Sunday, July 2, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Five)

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: My deepest apologies for the long break between Part Four and this one. Due to a personal emergency I was away from home longer than I expected and did not think to pack my electronics. Here is the long-awaited portion on the Twin Towers.]

Once again, here is the link, along with my suggestion that readers open it in a separate window so they can follow the notes as they go along. We left off at 2:40:20:

Part Six: The Twin Towers

Beginning at 2:41:00, several calls from the WTC are replayed. Oddly enough, it was going through them in preparation for this article that caused me to catch something that I never realized before. The female who is on the telephone with 911 talks about how hot it is, the floor being "completely engulfed", and seeing nothing but smoke. What (finally!) struck me on this umpteenth time of listening to it is:


I have no idea what it means nor what explanation to propose at this point; I will leave the reader to come up with his or her own conclusion(s).

The Towers' Dirty Little Secret (2:42:55)

Larry Silverstein (2:48:20)

NIST vs. Architects and Engineers (2:51:30)

Robust or Fragile Buildings? (2:53:08)

Peter Jennings interviewed an architect on 9/11 whose firm built the World Trade Center. Jon Magnusson, while believing the initial theories being circulated on that day, explained just how sturdy the Towers were (beginning at 1:40):

Most Americans are unaware of how the WTC was constructed, but this segment of the video gives a far different picture than what we were led to believe on that day. 244 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting 40% of the Towers' weight; 47 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting the other 60% of the weight, and a structural redundancy of three to five times the weight they were intended to support. This description is a far cry from the paper machet impression we got from the "talking heads" and our government. By the way, how many people knew about the so-called "Hat Trusses"? And the quote from Roth & Son bears no resemblance to that of the pundits trying to push the government's narrative:

"The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of the tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100 mph wind."

Evidently the powers that be have very short memories, since after the first WTC bombing various engineers were interviewed who affirmed the Towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner going up to 600 mph, never mind the statements of the original architects we read in this segment of the film. In addition, how does the official version square with NIST's own report that the initial jet fuel fires burned out "in a few minutes"? 

The Technical Debate (2:59:30)

1) The Initial Failure
2) The Complete Collapse 

Official Explanation #1

"Fire softened and melted steel." (2:59:50)

I still find the PBS model to be hilarious. If the computer cannot replicate what you say happened, it is a safe bet that you are missing something. (3:00:40)

Official Explanation #2

"Fire weakened steel." (3:01:02)

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory (3:02:40)

1) No proof of insulation "widely dislodged"
    - Evidence to the contrary:
      Pictures didn't fall
2) No proof of temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius (480 degrees Fahrenheit).
    - Evidence to the contrary (see 3:06:05):
    A) 16 people descended through stairs
    B)  FLIR Thermographic Images
3) Why would trusses "pull inward"?

Amazingly, while arguing that fire brought down the Towers (and Building 7), NIST admits the evidence does not support their claim (3:05:04):

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (NIST NCSTAR1 p. 90)
"Only two core columns specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis and the temperatures did not reach 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (Ibid)
 "No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." (Ibid, 3C, p. 235)
Steel Properties (3:05:45):
Melting: 1,530 C (2,800 F)
Softening: 600 C (1,100 F)
NIST: Max. 250 C (480 F)

QUESTION (3:09:42)

Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire?
Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken the steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred?
Can you explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to, with no external force being applied to it?

NIST's theory on what led to the Towers' collapsing is close to comical (3:10:35):

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence', although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 82)
"Independent studies explain collapses" (3:12:21)

Laws of Physics Violated (3:14:00)

Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Law of Momentum Conservation: Momentum is conserved in isolated systems. (3:16:00)

The Twin Towers and Freefall (3:17:05)

"More than ten seconds" (3:20:20)

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance [...] the building section above came down essentially in freefall." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 146)
How does this even make any sense?!

QUESTION (3:22:30):

Given that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall"; given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of controlled demolition for the removal of the supporting structure, which was necessary for near free fall speed to be achieved?

Debunking 9/11 Myths (foreword by John McCain): "Not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Popular Mechanics 2006, 2011 (3:24:12)

I will continue with the Twin Towers in Part Six, which I promise will not take two months to post. 😸