If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

I must have touched a nerve, given my post merited 4 responses in a row from Howard.

Let's take it in order, shall we?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yes, they were commercial buildings. Very high end commercial buildings, and as such, I suspect that their internal security was probably better then most typical military installations, (no, not NORAD HQ, obviously, but your typical military base populated by typical military personnel and their families, yeah)

You "suspect" based on what? Sell your unsubstantiated dribble elsewhere. Your assertions are nothing more than pure fiction...and I dare say intentional disinformation.

The opposite is true... Even today, owners and property managers walk a fine line between providing enough security and too much security. Yes, I said too much security! The law cuts both ways in this regard. There has been a long standing concern in the commercial property industry that providing any security that exceeds industry practice, or beyond common areas into any tenant leasehold, places the owner or manager into potential legal jeopardy as a quasi-guarantor of the safety and security of tenants should anything go wrong.

Moreover, the mere five minutes of research it took me, proves to my satisfaction that little was really done with regard to pre-911 WTC security.

Here is a September 1, 2000 security trade article that describes the typical security fare employed at the WTC. I love the timing of this article because it is post the 1993 bombing and so very close to the 911 attacks.

Setting an international standard for security practice, Douglas Karpiloff of the World Trade Center displays a job-tested ability to adapt and grow...

For his career achievements, Douglas Karpiloff of the World Trade Center has been named Access Control & Security Systems Integration's 2000 Security Director of the Year. Karpiloff has proven his ability to adapt and grow, to bring to the WTC an exemplary security program that has become a worldwide model, to work effectively with upper management to implement programs and to keep himself, his staff and management poised for the future.

Karpiloff's domain is huge. The World Trade Center houses 45,000 tenant/employees, and welcomes 5,000 visitors and 800 trucks every day. More than 100,000 people shop at its mall complex each day, making it the third-highest-grossing mall on a square-foot basis in the United States...

Source.

Sounds like he's the guy, huh? Big job too... The article continues:

In the initial period following the headline-grabbing 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Karpiloff worked closely with Kroll Associates, outside consultants who compiled a threat assessment and security master plan for the WTC. The process sowed the seeds of Karpiloff's growth as a security professional. As he oversaw the implementation of the master plan during the next seven years, he was frequently asked to relate his experiences and share his insight.

Oooooooooo, I like master plans.....

The security program

Notable among the security improvements at the WTC has been state-of-the-art security in the parking garages...

Perimeter security is accomplished by 250 10,000-pound planters, a movable gate for emergency access into plaza areas...

In the past three years, as the permanent capital improvement program nears completion, the extensive CCTV system has been integrated with both the perimeter and lobby access control systems...

Jump-over protection is supplied by a system of motion detectors, alarms and CCTV cameras. To facilitate access control for employees, individual tenants have been allowed to use the same Motorola card readers at the doors to their businesses as they use to gain lobby access. This makes a one-card access control system possible, and is another example of how customer relations and security are coordinated at the World Trade Center...

A network of copper and fiber optics connects the lobby, parking and perimeter access control systems to a main file server at the Security Command Center...

The WTC has also acquired emergency power from the State of New Jersey through the mid-Atlantic grid...With the emergency power source from New Jersey, the WTC now has four levels of power...

The WTC boasts an action-activated, high-resolution color CCTV system of covert and overt pan/tilt/zoom alarm-point cameras and the system's American Dynamics matrix switchers have been integrated with the security systems...

Remember, folks, this was the world's example of good security... Everything mentioned was designed to identify only those activities unauthorized by any tenant. With 800 trucks every day at the WTC, does anyone reasonably believe that explosives could not be brought into the building by a tenant or series of "tenants"?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Obviously you have never worked for a financial sector firm dealing with securities and investments. Or even a large Insurance company dealing with personal data and financial instruments.

You have no idea who you are dealing with. :shk:

That is the problem with message boards, isn't it? You never really know who you are talking to... Suffice it to say that I am VERY CONFIDENT my experience and personal knowledge are sufficient to address such issues.

In fact, it's my view that your comments demonstrate how very little you actually know or understand about the specific business entities you describe. Moreover, you also obviously know even less about how commercial realty functions in this country.

What exactly was your point. btw? ...that by virtue of the presence of such financial or insurance companies within the WTC that the buildings were somehow more secure? ...and beyond that of your average run of the mill military instillation? ( I so needed to be entertained... )

From the same article above:

Today at the WTC, for instance, individual tenants are responsible for the security to their offices. But their systems' readers and cards have been made compatible with the complex's systems.

Surprise! Security of the actual leasehold space was the responsibility of the tenants???? Who would have thought that???



(I love how the article continues with a huge bit about improving client relations....)

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, the property management firm is not expected to know the day to day activities of their tenants, and I never said that they did.

Well, then, on this point we agree.

...but then you say:

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They are, however, expected to know the day to day activities of anyone that could possibly affect the ability of those tenants to occupy their spaces (i.e. contractor’s potentially impacting potential building functions, making noise, etc.). That is exactly what their job is.

"Expected to know" and in fact "knowing" are two different exercises, don't you agree?

Moreover, I fail to understand how what you assert limits the owners, managers, or a series of tenants in the short term from doing what the hell they please to the physical space. The issue is one of access. In my long years of leasing Class "A" commercial properties, I have never once had an owner or manager review my daily activities within the physical space of the leasehold during the tenancy.

Really, Howard, how specious can you get?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by loam
Even after the previous bombing attempts of the towers, I sincerely doubt that pre-911 ANYONE devised a security plan for the buildings that would have included significant review of the activities authorized by any tenant.

Were all packages and freight brought into the building by tenants searched? I think not. We don't even do that now in a post-911 environment.

Are you sure of that? How do you know what types of security arrangements are in place in large potential targets? Do you have any specific data or facts here or are you just basing this on your opinions?

Based upon my experience, knowledge and opinion.

What accounts for your fabrication?

Let's consider some math...

Again, the article identifies the following:

- 45,000 tenant/employees

- welcomes 5,000 visitors a day

- 800 trucks every day

- More than 100,000 people shop at its mall complex each day

- a total of 450 security personel.

Were all 450 of the security staff dedicated to the function of ferreting out what was coming into the building? How vigilant do you think they really were with the 45,000 workers and the 800 trucks a day who visited?

The unadulterated truth of the matter is that the building was a sieve. Unless you were unaffiliated with any owner, manager or tenant, you really had a blank check to move in and out of the space with whatever your heart desired.

Pre-911, nobody would have checked the "good guys"... Your assertion that security would have been tighter than the average military installation is laughable beyond belief.

In fact, it's not even happening in the post-911 world.

Here is some good reading on the topic:

Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the World Trade Center. February 1998. PDF

United States Fire Administration. The World Trade Center Bombing: Report and Analysis

GAO. HOMELAND SECURITY: Actions Needed to Better Protect National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism

Building security is a balancing act: A security vs. convenience dilemma


Moving on...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again Loam attempts to distract with the trivia. Unless of course you are suggesting that the building was demolished with explosive mahogany tables.

Trivia??? Your response is so absurd, it merits no response. Can't handle the truth???

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Your office equipment is of course yours to control. The building supplies access to the base system. However, you may not penetrate core walls to access these systems yourself.

Nor will you be allowed to do any construction that is covered under building codes without securing the necessary permits.

In addition, with the presence of asbestos in the building, you will also be restricted from accessing the ceiling plenums.

Well, it was nice of you to identify what tenant's shouldn't do, but what does any of that have to do with their actual ability to do otherwise???

Are you suggesting that people who would "pull" or otherwise attack the towers (for whatever reason) would have been frustrated from such purposes merely because the items you mention may be found in a commercial property lease???

I'm impressed...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And yes, your carpenters, electricians and painters had better be union.

Got a problem with that?

If it is your political opinion, then no. But if you are stating as fact that unionized contractors were exclusively required, then that would be a lie.

Really, Howard. Championing labor issues now??? So out of your element...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by HowardRoark
THe idea that a bunch of workers were running around without anyone noticing or paying attention to what they are doing just doesn't fly.

That is precisely what is happening now in nearly every commercial building in the United States today. If you are there under the authorization of a tenant, NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING THAT HARD...and that is in a POST-911 world.

Wrong. That is not how large commercial buildings operate.

Well, if I must play your juvenile agenda laden game...

*in my best five-year-old voice*

NO, YOU"RE WRONG! I think I have made the case that you have no clue what you are talking about on this matter.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
From a liability standpoint alone, no property manager would ever allow a contractor unfettered access to a building with out knowing exactly who they are and what they are doing.

Again, WRONG! ...on two fronts... legal and factual... Happens every day...all day long...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No building engineer would ever allow a contractor access to building chases and structural systems with out knowing what they were up to.

*yawn* Same answer as above.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I realize that this may be difficult for people who have never worked in the real world to grasp, but nothing happens in a vacuum. Reality is nothing like a Hollywood screenplay. In a large building complex like the WTC, Everyone knows exactly what everyone else is doing.

No, Howard, your view would be the Hollywood version...

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Plus there is no accurate study showing that the force of the upper damaged part of the building contained enough energy to bring down the much greater lower undamaged portions completely and perfectly at near free-fall speed.

You must have missed this one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Greening actually backs up what he says with equations, something you find conspicuously absent from the Jones paper.

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Yes it is possible to get into a core shaft, but it is not easy. Furthermore it is pretty hard to move up or down without extensive safety gear.

Your diagrams proved nothing.

Why would "extensive safety gear" be an issue in a covert operation of this magnitude?

Whatever. You just admitted it's possible so discussion over.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Whatever. You just admitted it's possible so discussion over.

Ahhh, Lyte Trizzle in a new disguise!

Here to support your own arguement? Interesting tactic...

Originally posted by LeftBehind

You must have missed this one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Greening actually backs up what he says with equations, something you find conspicuously absent from the Jones paper.

haha!

Nice appeal to authority but....

No.

I did not miss Greening's hackjob.

In fact we have thoroughly debunked him and even sent him the debunk. We accused him of using incorrect variables for mass which DESTROYS all the results of his "equations". He replied to us and didn't even deny it!!

He simply claimed he was "adding & expanding" to his flawed paper obviously referring to his new "natural thermite reaction" hypothesis.

I am in direct connection with Professor Jones who has not only challenged greening to prove this but .......publically doubted that greening was even a professor!

Professor Jones is preparing a debunk of this new natural thermite reaction nonsense but here is the debunk of greenings first paper that a friend of mine prepared. Complete with equations and everything.

Here is the beginnin of my friends debunk with Greening's reply on the bottom:

Dr. Greenings paper did provide a scientific look into the collapse of the buildings by providing detailed calculations and referenceces. However here's where he went wrong....Those of you that may not understand chemistry nor physics or math for that matter would take his word as bond due to his qualifications. And that is normal as this is the man's life and it is what he does. However having carefully looked over his paper on the collapses, I noticed a fundemental flaw...He made a major assumtion that bascially ended up with missrepresented results.

Searching for the actual values of the twin tower masses, you'll get 500, 000, 000Kg from many sites. However, none of these sites tell you where this figure was taken from. If you were to rea d the 2002 fema and nist reports, you would get 200, 000, 000kg for each tower. So I ask the question...where does Greening and others that support his position get this figure from?

Before i go into the more acurate figures I wanna point something out to each of you. There are buildings taller than wtc....made of concrete and steel that do not even weigh in 500, 000 tonnes.


Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg


Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg


John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg


Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.


Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.


Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)

Both twin towers were built to be as light yet rigid as possible so as to withstand the extreme forces of the 100 + mphs. The buildings load was carried 60% by it's core and 40% by it's perimiter steel columns. The perimiter carried the lateral load to resist the wind where as the core carried the gravity load.


Now check this....the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower.

The Aluminium panels were reported at 2 million kg

The wallboards were at 8 million kg


Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.


More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures.


Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it.

Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.


When we populate the buildign with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a dded.

As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.

The sears tower was larger and taller than either tower and it is also a tube within a tube steel building yet it weighs less?

John Hancock is 100 stories and is built as tube within a tube just like the twin towers composing, of steel, aluminium and glass, yet it clocks in at 384, 000, 000kg. (live load included). And the building was not built of light weight steel like the twin towers so it was in fact heavier.

WTC is similar to John Hancock in terms of it's concept so it's fair to consider the two buildigns will be close in mass value. In any mathematicaly equation if one variable is off by just a mere fraction this throw s ur result off. Greening was off by 200 million kgs....so his values for the k.e. and g.p.e. would undoubtedly give us those high values with such a large mass.

What upsets me guys is not enough detailed information on the towers construction is widely distributed....and the only figures we can really work from are fema and nist....because the buildings plans and structural elements are deamed national security. If they have nothing to hide then why can't independent scientists get copies of the buildings designs? They are already destroyed and they won't be used again so why the secrecy?


here is greenings direct reply:


"You make some very good points and I will try to address them as best I can. First let me say that the article you are quoting was written a while back and I have done some other stuff since then that adds and expands on my original work. That original work was therefore a first attempt to see if the Towers could theoretically have fallen by a pancake collapse. The answer appeared to be YES! But as I looked at more videos and read some of the stuff I am sure you have also read, I now say that the collapse of both Towers was more complex than my simple model, as I will explain in a moment. First, on the mass of the Twin Towers, I have recently done some checking into that and I see quite a spread in values.... Some references simply give the potential energy, which implies a mass through the equation 1/2Mgh, (factor of 1/2 because average height fallen is h/2)...... For example, FEMA give the PE of one Tower as 4 x 10^11 J which implies a mass of 196, 000, 000 kg, but the May 2002 issue of Civil Engineering Magazine to be found at ASCE.ORG gives the PE as 3 x 10^12 J implying a mass of 1, 472, 000, 000 kg! The figure I used, and I think it was similar to the value quoted by Profs Eager, Bazant and Kausel ( all engineering profs who have written articles on 9-11) is somewhere between the FEMA and the ASCE.ORG number, let's say about 500, 000, 000 kg....... But I would really like to see a detailed breakdown of the mass, because I am not sure if any of these numbers are correct!"

(so he backs away from his own conclusions by calling them "old"......admits he is not sure about the mass and that my friend makes good points......and then admits that he is "adding" to this flawed paper instead of revising it!)


And then my friend continues to debunk in greater detail:

Jim Hoffman stated that 1.5kwh are required to pulverize concrete.


Guess what.....with the actual mass of the building at live load it does not come to 1.5kwh.

This is what i got.

Ti= 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5)2 = 108, 375, 000 J that is 59, 693, 181.82 J less than the figure Greening got!!!


If we use the dead load this is what we get: 55, 501, 136.36 J!!!! That's less than the difference in energy of the live load vs Greenings magic number!!!



KE for the combined floors: Ta = 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5/2)2 = 27, 093, 750 Joules



Now let's calculate that energy for the floor collapse.

The KE before impact is show below



T1 (wtc) = 14 X 1, 083, 750, 000 = 1, 517, 250, 000 J

T2 (wtc) = 29 x 1, 083, 750, 000 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J



The KE lost as heat is calculated as follows



Q (WTC 1) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 1) = 14/15 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 101, 150, 000 J

Q (WTC 2) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 2) = 29/30 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 104, 762, 500 J



The precent of energy lost as heat for each tower:



Tower 1 = Q/T1 x 100 = 6.67 percent

Tower 2 = Q/T2 x 100 = 3.33 percent



One thing Greening forgot to mention was how much energy was also lost as sound and that is something that can't really be calculated unless decible readings were taken, then we can calculate the energy lost to sound as well.



OH before I forget to mention it....t he weight of one floor is NOT 4, 360, 000kG!!! It is in fact 3, 000, 000Kg. and that is our live load!!!! the dead load is actually 1.56 million Kg per floor.



Moving on.....



If we now assume, as previously

discussed, that the yield strength of the core columns is about 6.7 times higher than the

yield strength of the exterior columns, we estimate that an additional 3.60 ? 108 J are

required to collapse the 47 core columns supporting each floor. Thus, based on T.

Wierzbicki et al. calculation, we estimate a total of 6.29 ? 108 J of impact energy was

required to collapse one WTC floor, a value that is remarkably clo se to Baants estimate

of 5.0 ? 108 J for the plastic energy dissipated by the collapse of one floor.



Greening says 62, 900, 000, 000 J is required to collapse one floor of the WTC Towers....



Now as you can see from my calculations.....it isn't even close to that!!!



The maximum kinetic energy of each WTC tower collapse occurred at the end of

the 1st stage of the two-stage collapse. At this point in time the falling material, consisting

of at least 80 floors weighing about 370, 900, 000 kg, was moving at about 50 m/s. We will therefore assume that each tower had a maximum kinetic energy of



x 370, 900, 000 x (50)2 J or 4.6 ? 1011 J.



Again because his mass is wrong....this throws everything off again...



80 floors equates to 72.2% of the building....so we multiply that by the mass of the building and we get the weight of the 80 floors.



The fig ure we get is 240, 000, 000Kg!!! Which is about 130, 900, 000 KG difference!!!!



so let's do the kinetic energy



1/2 x 240, 000, 000 x (50)2 = 30, 000, 000, 000 J.



Greening Got 46, 000, 000, 000 J so we have a difference 16, 000, 000, 000 J of energy here!!!



From photos of the debris pile produced by each WTC tower collapse it is evident

that steel columns and trusses, aluminum fasciae, glass windows, gypsum wallboards and

other construction materials were all fractured and pulverized to varying degrees during

the collapse events. Thus only a fraction, f, of the 4.6 ? 1011 J of kinetic energy, was

available to crush the WTC concrete. For the present calculation we will assume a value

for f of ~ 0.75, giving 3.5 ? 1011 J of available kinetic energy.

Lets consider the beginning of the 1st sage of the collapse of each tower. For

WTC 1 we will take as an example 14 floors, and for WTC 2, 29 floors impacting the

floor below with a maximum velocity of 8.6 m/s. It follows that the kinetic energy on

impact was ? 1 4 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, and the

K.E. was ? 29 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 ? 109 J for WTC 2. If we

assume 50 % of this energy was available to crush concrete, we have 1.2 ? 109 J available

for WTC 1, and 2.5 ? 109 J available for WTC 2. This is sufficient to crush the concrete

on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.
Some have suggested that even if Greening used an incorrect value for mass that his calculations still hold true and that a smaller mass would still lead to a collapse. This is not true as demonstrated here:


Tower 1: X 14 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, (Greening)



1/2 x 14 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 1, 517, 250 , 000 J Almost 1.5 billion J Difference!!!!



Tower 2: x 29 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 x 109 J for WTC 2. (Greening)



As a scientist Greening should know that rounding off numbers skews your results...in fact the correct figure for that calculation is 4, 857, 170, 455 J



1/2 x 29 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J



a difference of 1, 714, 295, 455 J!!!!!



Now if 50% of the energy is required to crush the concrete this is what we'll get for both towers:



Tower 1: 1/2 x 1, 517, 250, 000 J = 758, 600, 000 J

Tower 2: 1/2 x 3, 142, 875, 000 J = 1, 571, 437, 500 J



Consider now the newly formed mass of (14 + 1) floors of WTC 1, and (29 + 1)

floors of WTC 2, impacting on the floor below. Because of momentum transfer, the

impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit:

8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. The maximum kinetic energy prior to impact

is x 15 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.1)2 joules = 2.3 x 109 J for WTC 1, and x 30 x (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.3)2 joules = 4.8 ? 109 J for WTC 2.

This is essentially the same result as the previous impact calculation and the kinetic energy released is therefore also sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.



This is where he goes wrong!!!! HE says it requires 190, 000, 000, 000 J to crush concrete to 100 micro metre particles!!! Guess what; we don't have that enery!!!!



Let's do it using his 15 and 30 floor results


for 15 floors I got: 1, 625, 625, 000 J

for 30 floors I got: 3, 251, 250, 000 J



Greening got: 2, 300, 000, 000 J for 15 floors and 4, 800, 000, 000 J for 30 Floors.



See the big mistake!!!!


Frank Greening:
"Finally, we will cal culate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single

WTC tower (= 48, 000, 000 kg) to particles of a specified size. As we have noted before,

the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 ?m particles = 3.2 ?

1011 J which is only slightly less than the 4.6 ? 1011 J of energy available. However, the

energy required to crush concrete to 100 ?m particles is 1.9 ? 1011 J, which is well within

the crushing c apacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the

WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles

well within the observed particle size range.'



WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!!

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Ahhh, Lyte Trizzle in a new disguise!

Lyte Trizzle?

Maybe you should ask your SkepticOverlord about what happened to him.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What I am stating is that the force of the impact to one floor from the top of the building falling 12.5 feet

Didn't happen, sorry. There were no unresisted 12-foot drops, and once again, the columns were not standing floor-by-floor.

The energy of the falling mass would have been much more destructive.

This is an assertion that we've seen a lot of since day 1, but it has absolutely no evidence to support it.

What you're basically saying is that 1/11 of a large mass (and this is being generous -- the top floors were much lighter) has the energy to crush the remaining 10/11 without so much as a hesitation.

That's 13 floors crushing a much heavier 97 without so much as a loss of velocity.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Lost in the bowels of another thread is a couple of posts from someone who actually communicated with a “real” explosives expert.

"Real"? As in, someone referenced by a physics Ph. D. and professor is apparently not "real," but some unverified person interviewed via internet, for an internet forum, is?

Maybe someone remembers where they were.

I remember a guy in the demolition business being interviewed in the past. He pretty much stated that he had no idea; buildings of those sizes were not anything he was used to having blown up. He didn't really get either "side" anywhere.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why would you need to do a study to realize that the collapse was consistent with a catastrophic buckling failure?

Only a shill would suggest that there's no need for further studies.

If anything, this issue is far from resolved, Howard, no matter how hard you parade your "experts." The buckling case leaves all of the same physics problems unaccounted for, aside from suggesting that enough columns were buckled to initiate a collapse in the first place.

I've already shown in other threads that the photos NIST puts forward are deceiving at best in their arrangements. Notice how the only "buckling" occurs around columns with damaged aluminum facades.

For example, here's NIST's "buckling":






All of those red lines are straight; check them for yourself. The single column without a red line has something funky going on with the aluminum facade covering it (notice other nearby facades hanging off the side). NIST is just relying on known characteristics of human visual perception to sell their case.



Smoke and mirrors of the eye.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Greening actually backs up what he says with equations, something you find conspicuously absent from the Jones paper.

Dude, I've already shown you a critical flaw with that paper's assertions, and you still parade it around as if nothing at all is wrong with it!

That paper assumes that all the mass of the towers was used to collapse all of the floors below; ie, after each floor was crushed, all of its mass was added to the falling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.

That completely screws over any chance of you getting anything accurate out of that paper.

He also fails to take into account other lesser issues, such as the fact that the columns thickened on the way down, and the floors were not all the same weight. Greening also fails to realize that the towers showed no significant slowing all the way down, while his paper suggests that there was indeed a visible loss of momentum and velocity.

Overall, it was obviously made to look credible, but the math behind it is totally backwards in its logic. You can apply math to anything, and in this case it was applied to a make-believe WTC collapse that has little to do with the reality of the events. Please stop parading it as the end-all of WTC papers. It's totally inaccurate in its conclusions, based upon what is provided in the actual paper.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That paper assumes that all the mass of the towers was used to collapse all of the floors below; ie, after each floor was crushed, all of its mass was added to the falling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.

Does it really say that, or is that what you got from taking one sentence out of context?

I'm sure there are problems with Greenings paper, as has been pointed out, however as shown above, it is possible to use his equations even if his numbers are wrong.

I would at least give him a chance to update his paper, before dismissing it out of hand. Especially from anyone who accepts Jones paper as absolute truth even though it provides no numbers to check, and no equations whatsoever.




While that pretty picture you just posted was nice, it does not apply to the above figure.

Even with your red lines you can see that the columns are bowing inward, if anything they accentuate it.

The red lines are straight. The columns are not. Notice where the red touches the columns in the middle and at the ends. Not the same place.



[edit on 7-2-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind


I'm sure there are problems with Greenings paper, as has been pointed out, however as shown above, it is possible to use his equations even if his numbers are wrong.

Incorrect. And we have proven this. Read the complete debunk I posted above that INCLUDES equations.

I would at least give him a chance to update his paper, before dismissing it out of hand. Especially from anyone who accepts Jones paper as absolute truth even though it provides no numbers to check, and no equations whatsoever.

We did. Read his email reply directly to us. We called out his flaws......he admitted them, backed away from his "old" paper, and instead of claiming that he is revising it he said he is "adding and expanding" to it.

What kind of scientist would add and expand to a hypothesis that he already knows to be flawed?

So since you think greening is credible because he uses a bunch of flawed equations that you don't understand.....you must therefore accept my friends debunk as credible because he also uses a bunch of equations that you don't understand. Except that my friend's equations aren't flawed.

Understand?

So I suppose we should follow your lead and accept all of Jones paper, with no numbers and no equations?


Updating and revising is part of the scientific proccess, something entirely lacking in the Jones paper. I don't see why you think correcting mistakes is somehow unscientific or biased.


Maybe we should look at Hoffman's paper instead.

In that case the 4000 lbs of bombs is completely ruled out. According to Hoffman's numbers they would have needed over 500 tons of PETN to pull off the demoliton.

Of course Hoffman could be wrong too. Maybe your friends should debunk Hoffman and Jones papers too.

Or do you not give the same scrutiny to papers that echo your claims?

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by bsbray11

That paper assumes that all the mass of the towers was used to collapse all of the floors below; ie, after each floor was crushed, all of its mass was added to the falling mass. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.

Does it really say that, or is that what you got from taking one sentence out of context?

No; it actually does imply that with its formulas.

Look for yourself, if you have the sense to figure out what he's even doing in that paper. If you don't, then I don't think you should be parading it in the first place; do you?

But, yeah: he's saying that the amount of energy lost to heat would grow increasingly small in proportion to the falling mass, because he's assuming the falling mass is having the mass of each and every crushed floor added to it. Completely backwards logic there, and nowhere even approaching an accurate model.

Even with your red lines you can see that the columns are bowing inward, if anything they accentuate it. The red lines are straight. The columns are not. Notice where the red touches the columns in the middle and at the ends. Not the same place.

Those "columns" you see bowing are the aluminum coverings on the actual steel beams. You can't actually see the steel beams in any of those photos. I would therefore refrain from claiming any buckling, unless you actually do come up with some evidence. It should not be surprising at all that the aluminum would deform. Steel support columns are another matter.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Those "columns" you see bowing are the aluminum coverings on the actual steel beams. You can't actually see the steel beams in any of those photos. I would therefore refrain from claiming any buckling, unless you actually do come up with some evidence. It should not be surprising at all that the aluminum would deform. Steel support columns are another matter.

You keep making this claim. Please refer to following drawing.




Cross Section Through Exterior Box Column: 36 – Steel column, 38, 39 – Fire resistant plaster, 40 – Aluminum façade, 41 – Window washing track, 42 – Window glass, 43 – Window frame.

Can you explain how the aluminum façade can move inward 10 inches without the steel column behind it moving?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So I suppose we should follow your lead and accept all of Jones paper, with no numbers and no equations?


Updating and revising is part of the scientific proccess, something entirely lacking in the Jones paper. I don't see why you think correcting mistakes is somehow unscientific or biased.

I think it is Greening that has failed to make the appropriate revisions. Professor Jones most certainly HAS updated and revised his paper as he is currently on version 4.5

My problem with Greening isn't that he revised his paper......it's that he HASN'T revised it and has instead decided to "add & expand" to his flawed paper.

Maybe we should look at Hoffman's paper instead.

In that case the 4000 lbs of bombs is completely ruled out. According to Hoffman's numbers they would have needed over 500 tons of PETN to pull off the demoliton.

Of course Hoffman could be wrong too. Maybe your friends should debunk Hoffman and Jones papers too.

Or do you not give the same scrutiny to papers that echo your claims?

Hoffman is not a professor of physics and I have not even seen that quote from him so please source it.

Regardless....Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones are not the same person nor do their studies look at the same details so it is not fair to associate their conclusions with each other.

To suggest that we haven't given Dr. Jones' paper scrutiny is an incorrect and unfounded claim. To "debunk" it would mean we don't agree with it and have proven it incorrect as we did with Greenings work. NOBODY has done this with Dr. Jones' work as far as I know because it is not based on falsified or incorrect data.

I have contacted Professor Jones to find out how he came up the the 4,000 lb figure and here is his response:

The Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas, built in 1963 as the Tally Ho, about a 18 story structure, 1100 rooms "was leveled in a matter of seconds with … 600 pounds of gelatin-based dynamite." (p. 75) Date: April 27, 1998, 7:30 pm. Contractors: LVI Environmental Services and CDI (Controlled Demolition, Inc.)

Helen Liss w/ the Loizeaux Family of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Demolition; The Art of Demolishing, Dismantling, Imploding & Razing; Black Dog & Leventhal. New York.



Scaling to the size of a tower gives roughly 4,000 pounds.



Likewise, the Seattle Kingdome of over 120,000 tons of concrete (more than either Tower) was felled using 4,700 pounds of explosives:

•

• “During loading operations, CDI …placed more than 4,700 lb. of explosives in critical locations to control the fall of the structure and reduce vibration. “ www.controlled-demolition.com...


also:


• The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, the

• leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives

• expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of

• the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside

• the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende, September

• 12, 2001; Wisnewski 138; quoted in www.reopen911.org...)

Easy,go to building department get copy of blueprints ,find all the bearing walls,get small nucleur charges they use to fell high rises,which can be done in front of anyone in the building I doubt anyone would be suspicious,the charges they use aren't big at all,could dress like a phone repairman or general maintenance,the whole job could be done in one day

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You keep making this claim. Please refer to following drawing.

And you keep posting that drawing!

Those things can move in more than one direction Howard -- and the facades moving outward above the "buckled" columns give the impression that the lower columns are buckled inwards. That's why I cut out the facades located above the "buckled" columns in those images. This goes back to the same crap: NIST is not offering an honest look at the columns, and the "buckling" there is of the facades and is NOT of 10 inches or some other b.s. figure of the actual steel columns!

Edited for grammar and stuff.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by bsbray11]

I find it quite notable that Howard has ingored loam since he clearly handed him his rear end on a platter.

Excellent information loam.

That security article is absolutely golden.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
I find it quite notable that Howard has ingored loam since he clearly handed him his rear end on a platter.

Excellent information loam.

Yeah, Loam, that was some good stuff. I didn't mention it before but the info does shed light on the "how's" (though I don't think these should be nearly as important as the "what's" in this case), so thanks for providing it! WATS!