If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
On Sep 13, 2:36 pm, wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:14 pm, wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press, witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11: "That was no American Airlines jet" If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted to secret landing sites? Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not the AA planes. I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced. -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel To the above list, I'd add, what about all the commercial plane wreckage recovered at the WTC site? And eyewitness testimony always takes into account ALL the eyewitness testimony. Just because 2 people say they saw something else, while thousand say they saw commercial airliners, means zippo.. There are clear videos of commercial jets hitting the buildings that were made that day by individuals and the news media. Where are all these eyewitnesses that we have to find them on Utube? To believe this crap, you'd have to believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable. Oh, and then what about this fellow Bin Laden and his cohorts releasing videos where they take credit for 911? Is he part of the conspiracy too? LOL- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - George Bush told us in the Whitehouse Newsletter that he watched the first tower get hit. Think about that! YOU never saw the first hit, They say, "Rank has its priveledges." |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
WINSMITH wrote in
oups.com: George Bush told us in the Whitehouse Newsletter that he watched the first tower get hit. Think about that! YOU never saw the first hit, They say, "Rank has its priveledges." WTF are you talking about? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
In article .com,
wrote: On Sep 13, 12:14 pm, wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press, witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11: "That was no American Airlines jet" If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted to secret landing sites? Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not the AA planes. I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced. -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did 'security checks'. "Cleared the towers" ???????????????????????????/ I don't think you ever saw the towers except a few seconds at a time in a twoofer video. As someone who as managed 24-hour operations in Manhattan towers and been the on-site representative of "the customer" for full-floor bare-beam-and-concrete revelation, I say bull****. thousands of pounds of explsoive and material would be required and you have to do paperwork to use the loading dock and the freight evators any time of day or night, expecially night. Plus, how did the third building crumble to the ground when no other steel frame building in the history of construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? Nobody mentions the third building. Hours of fire with no water for firefighting,. WTC7 fell because of some combination of falling debris, exposure to fire from adjacent buildings, time, poor fireproofing, thousands of gallons of stored diesel fuel, lack of water for sprinklers and firefighters and the strange steel framework that was kludged over a pre-existing electric utility substation. There may be other factors. If there are, they will be published in the next NIST report. Twoofers think it's OK to take the words of NY firemen literally and claim that when a fireman says "explosion" he means man-made explosive yet when a few dozen firemen are on record as saying that WTC7 was on fire all day and beginning to collapse even before noon because of those file their words can be dismissed. ------------------ Here' a clip from Firehouse Magazine, April 2002 Early in the afternoon you have Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: (Firehouse Magazine) "By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html ---------------------------- Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html ---------------------------- 1. Index to statements of 26 NY Firemen that say that they knew, all day, that WTC7 was eventually going to collapse. 2. Statement by several NYFD Chiefs, on site, about how they managed the evacuation of WTC7 due to anticipation of collapse. 1 ------------------------------------- An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse. These numbers are in the form of nnnnnnn.pdf appended to this URL http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l FILENAME QUOTE 9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently to collapse 9110413 in eminent collapse 9110398 a possible collapse 9110486 going to collapse 9110425 going to collapse 9110425 going to collapse 9110103 going to collapse 9110179 might collapse 9110170 threat of collapse 9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing 9110256 an imminent collapse on 9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure 9110150 a potential for collapse 9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing 9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down 9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately 9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down 9110301 in danger of collapsing 9110222 concerned about seven coming down 9110222 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center 9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down 9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. 9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down 9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing 9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down 9110462 definitely in danger of collapse 2 ------------------------------------- Evacuation of Collapse Zone (From Firehouse magazine, citations below) Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly, becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision: Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that day. 1 -------------------------- Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire cheifs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Cheif Nigro ordering people away from the building: Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." 2 Fire Chief Daniel Nigro's describes his reasons for creating the collapse zone: The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. 3 Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone. Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy. 4 Professional photographer Tom Franklin provides some detail about the timing of the evacuation: It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse. 5 It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. 6 Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine described being surprised by a fireman certainty that the skyscraper would come down: Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That building is coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled. 7 Battalion Fire Chief John Norman describes the size of the collapse zone -- 600 feet in radius: After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching. 9 Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. 10 Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7: Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance. 11 References -------------------------- 1. World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response, Fire Engineering, 9/2002 2. WTC: This Is Their Story, firehouse.com, 4/2002 3. Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002 4. Postcollapse Command, Fire Engineering, 9/2002 5. Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, page 204 6. The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002 7. The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, 3/27/2006 8. Interview with Indira Singh. 'Ground Zero 911, Blueprint for Terror, Part One', Guns & Butteer, 4/27/2005 9. Search and Rescue Operations, Fire Engineering, 10/2002 10. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 5/2002 11. WTC: This Is Their Story, Firehouse.com, 8/2002 3 3 ---------------------------------- 3 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 63&sec=&spon= Dec. 20, 2001 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gyxng ....The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions. ..At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached. Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the buildin ....They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse. Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of a building posed serious risks. 4 4 --------------------------------------- 4 The following is from the document cited below., Figure L-22a and L22b on page L-20 in ths document shows serious damage to the SW corner of WTC7. Fig. L-32a shows the scene at the base of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1. By 2:30PM . In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22. . Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m . Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m. . From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s. Looking from the southwest corner at the south face: . Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11 . Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30 . Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face Looking from the southeast corner of the south face: . Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke . Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face Looking at the east face: . Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side All From http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf Section L is very readable, The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and to pull the firefighters from the building. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html Note he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a "large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell. In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack. All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and fire, just like the towers. Table L-1. Timeline of WTC 7 collapse as observed from the northwest. Time Interval (s) Total Time (s) Observation from CBS Video 0.0 0.0 - First movement of east penthouse roofline downwards 0.9 0.9 - East penthouse kink between columns 44 and 45 (Fig. L-25) - First 2 windows at Floor 40 fail between columns 44-45 (windows 9 and 11 from east end) 0.3 1.2 - 4 more windows fail at Floor 40 - East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building) 0.5 1.7 - 3 windows break at Floor 41, Floor 43, Floor 44 0.5 2.2 - East penthouse completely submerged (Fig. L-26) 1.8 4.0 - Windows break along column 46 at Floors 37 and 40 3.0 7.0 - West penthouse and screenwall begin to move downward into building - Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above Floor 21) 0.2 7.2 - West end of roof starts to move 0.5 7.7 - East end of roof starts to move - Kink formed in north facade along column 46-47 0.4 8.2 - West penthouse and screenwall submerged - Windows fail between Floors 33-39 around column 55 - Global collapse initiates (Fig. L-27 and L-28) (From page L-27 of http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_...ndixl.pdf*lots of pics and supporting info in the PDF. http://web.umr.edu/~explosiv/Clip_Demolition.avi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI At 0:20 seconds: "The bulding had been weakened this morning" at 0:50 "weakened by falling debirs [from WTC1] 1:20 Building is still standing but burning H. Meyers ambulances and there were other bodies that were kinds of staged waiting for removal. Q. When you reported into the command post, you reported to Chief Nigro; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Did he give you any specific assignment? A. Yes, he did. Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. Also, to do what I could while up at the site to organize some sort of command or control. p 4 http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...ts/9110382.PDF D. Nigro http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110154.PDF p 6 We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building. I looked up P. (Burns (?) dies and Nigro is acting commander (verify) At some point after I was briefed, I took command of the operation from the Chambers Street post P 10 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. P 13-14 Q. Stepping back for a moment to when you were coming over the Brooklyn Bridge, could you make a determination based on a visual from that distance how involved or fully involved the fire was and how many floors? A. It looked to me like it was involving about 10 floors of the building, and the way it was burning, 14 D. NIGRO I stated to Chief Ganci on the way there that I didn't believe we could extinguish the fire. Q. That was based on what? A. The number of floors I think. The volume of fire on the number of floors. To my recollection, we had never put out a fire that involved that many floors in a high rise building in this city before. and was told that Chief Fellini was at the forward operations post at West and Vesey, from which the ------------------------------------- http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf Is .Pull. Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean ..Demolish a Structure With Explosives?. No. Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion: We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pulldown of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts http://tinyurl.com/pkeqq Book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates. Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground. View of WTC7 From WTC Tower http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/ wp-content/uploads/2007/05/viewofwtc7and1.jpg Timing ^ good video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw Fireman saying WTC will fall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk ----------------------------------------------- Does the picture show the other 3 sides, or a view from the roof? Now, for the rest of your non-fact-filled paragrah; Steel looses 50% of it's strength at 500C/950F. See [1] You didn't include dimensional expansion. Heating steel beams 500C expands them by about 0.5% (6 inches per 100ft), but only where it's hot. The rest of the structure stays the same. This creates terrific stresses which can tear joints apart. WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the structural steel. WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of ft. WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it subject to failure from all of the above. [2] Don't let this bit of factual analysis disuade you from posting "truth Movemnt" crap all over Usenet, possibly under multiple handles, in the future. Have a nice day. NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5 [1] http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/go....action=results * How does the strength of steel vary with increasing temperature? Plain carbon manganese steels behave similarly when heated, in that the yield strength decreases approximately linearly with increasing temperature at the rate of around 0.1% of room temperature strength per 10C increase in temperature. This means that most steels have about 50% of their room temperature strength at 5000C. Above this temperature, the rate of softening increases more rapidly. Addition of alloying elements such as molybdenum and chromium slow down the rate of softening and allow the steel to be used at higher temperatures. However, other factors are important at higher temperatures. These include creep where the material will fail over a time period at a stress level much lower than the strength of the steel. Further, oxidation of the surface accelerates rapidly. For these reasons, plain carbon steels are not generally suitable for applications above 4000C. [2] http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html ---------------------------------------------------------- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uo95x New York Times December 20, 2001 A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called ''disaster.'' Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris, and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the building. Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings. Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise. The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer. The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said. ''We made sure that it was in agreement with the code,'' Mr. Lombardi said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry enclosure. A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be ''a stretch.'' The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe. The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to often take additional precautions. A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods. ''We put it in the area where we needed to put it,'' Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said. He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning. No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and recovery efforts under way at the scene. The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions. At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached. Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building. The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse. Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of a building posed serious risks. ---------------------------------------------------- The Verizon building in this story was next to WTC7, on the corner of West and Veasey. It can be seen in the foreground in this WTC7-on-fire video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3495 January 6, 2003 Herculean Effort to Restore a Landmark Battered on 9/11 By GLENN COLLINS ....Nevertheless, according to George Famulare, Verizon's manager of corporate real estate, "the building is a tank." Built with reinforced concrete and steel, its floors can hold 250 to 300 pounds per square foot, constructed to support the giant electromechanical switching assemblies that were replaced long ago by electronic alternatives. ... During the collapses, steel projectiles from the towers hit the Verizon building, sliced the mains and left water cascading into the building's five subbasements, filling the lowermost vaults like a swimming pool. A javelin of steel actually speared through the sidewalk concrete and lodged in the basement. The building's fuel oil tanks were submerged in water, then burst. ... Upstairs in the formerly sacrosanct, climate-controlled clean rooms that housed hundreds of telephone cabinets bearing computer switching cards, the walls had gone unimaginably missing; firefighters established their hoses there to fight the raging fire in 7 World Trade Center. ... Now, much of the 14 floors of damage to the south-facing wall has been refaced with custom-fabricated brick from Stone Creek, Ohio. Gone is the 7 World Trade Center debris that was stacked up to Verizon's fifth floor. ---------------------------- Penthouse collapse Fullverison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk --------------------------------------- -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
In article ,
wrote: In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote: In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected. Small charges ? laugh out loud The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear for blocks around. There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the collapse. Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics. There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed. Name one and prove me wrong. (I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD). -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article , wrote: In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote: In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected. Small charges ? laugh out loud The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear for blocks around. That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for reasons of both safety and economy. There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the collapse. Yes. Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics. I have no answer. There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were needed. Name one and prove me wrong. You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems pretty far-fetched to me. (I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD). I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead. Does he shed light on the CD allegations? -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
In article ,
wrote: In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote: In article , wrote: In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote: In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do undetected. Small charges ? laugh out loud The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was hear for blocks around. That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for reasons of both safety and economy. Like this demolition job? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ I figure that the microphine is about a half a mile away from the blast. (That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2, or 7. That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive and that the largest beams are that much stonger.) There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any of the buildings at WTC. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
On Sep 14, 10:18 am, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote: Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did 'security checks'. Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for implosion? Do you have an analysis? Plus, how did the third building crumble to the ground when no other steel frame building in the history of construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that this could not have caused the collapse? Nobody mentions the third building. I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to rethink your position. -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel I can't recall the amount of hours, but it can easily be found. It was days and they called it security sweeps I believe. Re-wiring the security devices. That's what they said all the wire was for. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
On Sep 14, 11:28 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article .com, wrote: On Sep 13, 12:14 pm, wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press, witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11: "That was no American Airlines jet" If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted to secret landing sites? Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not the AA planes. I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced. -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did 'security checks'. "Cleared the towers" ???????????????????????????/ I don't think you ever saw the towers except a few seconds at a time in a twoofer video. As someone who as managed 24-hour operations in Manhattan towers and been the on-site representative of "the customer" for full-floor bare-beam-and-concrete revelation, I say bull****. thousands of pounds of explsoive and material would be required and you have to do paperwork to use the loading dock and the freight evators any time of day or night, expecially night. Plus, how did the third building crumble to the ground when no other steel frame building in the history of construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? Nobody mentions the third building. Hours of fire with no water for firefighting,. WTC7 fell because of some combination of falling debris, exposure to fire from adjacent buildings, time, poor fireproofing, thousands of gallons of stored diesel fuel, lack of water for sprinklers and firefighters and the strange steel framework that was kludged over a pre-existing electric utility substation. There may be other factors. If there are, they will be published in the next NIST report. Um, sure it did. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
In article . com,
wrote: On Sep 14, 10:18 am, wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: Weeks before the cleared the towers for many hours as they did 'security checks'. Interesting. And were "many hours" enough to wire the buildings for implosion? Do you have an analysis? Plus, how did the third building crumble to the ground when no other steel frame building in the history of construction has 'emploded' from fire, a plane hitting it, etc? I've seen photos of a corner of the building blown off by one of the towers collapsing. Do you have any structural analysis which shows that this could not have caused the collapse? Nobody mentions the third building. I've seen it mentioned many, many times. If you re forming conclusions based upon the premise that nobody mentions it, I think you need to rethink your position. -- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russel I can't recall the amount of hours, but it can easily be found. It was days and they called it security sweeps I believe. Re-wiring the security devices. That's what they said all the wire was for. Why would "security sweeps" require the occupants to leave? There are multiple layers of security under management by different organizations. You can't get the of supplies in the loading dock without paperwork at any hour. You can't use the elevators at any hour without advance notice and paperwork. Only people that never managed facilities inside a big building could think this is possible. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Video-equivalent of "pitch-shifting." | Radium[_2_] | Digital Photography | 48 | August 28th 07 05:35 PM |
video: Photosynth + Seadragon = "All your photos are belong to us" | AnonGoo | Digital Photography | 10 | June 26th 07 10:36 PM |
Here it is: the "dick in a box" video from Saturday Night Live | Deep into Kristen Wiig | Digital Photography | 3 | December 22nd 06 01:04 AM |
real-time "video out" for digital cameras? | Scott Speck | Digital ZLR Cameras | 8 | May 31st 06 10:42 PM |