The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 21
53
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
This copied version you can copy/paste from :
Mirror-Link to the 2006 William Tahill Report.

And this is the original report, his secured PDF, you can't copy from :
Original 2006 William Tahill Report.
At page 101 / 178 from this 2006 report by U.K. academic William Tahill, B.A. :


Another way of looking at it is to estimate the kinetic energy of the towers as they fell.
Professor Cahill (q.v.) put this as "180,000 tonnes moving at 120 mph " which is 2.6 x 10>11 Joules.


Then you must split off the resulting lateral vector component which has a considerable lower resulting air speed. WTC towers windows could withstand prolonged 150 mph wind-speeds.


4. The investigation and analysis of continual fallout from the WTC site in the weeks following the collapse. This was carried out by the DELTA Group led by Dr. Thomas Cahill, expert in atmospheric sciences at the University of California Davis.


Those who understand my sig-LINKS seismic evidence for explosive used at WTC 7, read William Tahill his chapter 4,
The Seismographic Evidence at page 85-108 / 178.

Good read, and an extensive 24 pages explanation, solutions for equations, and their calculations.

- - - - -

For the huge amount of guests; the non member-ATS forums readers, who thus don't see my signature and the three 9/11 evidence LINKS in it, until they get over their personal obstacles, blocking them from applying for a free ATS membership; here they are :

LaBTop's three Signature LINKS at the bottom of each of my posts :

WISDOMwillWIN--->9/11=a LIE !--->EVIDENCE--->LIST

And my long EVIDENCE link exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE, now includes seismic WTC twin towers articles by Dr Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau, that perfectly fit my own WTC-7 seismic research from 2005-2006.

Not one OS-Truster was able to come up with solid counter-arguments against any of those many, posted by me, evidence pieces, proving that 9/11 was more than what the official story wants us to believe.

I'm in the process of checking their whole forum if also the Freeforum posters could not refute them.
Because I have read quite some material from them in the past years, and found nothing of that kind.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
97,895 tons of Twin Tower materials comes out of this sum-up by Matt Nelson, for one tower :


Before construction officially began in 1966, one Port Authority of NY engineer said, "the rock-based foundations will carry 1.25 million tons of superstructure load."
(Martin S. Kapp, "Tall Towers Will Sit on Deep Foundations," Engineering News Record, July 9, 1964.
Online at -911research.wtc7.net... )
From the same article: "Mr. Kapp is Engineer of Soils in the Port of New York Authority's Engineering Department, which designed the foundations for the World Trade Center."
According to the various figures provided after 2001 above, it would seem Mr. Kapp's assessment was accurate.

Building materials were known with a great deal of accuracy. For instance, take another quote from the October 9, 2001 NY Times article:

""The assessment came with a striking level of detail. It estimated that each of the twin towers contained 3,881 tons of steel reinforcing in the concrete floor slabs; 47,453 tons of vertical steel columns; 8,462 tons of aluminum and glass on the exterior walls; 2,531 tons of various ceiling materials; 4,218 tons of flooring; and 31,350 tons of partitions or walls.""


97,895 Tons in total.
Of which only 4,218 tons of flooring. With 3,881 tons of re-bar steel in it.

That's not 180,000 tons, moving at 120 mph, like Prof Cahill said. It's less than 100,000 tons. Nearly half in fact. For the WHOLE north tower.
And then you have to subtract all the launched-outwards/peeled-off perimeter columns and the concrete blasted out- and -upwards.
However, we know the height and thus the distance the rubble fell, we know the collapse times for each tower from the seismic records. Which roughly gives you the mean vertical speeds in mph for each of them.
Then you have to calculate the lateral compound of that speed, which is a lot smaller.
Then you arrive at p o s s i b l e horizontal wind speeds by compression, lots less than the 150 mph the windows could withstand for longer times.
That air-pressure would also bleed-off UPWARDS through the blasted-open floors and could not have shattered those FEW or just ONE window(s), at their far-below collapse fronts positions, where those still resulting >70 mph squibs were appearing. Which means an horizontal air pressure of far more than 150 mph must have shattered that/those window(s) first, then resulted in >70 mph left-over air pressures. Which bleed off over about 20 to 40 meters each because of air friction.

What OS Trusters in fact propose is a huge air pressure build up throughout the whole tower's floor spaces under the collapse fronts.
Such a pressure leading through air conditioning canals only, is contradicted by the logic applied to that theory by me in one of my above posts.

Further on, we can find Gregory Urich his calculations for the North Tower TOTAL mass as about 317,500 short tons :
the911forum.freeforums.org...

But it was only a small part of it that could have been acting as a pile driver force. The top 15 floors for WTC 1N.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
shoestring911.blogspot.nl



Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]

--snip--

• Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]

• At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]

• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]

• In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]

• He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]

• He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]

• The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]

• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar --an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.


The problem I still have with all this local evidence for extreme high temperatures of steel-recoveries at the WTC's debris piles and at its scrap yards, in combination with solely the use of TB's, is the very short duration of extreme temperatures when a TB explosion occurs.
I can't imagine a five-eighths of an inch thick flat top of an I-beam heating up so fast by a TB bomb that it evaporates.
It takes time to heat up a steel beam or column. And steel conducts heat away from the source.

That's why I would like to make a distinction between bend, molten, warped or even evaporated steel parts, and sheared-off ones like the bolts inside the core columns both ends, all found after the collapses.
The latter occurs after explosions.
The former occurs in a foundry, such as described and seen by numerous WTC Ground Zero debris piles workers and visitors.

A possible explanation for such a "natural" occurring foundry effect could be the charcoal pit explanation. There was just enough fresh air (oxygen) seeping in at the bottom of those compressed office equipment holding debris piles, compacted inside the 6 basements deep cavities, via the Path Train tunnels, to form such localized long lasting "foundries".




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
QUOTE
wmd_2008 : The Windsor tower was not the same construction as the Twin Towers


The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
Building Type: 106 m (32 stories). Commercial.

The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.



The steelwork DID fail only due to fire and NO aircraft impact!!!

IT WOULD HELP IF YOU GUYS CHECKED FACTS INSTEAD TRUSTING CONSPIRACY SITES FOR YOUR INFO!
END QUOTE

Help yourself in the first place to not only depend on debunking websites.
Your arguments were already much earlier in this thread debunked. By me.
Pay attention to all the by me, bolded words in your above quoted texts.
And re-read the arguments I wrote weeks ago already some pages back about the same subject.

ALL the steel above the 17th floor was unprotected by insulation foam or whatever else, it was BARE steel.
That was the real reason why they decided to do extensive repairs on that Windsor Tower in the first place.

And those OUTER perimeter steel columns did not fail AT ONCE, as at the WTC, but progressively, SLOWLY collapsed, part by part, over a period of many minutes to an hour. Caused by the extremely more intense fires than at the WTC.

""The building was totally destroyed by the fire.""
NO, it was beyond repair after 18 hours of intense fire engulfed it totally.
Only the NON-INSULATED steel above the 17th floor collapsed SLOWLY, and ONLY at the perimeters.
The rest of the total Windsor Tower was still standing. Burned out, but not collapsed.


The WTC-1N steel at the first collapsing floor (94) which you can see happening in my just shown above, two animated GIFs, was PERFECTLY insulated (no plane damage there), and on top of that, those top 7 floors were definitely not totally ENGULFED in flames for more than 18 hours. Only sparsely, partly.
And only at most during about 30 minutes or less (office fires last no longer in a windy space), during that 102 minutes. One hour and 42 minutes.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You should read Jeff Prager's report too after reading William Tahill's report.

9 /11 An Analysis of the US Geological Survey Data - Proof of Advanced Fission Devices at the WTC - by Jeff Prager

As said before, I would like to hear from both gentlemen, if the use of depleted uranium (DU) cutter charges at the WTC's would have resulted in the find of the same lock-stepped nuclear fission products.
Since DU is a by-product of nuclear fission reactors, and thus contain the same lock-stepped products.

DU-lined cutter charges would have quite an heavier impact on those huge steel core columns than the standard copper-lined cutter charges.

I would like to state that the finds of both researchers in fact prove the use of DU in the explosives used to bring down all three WTC towers.
There exist also DU filled TBs. Used as thinly-conically shaped-charge cutter charges, to cut extremely thick steel.
Like the military wanted to use at enemy structures : bridges, tanks, bunker doors, headquarters steel columns, ships, submarines etcetera.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

No, I am still open to discussion. And did not conclude decisively anything, I added some doubt.
You missed again some words indicative of doubt :
1. expect
2. suppose
3. probably

Selective reading problems indication.



The problem here is that you SHOULDN'T be discussing it.

You don't now how to correctly analyze it, but you think your opinion should carry some weight.

Dunning-Kreuger abounds in everything you do.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.


Nothing that I quoted from you had anything to do with any calcs.

It instead addressed your inability, or refusal, to understand what I endorse. Look. I can tell that English isn't your primary language, and so there may be a speed bump there for you. But at some point, I have to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and call things how I see it.

Your arguments are so weak that you are doing your best to try to get me to defend some ridiculous straw man that you are trying to set in place. IOW, you are a dishonest debater using the dishonest tactics of an obvious liar.



Then you would have seen the radio-mast and roof line still standing IN PLACE


See? This is a perfect example of you using a straw man. A dishonest tactic of a liar.

That whole paragraph attempts to give the impression that I endorse the early, and wrong, hypothesis that FEMA put out that the collapse initiation was a result of floors collapsing first, which led to long unbraced column lengths, which then buckled. IOW, a "pancake" initiation.

I do not endorse that. I endorse column buckling as the initiator. Column buckling means that the radio mast and roof line, etc.... fall. Just as is observed.


Then you would not have seen the following :







It looks exactly as I would expect, given that I endorse column buckling.

Here's where you might be missing the plot of what I endorse: after the start of the global collapse, and after a single story fall, columns will not line up to give any resistance to any falling mass. That was Tony Szamboti's contention, and he got laughed at everywhere he went, including truther forums, and for good reason.

My statement has always been that after a single story drop (which takes what... .3-.4 seconds?) the resistance is provided by the floors, since stuff falls on floors... including the the entirety of the upper block.

I really can't explain my position any better. It should be clear after this. Any more statements misrepresenting what I endorse will be reported as trolling.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.




Let's see if you're able to do this yourself.

You claimed that it would be possible to lift core columns up a foot to break their connections through the use of TB's.

Let's see some numbers that back this up.

What are the TB's acting upon?
What surface is transmitting the "up" force onto the core columns?
Are they strong enough to transmit that force?
Are their connections strong enough to transmit that force?
How big must the TB's be?
What is their fuel/oxidizer?
What is the shock wave propagation speed?
How loud would it be?
How would TPTB make them quieter?

No handwaving about unknown technology is allowed.

Either bring some answers or be disregarded as a crackpot.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

DU-lined cutter charges would have quite an heavier impact on those huge steel core columns than the standard copper-lined cutter charges.

.



Why on God's green earth would anyone use depleted uranium instead of copper?

Yes, DU is heavier than copper, but that doesn't matter. The shape charge results in compression of copper until it gets hot enough to form a hot plasma. The hot plasma does the cutting in a somewhat similar way that a regular oxy-acetylene cutting torch does - it heats the steel and blows it out.

Are you under the impression that the DU/copper is propelled while still in its solid state into the steel? Under these circumstances THAT would make sense, for the same reason that DU shells are used as antitank rounds. They would be heavier and denser than copper.

I can only surmise that you are totally unfamiliar with how things work....



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Sorry LAbTop but YOU miss the whole point of the Windsor Tower post YOU and others like you say that a steel frame can't collapse only due to fire many on here with your belief post the Windsor Tower picture as evidence of that.

So lets break it down into simple terms for you and the others.

The MAIN structure of the Windsor Tower is a REINFORCED CONCRETE frame with REINFORCED CONCRETE INTERNAL COLUMNS.


The building totaled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns


Were the Twin Towers constructed that way ? NO

Windsor Tower Floor Construction


. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction


Were the Twin Tower floors this construction ? NO

Did the Twin Towers have internal columns on the floor slabs ? NO

Now was the steelwork of the Windsor Tower impacted or Damaged at the time of the fire ? NO

Did that steelwork COLLAPSE only due to fire ALTHOUGH it was not IMPACTED or DAMAGED ? YES


The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.


So can a fire ONLY, cause UNDAMAGED steelwork to collapse YES.
edit on 22-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
53
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join