It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't care if he was talking BS. I want to know how an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY DESTROY a 400,000+ tons building in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.


It didn't. That is your problem.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up so the designers must figure out how to distribute the steel and concrete. So why wasn't everyone getting that straight 8 1/2 years ago?

psik


Because it has been done already. Obviously the building did stand at one time. Why don't you find the relevant blueprints and take them to an engineer and pay them to help you understand them?

Why are you being so lazy about this?


Yeah, yeah, yeah, keep claiming stuff is there but in NINE YEARS we never see the layout of the horizontal beams in the core. People who can BELIEVE the idiotic Official Story don't need relevant data. LOL

Lon Waters has a website with core column data all of the way up the building but he doesn't have the horizontal beam data. IT AIN'T OUT THERE which is certainly curious.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

psik




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Hey Jim? You got those sources yet?



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Hey Jim? You got those sources yet?


Jim? Jim? Anyone seen those shources Jim is looking for?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
You really don't seem to know anything about this case. NIST reported it had studied 236 samples of steel from the Twin Towers and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, while the other three had not been exposed to temperatures above 1200*F. Steel melts at 2800*F. Have you missed some of the key points, which I shall repeat here?

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destoryed by different modes of demolition.

reply to post by FDNY343
 



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Planes flew into the towers = solved

plane flew into pentagon = solved

building 7 =
something fishy with that one



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You really don't seem to know anything about this case.


I actually do. But, whatever. Moot point.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
NIST reported it had studied 236 samples of steel from the Twin Towers and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, while the other three had not been exposed to temperatures above 1200*F. Steel melts at 2800*F. Have you missed some of the key points, which I shall repeat here?


And you have a source for this? The last time you posted a source, it didn't say what you wanted it to say. Care to post the relevant page number?



Originally posted by JimFetzer
The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.


Correct, which the WTC 1&2 did. Do you have a point?


Originally posted by JimFetzer

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than


Correct. HORAY!! Jim, you posted a fact!! Congratulations!!



Originally posted by JimFetzer

some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F,\


I have shown you time and time again that even "modest" office fires burn MUCH hotter than 500 deg. F. Would you care to provide a source for this claim?



Originally posted by JimFetzer

which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.


How much heat would the connections between the trusses and the columns carry? It's simple math.

Do you know the number? I do. You won't like the conclusion.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions;


Holy ******!!! You got TWO facts in ONE post!! AMAZING!!!



Originally posted by JimFetzer
but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.


Again, citation needed. The source that you posted before included some information that you don't mention.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects,


Again, CITATION NEEDED!! Do you know what that means? It means POST here your supporting evidence. Got evidence to back up this claim?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.


Again, do you have a source for this claim? 500 degrees? All of my training and research tells me that hydrocarbon fires burn hotter than that at any given point. Psykihacker (sp?) even posted the Cargington Fire Test results, and they agree and back up my claims. Where are you SOURCES?



Originally posted by JimFetzer
If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior,


Such as?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow,


Which was observed.....


Originally posted by JimFetzer

not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.


Really? Horse****.


Originally posted by JimFetzer

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors.


Nope, all it exerted pressure on was on the support columns in that area, and the floors.
Not to mention the rest of the supporting columns.


Originally posted by JimFetzer

A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.


Show us these calculations. Thanks. ( My guess is that he is treating the entire lower section as one complete solid object)


Originally posted by JimFetzer

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.


Slick Willie has changed his story since the days after 9/11.

He was in the basement area, and as such, could not have know a point of reference as to when the plane hit.

Secondly, bombs don't do burns, they do baratrauma injuries. Got those?



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.


Slick Willie has changed his story since the days after 9/11.

He was in the basement area, and as such, could not have know a point of reference as to when the plane hit.

Secondly, bombs don't do burns, they do baratrauma injuries. Got those?




Originally posted by JimFetzer
Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,”


Show us the math. Thanks.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.


Show us the math. I'll wait.


Originally posted by JimFetzer

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.


First off, Jusy assumes the towers were built like trees. They were NOT built that way at all.

Secondly, for the top section to fall off of the top of the WTC, a much REATER source of energy would have had to PUSH it over the center of gravity.

What was this supposed source of tremendous energy?


Originally posted by JimFetzer

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.


Explain the "meterorite"? Thanks.


Originally posted by JimFetzer

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM


Really? Where were all the booms and flashes of light immediately proceeding the collapse?


Originally posted by JimFetzer

after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,”


Which is a demolition term that literally means to pull with heavy cables and construction equipment. they were nowhere to be found around 7WTC.

Secondly, "pull it" is common usage in firefighting operations.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.


Own footprint? Explain Fitterman Hall please. Thanks.




Originally posted by JimFetzer
Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level.



No ****? Say it ain't so?!?!?!


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destoryed by different modes of demolition.


Correct. One collapsed from the inward bowing of exterior columns, and one collapsed from the loss of lateral support of a critical column from thermal expansion.

WOW!! 3 whole factual statements in the ENTIRE post!! Great work Jim!!!


Go get those source for me. I'll keep asking you. It shows that you do not have them.

Repeating the same thing over and over will not help you. Got sources?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I'm not going to dissect this thoroughly since the member above has done so already, but I just want to make this clear... *sigh*... again. NO STEEL MELTED IN THE TOWERS. If you understand, please add a line in your next post acknowledging that you have understood this point. No official story ever claims the melting of steel, and conspiracy theorists cannot find evidence of molten steel in the building, especially since by your own claimed data the steel got nowhere close to melting.

There is weakening, which means losing strength (and happens at far lower temperatures than critical and melting) and an increased load (from, I dunno, the plane crashes?) along with weakening (from fire), means that there is less strength to distribute weight. Add time and you can have the initiation of a collapse. My my, it took around an hour for WTC 2 to come down. I guess that's time, eh? It obviously varied depending on the load and distribution of damage, considering that WTC 2 was hit second.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


WOW Jim here is a little graph to help educate you re steel v temp



Typical office fire can reach 1000c as posted using the Cardington Fire Test done in the Uk.
As you can see from the graph above just in case you dont know how to read it, at 600c steel strength is 50% of its full strength


At a 1000c its less than one tenth!


CARDINGTON TEST steel after test with only a half ton per m2 load ( no plane crash damage) and NO FLOORS FALLING FROM ABOVE !! TO CAUSE A HUGE DYNAMIC LOAD look it up Jim!!!!




So lets see DO YOU HAVE XRAY VISION didn't think so, so you cant tell what things were like inside re damage!
Were you inside taking temp readings no!
Your figs re steel samples and temp have been brought into doubt already!
Please post a link to the steel beeing certified to 2000F because back to the graph Jim at 2000f it's well below one tenth of its strength all YOUR followers will see that. WOUDN'T HOLD ITS SELF UP NEVER MIND ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Jim I thought you claimed YOU were a scientist, REAL science data shows YOU dont have a clue


It may be the fact that

a) I ACTUALLY WORKED for a structural steelwork company for a few years (drawing/design office)
b) That I have worked in the construction industry for more than 30 yrs
c) I am on site most days testing items some times to destruction

That gives me real world practice and experience
(SOMETHING YOU DONT HAVE!)

The things you quote at times give me a good
like your 20:1 safety factor, engineers are happy to see a 3:1 safety factor on fixings you KNOW the things that fix structural items together


All buildings are designed to a cost AND NO building can take a 20:1 safety factor as a cost!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Behold! The infamous meteorite. Fused concrete and steel all melted together by the intense nuclear blast. Let us all gaze upon its beauty for a moment...




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I recall someone explaining that, and it has nothing to do with steel melting. It was like the pulverization of concrete and pressure, and heat. Concrete has fluidity issues at a MUCH lower temperature than steel if I remember.

I'd really appreciate it if someone else could explain it. My memory isn't serving me well, but the "meteorite" is not anything mystical or unexplainable.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
One thing I've heard that has interested me of late (I think this is sort of on-topic) is that NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulation (FDS) apparently left-out thermal-conductivity of the steel in WTC. The following passage presumably originates from the NIST-report (I say 'presumably' as I admittedly have not read it in its entirety simply because I do not have the time on my hands): "The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used". This strikes me as most unusual since steel is an enormously effective heat-sink and quickly dissipates heat to its surroundings allowing it to be heated to very high temperatures without retaining a lot of that heat. Surely by assuming no thermal-conductivity of the steel it would leave the steel in the models inappropriately predisposed to buckling since the heat would not have been able to effectively wick away. Perhaps I have this completely backwards though, or have misunderstood something, and would welcome correction.

Eeryone here could argue for days about whether NIST's hypothesis is scientifically sound or not and if their models are accurate representations of reality but since they have yet to be subjected to any sort of comprehensive and independent testing (which thus far they have been insulated from under what I feel are various pretences) I don't believe that NIST's models can be regarded as established scientific fact. There is only way that NIST's theory of a progressive-collapse could be established provisionally (i.e. as the best available theory of the moment) in honest climate science and that would be for it to generate specific and relevant predictions which can be tested rigorously in critically-decisive observations and if the models are open for public-scrutiny. Because neither of things to my knowledge have happened I do not think that NIST's theory has passed the necessary requirement for scientific proof. But that is just my feeling on the matter. No doubt many people on this forum regard NIST's theory and models to be scientifically acceptable and sacrosanct.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I agree that there is no conclusive absolute model created by the NIST. I don't, however, feel that their models are useless (not saying you said that, just making my own opinion known). Usually, a model is meant to test only one or two specific factors, because having too many factors, especially under uncertain conditions (exact data on fire temps and exact positioning of damage) can lead to highly inaccurate results. It is only professional to limit the factors to things that can be calculated, and unfortunately, something like the heat distribution by steel would be highly difficult to deal with. You would have to know a lot more than can be ascertained with video and witness testimony.

Honestly, it is amazing that they were able to model much at all to receive any kind of results. I mean, if they were anything like a lot of the Truthers here, they wouldn't have spent so much time working with physics and would have just jumped to an easy scapegoat of "the bombs did it." I hate to bring it up when I'm not currently being attacked by Truthers, but I can't help but feel that people are being irrational when they expect NIST to have considered explosives when the factors that they could verify were damage to the facade, fires, lack of water, time, and most of the progression of collapse (the penthouse cave-in that indicated a single column's failure, and then the exterior collapse down which Truthers cling to because of the 3 second free-fall).

I'm not saying they are infallible. Any scientific idea can be fought and shot down with enough supporting data, but I just haven't seen anyone actually shoot down their conclusions yet. They are still the most likely answer to me.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I agree that there is no conclusive absolute model created by the NIST. I don't, however, feel that their models are useless (not saying you said that, just making my own opinion known). Usually, a model is meant to test only one or two specific factors, because having too many factors, especially under uncertain conditions (exact data on fire temps and exact positioning of damage) can lead to highly inaccurate results. It is only professional to limit the factors to things that can be calculated, and unfortunately, something like the heat distribution by steel would be highly difficult to deal with. You would have to know a lot more than can be ascertained with video and witness testimony.

Honestly, it is amazing that they were able to model much at all to receive any kind of results. I mean, if they were anything like a lot of the Truthers here, they wouldn't have spent so much time working with physics and would have just jumped to an easy scapegoat of "the bombs did it." I hate to bring it up when I'm not currently being attacked by Truthers, but I can't help but feel that people are being irrational when they expect NIST to have considered explosives when the factors that they could verify were damage to the facade, fires, lack of water, time, and most of the progression of collapse (the penthouse cave-in that indicated a single column's failure, and then the exterior collapse down which Truthers cling to because of the 3 second free-fall).


How did they spend so much time working with PHYSICS if they can't even tell us the tons of steel that were on each level of the building before the planes hit? Didn't the buildings have to hold themselves up? So wasn't the weight important to know how much steel had to be put on each level below to support that weight?

If the distributions of steel and concrete are not specified then no competent physics was done.

psik



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What's your obsession with that one factor? If it's not there then it's not there. It won't magically appear in the report by traveling back in time. The NIST concluded their report and now other people can deal with things as they wish. If you wish to head an investigation that calculates that specifically, then feel free to!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What's your obsession with that one factor? If it's not there then it's not there. It won't magically appear in the report by traveling back in time. The NIST concluded their report and now other people can deal with things as they wish. If you wish to head an investigation that calculates that specifically, then feel free to!


I think he's looking for the one hyper-mass stealth beam that would've caused the planes to bounce off the way JimFetzer seems to think should've happened.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I recall someone explaining that, and it has nothing to do with steel melting. It was like the pulverization of concrete and pressure, and heat. Concrete has fluidity issues at a MUCH lower temperature than steel if I remember.

I'd really appreciate it if someone else could explain it. My memory isn't serving me well, but the "meteorite" is not anything mystical or unexplainable.


No, it certainly isn't mystical.

It did NOT come from a nuclear blast either, since there is paper in the sides that have readable writing still on it.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
One thing I've heard that has interested me of late (I think this is sort of on-topic) is that NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulation (FDS) apparently left-out thermal-conductivity of the steel in WTC. The following passage presumably originates from the NIST-report (I say 'presumably' as I admittedly have not read it in its entirety simply because I do not have the time on my hands): "The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used". This strikes me as most unusual since steel is an enormously effective heat-sink and quickly dissipates heat to its surroundings allowing it to be heated to very high temperatures without retaining a lot of that heat. Surely by assuming no thermal-conductivity of the steel it would leave the steel in the models inappropriately predisposed to buckling since the heat would not have been able to effectively wick away. Perhaps I have this completely backwards though, or have misunderstood something, and would welcome correction.


It's quotemined by Kevin Ryan IIRC.

Here is the ACTUAL quote


The steel used to construct the column and truss flanges was 0.64 cm (1/4 in.) thick. The density of the steel was assumed to be 7,860 kg/m3; its specific heat 450 J/kg/K (NIST NCSTAR 1-3E). The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin; thus, no thermal conductivity was used. Note that FDS performed a simple one-dimensional calculation of the steel temperature to be used as a boundary condition in the calculation. More detailed calculations of the steel and concrete temperatures were done using another model (NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).


NIST NCSTAR 1-5g is where you will find that exact wording.

Also, one more thing I would like to address.

The only way that trusses (in 1&2 WTC ) and the beams in 7WTC to effectively sink heat away, is for there to be a massive connection equally as thick to transfer the heat away from the affected area. Or, for there to be something like a massive copper connection between the two pieces. This obviously is no the case.

I have estimated that the connections in 1&2 WTC were able to sink about 1,000 watts of heat energy away per hour. This is a drop in a bucket compared to the heat the fires were generating. The amount of heat transfer would be negligable.


edit on 2-3-2011 by FDNY343 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Nice graph! Since NCSTAR 1-3 explained that only three locations out of 170 (involving 236 samples of steel) showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 250*C (about 500*F), the overwhelming majority (subtract 3 from 236 for an approximation of 233) were only exposed to the heat from ordinary office fires. Jet fuel is kerosene and does not burn hot enough to weaken or melt steel (unless under controlled conditions, when it is force fed pure oxygen, which was not the case here, as the billowing black smoke revealed). Kerosene heaters do not melt when they are used. Propane burns hotter and propane camping stoves don't weaken or melt, either. Plus the building was an enormous heat sink, which would have dissipated the temperature and prevented it from building up at any specific location. UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without any adverse effects. Since the fire in the South Tower only burned about one hour and in the North about an hour and a half, these fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. In fact, there was a huge fire in the North Tower in 1975 on the 11th floor which burned far hotter (around 2,000*F) and longer (around four hours), where none of the steel had to be replaced. So the UL certification was vindicated.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It's not just that there was no "absolute conclusive model" produced by NIST but no model at all past the point of presumed "collapse initiation". Not only are you relying upon a straw man (by exaggerating the degree of certainty that can attend scientific models), but you avoid the key point that NIST didn't explain what happened at all. They had to assume temperatures higher than occurred and ignore the dissipation of the heat throughout the building while faking a "point of initiation". They never established one, where their studies of truss sagging were fudged when they discovered that they would only sag about 4" under the conditions presumed but begged the question by ASSUMING that, since they did collapse, they must have sagged enough for that to happen, and changed their data to more than 40" of sagging. But Judy Wood has shown that no collapse could have occurred based upon considerations of time alone. I will have more to say about this in my next post.

reply to post by Varemia
 



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Here are some reviews of Judy Wood's new book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I have drawn from amazon.com. I know this is a longer extract than normal and I will modify it if I must, but I think we need to take a good look at what she has to say for reasons like those reflected by these reviews. Although I am very familiar with her work, I am learning new things from scratch, including about the more than 1,000 who jumped from the towers to avoid something that was obviously threatening them more than jumping from those buildings. Plus she has refutations of collapse theories based upon temporal considerations right off the bat and says she will explain why these effects--which she documents in spades!--cannot be explained by appealing to nukes. I believe her book represents a giant step forward and therefore recommend that everyone here get a copy.



1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The most compelling forensic study I have ever encountered, February 28, 2011
By SapphicTwist (Atlanta, GA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
Where Did the Towers Go? settles the longstanding dispute over what happened in NYC on 9/11, and not enough can be said about the tireless forensic work performed by Judy Wood to get us to this point.

While the ultimate impact of this book is as uncertain as the impact of any truth-telling in our times, it is interesting already how much the existence of WDTTG? changes the "rules of engagement" between those who have looked carefully at the 9/11 evidence, and those who have not.

Up until now, those who have been familiar with 9/11 anomalies (largely through Judy's work) have been in the unenviable position of having to translate a massive amount of data into sound-bite fragments to get our points across to others. Judy's website, as remarkable as it is, has never been a user-friendly reference for people who are new to the subject of 9/11 forensic research, a limitation that has left the burden of translation largely in our hands.

But now, with so much of the compelling 9/11 evidence contained within this one book, we are finally unburdened of the need to repackage Judy's work for dissemination; already I have handed two copies of WDTTG? off to friends, and the reactions have been IMMEDIATE.

WDTTG? is a forensic study, pure and simple. That means that anyone with an interest in 9/11 (and who is not in that category?) is a part of the potential readership for this book. My advice is, buy as many copies of this book as you can afford, and spread them as far and wide as possible...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Dr. Judy Wood was born to show the actualities of 9/11! not theories, not hypotheticals, not conspiracy., February 16, 2011
By J. Moore "Yogi" (San Diego, CA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
[...].

Dr. Judy Wood WINS! This woman of iron-clad intellect has unraveled the mystery of the iron unraveling! Dr. Judy Wood, a most qualified guide, balances the scientific reality of 9/11 with the sensitivity of her oceanic heart. Both head and heart are wed in this work of painstaking genius. With a background in Applied Physics, Interferometry, and Materials Engineering Science, Dr. Judy Wood seems to have been born specifically for this historic World Trade Center investigation. What many of us have only guessed at--"Isn't that debris pile too small?!"--the brilliant Dr. Wood proves beyond a shadow of doubt: The Twin Towers never hit the ground!

In her elegant 500-page text book, Dr. Judy Wood guides us through all anomalous phenomena of the WTC complex, focusing solely on "what happened" that morning, in a careful consideration of all observable physical/photographic evidence--after effects including seismic signals, magnetometer readings, unto the virtually unknown Category 3 hurricane off the eastern seaboard that very morning. She shows us the direct correlation of this startling evidence as it mirrors The Hutchison Effect--energy-field effects born out of the early 20th century scientist Nikola Tesla's experiments and inventions--discoveries of a free-energy, not kinetic, activated via interferometry: the interference of various beams, energy fields, or electromagnetic waves. Dr. Wood resurrects to his rightful place Nikola Tesla, the true father of alternating current, wireless communication, and the rotating magnetic field. Though Dr. Wood does not name the exact device responsible as the mechanism of destruction on 9/11, she expertly delineates "the extraordinary effects that can result from electromagnetic interference."

The attractive text is beautiful to look upon--high quality photos, graphs, and easy-to-understand language. A unique accompanying bookmark helps us keep our own bearings, serving not only as a map of the WTC complex; I daresay, the bookmark reminds me of a "prayer card" given at memorial services, in honor of the dead. But of course, it is the Towers themselves that are being memorialized herein.

It isn't every day that tears roll down one's cheeks while studying a science text book. In this case, the tears are a two-fold intermixture: Firstly, there are tears triggered by sorrow for the loss of life, perpetrated through a crime of monumental proportions, via a sinister new weapon; and secondly, tears of absolute wonder and delight are shed for definite evidence of a revolutionary new free-energy technology, destined to positively change and improve the lives of every soul born on this planet for ages to come--and not just change mankind a little but revolutionize the progressive evolution of each and every individual.

We might also shed a tear for Dr. Judy Wood herself--she who lost her job as a result of pursuing 9/11 research; she who has been severely maligned by several "good ol' boys clubs" expert in disinformation and deception; she who had a student and friend murdered within the course of research; and she, who has met with mammoth resistance in the publication of this first groundbreaking tome. Dr. Wood is of an entirely different caliber--an intrepid soul, full of zest, purity of thought, and a sacred perseverance--possessing qualities few exercise today, but for which she will be remembered always.

Dr. Judy Wood makes demands of us, her readers and students: Keep looking. Keep asking. Look again! "Listen to the [actual] evidence. ALL of it." She begs us to awaken our own childlike sense of wonder and to have greater courage. Dr. Judy Wood does not let us turn away from stark reality. "Where Did the Towers Go?" will indeed strike a fearsome awe in your heart for its fascinating yet terrible truths. It is, at once, a solid scientific treatise and a memorial to those who perished; it is also a grateful acknowledgement of those who have continued suffering and losing their lives up to this very day.

9/11 was not our country's purportedly historic watershed moment: Dr. Wood respectfully educates us to the really-ignored game-changer, scientist and inventor, Nikola Tesla. In tracing 9/11 after-effects back to their true cause, Dr. Wood ingeniously shines the spotlight on Canadian researcher John Hutchison and his own Tesla-like experiments; and in so doing, the sleight-of-hand that has become the "official story" of 9/11 is brought into sharp relief.

The world will owe Dr. Judy Wood a great debt for her efforts, and I cannot thank her enough. Dr. Wood aptly quotes Mahatma Gandhi within her text: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." I predict many will "see" for the first time under Dr. Judy Wood's loving care.

[...].
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment (1)


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Thank You Dr. Judy Wood, February 14, 2011
By Matthew Goddard (Sierra Nevada) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
Just received the book.
Here's where you can buy it:
Where did the towers go (dot) com

This book presents a case that is beyond damning.
It's a text book, professional, and hard to put down.

It's also a journey of discovery. Dr. Wood can't tell us Exactly what the weapon used that day was. But she can take us on an extensive tour of the evidence. She leads us into the correct ballpark, wherein, we can grasp the basics of the science that lies behind the bizarre phenomena which we see. And then, once the dots start connecting in our minds, and we do a bit of research, we can pretty much figure out what the game being played is, and who may be playing it.

We all know we were lied to that day.
We all saw those buildings turn to dust.
Dr. Wood reveals to us the deepest, darkest secret of that day.
The one that we, at all costs, are not supposed to learn. And that's the connection to Nikola Tesla, and Free-Energy Technology.

Dr. Wood peels away the layers of dis-info and psyop in a way that is candid, personal, and endearing. You will laugh, and cry, but most of all, you will learn, "through the eyes of a child, with wonder and amazement."

Thank you Judy Wood for this Work you have done.
You have done us all a great service in getting this book,
and your Lawsuits, (and website(s)) on the Public Record.

Judy Wood deserves our support. We support her 200%.

Whether you can afford the book or not, do yourself a favor,
if you haven't already, and study the evidence at her voluminous website: drjudywood.com

Matthew Goddard and
Tenasee Love
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The Most Important Book You Will EVER Read Regarding 9/11, February 14, 2011
By Abraham Rodriguez - See all my reviews
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
This is literally the single most evidence-packed book regarding 9/11 to be published since it happened. It is neither based on theory nor speculation; rather, it is simply based on easily-verifiable well-referenced physical evidence, analysis and discussion of that evidence, and the inescapable conclusions that are drawn from that evidence. This book is a must-read for any person who wishes to understand the true implications of the 9/11 attacks, and why there has been such an obvious, extensive, and relentless attempt to confuse people and divert our attention away from this overwhelming sum of important evidence. The truth has been out for a long time thanks to the selfless efforts of Dr. Judy Wood and the online database she has compiled at drjudywood.com, and now it has taken a new form. THANK YOU SO MUCH Dr. Wood!

Dear Dr. Wood,

Thank you so much for your relentless bravery and your selfless efforts to help others understand what really happened on 9/11. The overwhelming database you have compiled is overwhelmingly conclusive and has left no doubts in my mind about what truly happened on that terrible day. Thank you so much for everything you have done for our special planet, and for strengthening my faith in the human species. Together, we can bring out the truth and end this corruption once and for all.

Best wishes,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A new look at what really happened, February 14, 2011
By E. Wachsman - See all my reviews
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
Have you ever had doubts about the official accounting of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01? Have you followed the many players, developments and theories within the 911 Truth Movement and wondered just where the truth really is? In Where Did the Towers Go, Dr. Judy Wood expertly presents real answers that may surprise and disturb you.

In her long awaited book, Dr. Wood methodically deconstructs both the official story and popular alternative theories about the physical demise of the buildings. Using basic principles of physics and engineering, she clearly demonstrates why the mainstream and alternative versions could not have happened as presented.

Dr. Wood recognized early on that new, unbiased words had to be used to accurately describe the unusual phenomena that were observed on 9/11. For example, she introduces us to the term, "Dustification", and explains the how it is uniquely different from "Vaporization" or "Pulverization". Using a combination of witness testimony, observed phenomena and materials analysis, she goes on to offer compelling evidence of the use of a new kind of weapons technology on 9/11/01: Directed Energy. This is not a who-dunnit. Dr. Wood eschews finger pointing in favor of the primary task of scientifically assessing the evidence to determine what happened and how.

The hardcover book itself is substantial and well designed, generously filled with exceptionally clear multi-color charts and tables as well as crisp color plates, glossary and footnotes. Anyone who has ever purchased a highly valued reference book will immediately recognize the $39.95 price as a bargain and the information contained in the book, priceless. It is available at Dr. Wood's website.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant and Insightful Research, February 10, 2011
By D. Patrick - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
Dr. Wood takes a fresh look and a studied approach to what really happened to the towers. I find her reasoning sound and her evidence compelling.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The most important and accurate book about 9/11, February 2, 2011
By Andrew Johnson (Derbyshire, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
This book is based on primary evidence - a forensic study of 9/11. It has been a real battle to bring to fruition - for so many reasons.

Dr Wood has made a considerable sacrifice - and others have worked hard to support the effort to bring this information to the world. This book will cast down a number of challenging sets of evidence and it has certainly lead me to some difficult to accept conclusions. Please help to raise awareness of the book itself, and the evidence it contains.

Please see [...]

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment


8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Where Did The Book Go?, November 15, 2010
By Morley Evans "accurate solutions to complex p... (CANADA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go?: The Evidence of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 (Paperback)
Where Did The Towers Go? by Dr. Judy Wood provides the answer: The twin towers and the other buildings of the World Trade Center were turned into dust. You saw that with your own eyes, didn't you? Dr. Judy makes her case and points to a currently secret technology which will revolutionize energy supply and open a bright future for everyone. Too bad the people who destroyed the World Trade Center would deny that future to mankind. This important book is currently unavailable, but you can visit her website to get a preview. Write to Dr. Judy Wood. Encourage her to release her book and continue her work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

edit on 3-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join