing raging fires, then it would be only logical that these fires would be blowing out windows and the heat and air rushing towards these holes as happens in actual events of this nature. Ask firefighters. My uncle is one and he will tell you the fires go where the air is and the heat follows. There was no broke windows, no melted aluminum siding and no damaged or compromised outside girders visible except at the impact holes--hence only small negligible fires on the inside, which professional firefighters believed to be so easily controlled they staked their lives on it. And these guys don't do that lightly. The molten metal which was visible for weeks after the attacks was indeed steel and this steel was not melted by aluminum fires but something far more powerful and highly directed. Being that I am not a demolition engineer, I can't tell you what. Obviously, if the plan was to bring those buildings down in less than 10 seconds, then the steel had to be melted and it was. Certainly the amount of aluminum sounds like a lot. But how many planes worth covered the outside of that building? Many thousands I would bet and not a bit of it melted? Yet still we are to believe that the steel on the inside "exploded" in the heat? Give me a break. You are fixated on this absurd theory to avoid the obvious question "Que Bono?" I will say it again: Usrael, Haliburton, Carlyle, Bin laden family, Bush family, Every fucking billionaire in the world. And who were the losers? those poor poor schmucks in their little stone huts trying to eek out a living on some stony god forsaken place in Afghanistan. We STOLE their meager little portion and sprayed them with depleted unranium. So Isreal can own the land and live in "peace". You are working so hard not to look at this. It is screaming the truth and the whole world hears it. When will you?

by **StarmanSkye** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:32 am

Re: To clarify: the 2nd tower (WTC 2, south) -- it wasn't hit 'indirectly'. -- True, the strike was off-center, but the plane made 100 percent contact, hitting the eastern-side of the south face and at an angle, with a significant volume of fuel blowing-out the eastern windows -- but then, physical damage to the core columns was much worse than that to the North Tower, since the South Tower's core columns were aligned north and south while the North Tower's were east and west -- this means that the columns were actually closer to impact in the South Tower strike, and the damage was more critical. In the North Tower- 6 core columns were severed and 3 were seriously damaged, while in South 10 were severed and 1 was seriously damaged (according to FEMA/NIST); In the North Tower, 35 perimeter columns were cut and 2 damaged, and 43 core columns had their insulation stripped off, while in the South Tower, 33 perimeter columns were cut and 1 damaged, and 33 core columns had their insulation stripped off (same sources). Both, with additional info, sourced here: <a href="http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm">www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...Center.htm</a> The official reports, substantiated by witness observations, detail the South Tower's eastern wall above the damaged floors bowing at least a meter outwards as the floor trusses presumably weakened and sagged (probably pulling-off their truss seats welded to the 52 inch spandrel plates connecting the perimeter columns) and, during the last ten or fifteen minutes before collapse, actually leaning over at a several-degree angle, with windows and debris falling several feet away from the building's eastern base and victims falling or jumping likewise. Now -- Despite what I see as evidence for a mechanical collapse triggered by major truss-failure at the heavily-damaged floors severely weakened by fire, this still doesn't account for the near free-fall speed of collapse -- that's a big problem I STILL can't get a handle on -- or the huge volume of superfine-particle pulverized concrete-and-gypsum that some researchers claim would require up-to 1/3 of the available potential-energy of gravity (although I can speculate static-charges may have aided the dust-cloud expansion -- but I haven't seen this discussed anywhere). Another thing I can't find hardly anything on are detailed descriptions of what actually happened as the towers collapsed -- 'shock cocoons' that bizarrely shielded people in pockets of relative calm while immense 3 to 9-ton-per-sq. inch pressures caused destructive chaos literally feet away, blast-pressure waves that traveled at 120 mph, and downblast theories -- I've only found mostly incidental comments by author/forensic archeologist William Pellegrino from his work at Ground Zero and his book Ghosts of Vesuvius. I may end-up having to buy his book. (I'm mesmerized and enchanted by this enormously cross-disciplinary field -- I've always resisted primary-focus specialization and therefore cultivated a broad-based neo-Renaissance range of skills, experience and interest). Since Pellegrino and a small group of vulcanologists were working at Ground zero precisely to better understand the WTC towers collapse, his work may well be vital to anyone engaged in dedicated investigation of all of the forces and factors that actually brought the towers down. It's like *some* folks pooh-poohing questions about the anomalies of the Pentagon strike, who don't even have a basic grasp of what the official theory IS. Starman ****** <a href="http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=2093">www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=2093</a> --excerpt-- In his latest book, GHOSTS OF VESUVIUS, Dr. Charles Pellegrino incorporates “downblast theory” to explore and compare the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79 to the Twin Tower collapse columns of 9-11. As a renowned forensic archaeologist, scientist, and family member of a 9-11 victim, Dr. Pellegrino was invited to work at Ground Zero by the National Guard. It was there that he began applying the principle physics of volcanic downblast theory in an effort to someday save the lives of people living near volcanic hot spots. His research ultimately led, along the way, to the vindication of Ladder 4’s crew. Using state-of-the art forensic archaeology, Pellegrino delves into the final days of the fabled Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum – which were obliterated by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. He also discusses the bizarre physics that were mimicked in the ensuing catastrophes of Hiroshima, the Titanic, and the collapse of the Twin Towers. In studying Mt. Vesuvius, Pellegrino and his colleagues eerily predict that the volcano, which erupted with the force of over 1000 Hiroshima atomic bombs, will almost certainly erupt again within ten years. The kinetic force of the WTC collapse columns, on 9-11, was 1.6 kilotons. This is a figure that cannot be too often repeated: Lower Manhattan experienced ten to fifteen percent of a Hiroshima, that day. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starmanskye>StarmanSkye</A> at: 4/1/06 10:59 pm

by JD » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:50 am

Thoughtograper. Don't put people down. You'll notice I've not put you down. Have I ever said anything bad about you? Or anything that could be remotely interpreted to be bad about you? And for the record I haven't boasted either. Just told you who and what I am. Matter of fact, founded company worth XX, engineer for XX years. Yeah, its a good story. If telling you I'm a successful engineer so don't call me a wannabe is boasting to you, well sorry. You missed the point. And you put me down again by saying I'm boasting. A few times now. Apology? Hey an apology followed by a "but" or a "I was just" isn't an apology. At least that's what I was always taught. Whatever, I guess no matter what I say you'll just say more shitty things about me. Please know I won't be returning the favour. Interesting how this internet forum world works. With name calling and such it's hard to get and keep constructive learning dialog with people, isn't it. Is there the digital equivilent of a Robert's Rules of Order?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:52 am

<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html">911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...lumns.html</a> Just look at the pictures in this article. NO DAMAGE TO SOUTH TOWER CORE COLUMNS core was virtually untouched. By following the trajectory of the impact hole and exit hole, we can see the central columns were virtually untouched. See this from Jim Hoffman:<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html">911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...lumns.html</a> < ^ > 9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h .com .wtc7.net 9-11 Research Home Analysis New York City collapsing buildings other high-rise fires other collapses WTC 1, 2 collapses design parameters role of fires fire severity effects on steel collapse features explosive events demolition squibs frame shattering concrete pulverization dust volume steel shredding symmetry mushrooming speed of fall proofs speed of fall volume of dust breakup of top collapse theories column failure theory truss theory demolition theories basement bombs distributed explosives directed energy radiant projectiles thermobarics simulations Building 7 collapse controlled demolition WTC 6, 5 holes Pentagon assault location video frames witnesses conclusions pre-impact damaged damage pattern aircraft debris explosive detonation airliner approach theories Eastman Bart attack from the air NORAD stand-down flight mysteries phone calls theories suicide pilots home run system flight program bumble planes Flight 93 shoot-down Won-Young Kim perpetrators intent minimized fatalities maximized shock conspiracy Attack Scenario 404 official actions evidence destruction investigation prevention 9-11 anomalies historical precedents Search Site Guide Resources Materials Essays Letters Papers Talks About Contact Contribute V 1.065 Copyright 2003-2006, 911Research.WTC7.net site last updated: 3/28/06 fair use notice Background Attack Aftermath Evidence Misinformation Analysis Memorial The Column Failure Theory Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles Any explanation of the total collapse of the towers would have to account for the collapse of the columns extending the height of the towers. The column failure theory maintains that fire stress to the columns, combined with structural damage from the crashes, was sufficient to level the towers. The column failure theory was rolled out days after the attack to replace the claims of "structural engineers" on the day of the attack that the jet fuel had melted the towers' steel. It requires that all of the columns on a story reach temperatures of 800Âº Celsius, well below the over-1500-degree melting point of steel. At 800Âº C, the steel would lose about 90% of its strength and the weight of the building above would cause the columns to buckle, and the top to begin to fall, according to the theory. Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument. Actual Conditions Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions. FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower's perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower's broken. The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure. Structural Damage The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage. People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms. The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns. The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage. Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall. Fire Severity The fires were not nearly hot enough to significantly soften steel in either tower. The fires in the South Tower were small compared to other serious high-rise fires, and were diminishing at the time of its collapse. In both towers, the smoke darkened a few minutes after the crashes, suggesting that most of the jet fuel had burned off. Smoke from the South Tower never lightened. Dark smoke indicates oxygen-starved fires. In both towers, there were no visible areas of fire extending to large portions of multiple adjacent floors. Hot fires would have to simultaneously cover several entire floors to have any chance of heating the columns to 800Âº C. The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the South Tower, and never spread to the other side of the building. Strong fires tend to spread. The exterior columns were not visibly glowing red-hot, as they would have had they been above 700Âº C.

Loose Change - a must see

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

WANNABE Speaks

Re: WANNABE Speaks

Re: WANNABE Speaks

Re: Greening's thermite hypothesis

Re: Greening's thermite hypothesis

Nice to not be fingered

Re: Tattletale blond tells real story

Re: Tattletale blond tells real story

Re: Tattletale blond tells real story

re dreams end first "rediculous"

Re: Tattletale blond tells real story

Don't Put People Down

damage light in south tower. LITTLE TO NO DAMAGE

Who is online