Originally posted by Springer
The "Pull it" comment is a common phrase on the EAST Coast with firefighters, the two or three people you quote all mention they investigated
WEST coast. I have been told this by people who are close to firefighters on the East Coast. Beyond that I know nothing about the phrase.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regarding what she worked out: She calculated whether or not the fires that burned could have been hot enough to degrade/melt the steel enough
to cause it to fail.
Based on these calculations she determined that YES the fire would be hot enough, by a fair margin, to "melt the structural components of the
buildings. She did this using strict scientific method and precise calculus.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the post you reference quite a while back, and it blew me away. I believe it's in a thread entitled "Bombs in the
Towers: Conspiracy Fact" or something similar. That post which I read detailed the energy available to initiate a collapse. But this is why I was
asking whether she had made a post showing calculations of the energy sources and sinks of the collapse and destruction of a tower itself. The
initiation and the ensuing collapse are, in effect, two separate events.
There have been papers published assessing the energy output of the collapses, which appear to show that the potential energy contained in one cap
would be insufficient to a) destroy a tower to it's very foundation, breaking all those millions of assembly connections, welds and bolts, b)
pulverize all that concrete into median 10 micron-sized dust, and c) expand the pyroclastic dust cloud to that volume and at that speed. All of these
mechanical actions require energy, and if there's not enough energy available, the "work" simply can't be done. This is why demolition of
buildings severs the columns at multiple points throughout a structure and particularly at the base, because merely severing the top sections to make
a "crushing cap" is insufficient to destroy the building, and a partial collapse will result.
One paper, by Jim Hoffman
, states a 10-fold disparity (!) between the input
and output energies of the collapse, with the input being the PE not only of the cap, the planes and the fires, but also of the entire
. (Remember, we're talking about the collapse itself here, not the collapse initiation.) It should be noted though, that one variable
which may account for Hoffman's cited energy deficit is the RH of the concrete, which can vary by age of the concrete, efficiency of the
air-conditioning, cement type, ambient humidity on the day, and other factors.
Why am I harping on about this point? Because if the total PE in a cap, or even the entire building for that matter, is insufficient to produce the
effects observed, then that energy has to have come from somewhere else
. And the question is, where? Secondly, if it can be shown that one cap
was indeed enough to destroy a tower, when combined with melting the foundation columns as would be essential to produce such total collapses and as
is implied by the presence of molten steel, then that helps with narrowing down both the technique by which the buildings could have been brought
down, and the extent of the logistics problem. If Val has the time and the inclination, it would be awesome if she could put her
more-than-considerable talents into assessing this aspect, because this is one of the pivotal arguments raging in the 9-11 truth movement today, and
with Val on board, ATS is definitely up to the challenge.
Regardless of the amount of explosives it's still one HECK OF JOB even if you cut the amount of explosive in half. These buildings were HUGE
and very well built. The amount of explosives isn't so much the point as the SURVEYS required to select the EXACT points of the structural joints you
have to place the explosives for them to work. Then you have cut the concrete away to place the directional charges against the steel
re-bar. It's the re-bar you have to cut on order to drop the building and the concrete can't be in the way or it will insulate the re-bar from most
of the pressure from the explosive charges.
It should be noted here that the columns in the towers were not steel-reinforced concrete, they were all steel. And the majority of the columns that
were not able to be directly accessed were covered simply by drywall.
Is it possible it was done before the attacks? Sure it is. Is it likely? Not IMHO. People would have noticed all that work going
on....security professionals would have been all over people cutting into the support structures and planting EXPLOSIVES.
Again, this comes back to the importance of the method
and the logistics
issues. Second to this is the fact that Silverstein started
changing security and maintenance personnel as soon as he took over, and the fact that Marvin Bush was a director (I think it was) of the company in
charge of the complex security.
It's a HUGE mystery to me now that we have solid evidence that there was molten steel present at the site after 9/11.
That's the big deal in my mind.
I completely agree. This is the smoking gun that there is simply no debating. Below is the thermal imaging and data of the site 2 weeks after the
collapses. A real eye-opener:
Below is a link to an excellent and extremely thorough paper which you may be interested in. It comprises a quantitative and mathematical analysis of
the viability of thermite being used to destroy the base columns in the twin towers.
Anyway, just my $0.02
Thank you for your responses. It's nice to have a calm, rational discussion assessing the possibilities for once without the antagonism and ad
hominem attacks. And thanks again to you and SO for a great podcast.
[edit on 2005-11-23 by wecomeinpeace]