WHEW
here is what continues to astound me...why would anyone care about what i have to say about the events of 11/09/01? this site is a virtual backwater. i established it because steve gilliard[all forgotten, i pray for your recovery] erased me from the dailykos site - because i devastated a wrong-headed analysis of his concerning john kerry. and i encountered erasures at eschaton - i had become a troll[in retrospect, that seems to have been the result of my newspaper style of paragraphing].
but,in a very real sense, it is a vanity site.
virtually no one has visited it since i established it.
and then, some weeks ago, i wrote a bit on the leftcoaster site concerning the taliban and al-fresco and the perpetrators of 11/09/01. basically asserting that our invasion of afghanistan was as much a war crime as our invasion of iraq.
that seems to have been a shit magnet.
their vitriol is essentially composed of half-truths and well-crafted distortions of engineering realities.
and it blows me away. why would anyone waste their time deploying their agitprop to injure this backwater site?
even though i think that i reveal truths about that day, why would anyone bother with those truths that i reveal? virtually no one will be reading them?
so, it makes me wonder, does the state monitor the internet exhaustively? and has the state ordered its agents to go after anyone who contradicts the "official" story?
and are coa, coyote, snark usg agents? probably.
so, let us think about that day once again......
1. for me, as a former aviator, the most disturbing aspect of the four "collisions with terrain" was that there was no effort made to secure the collision sites and conduct an investigation. i consider this a conspiracy to obstruct justice, ordered at the potus level. a misprision of a felony, at the very least. in reality, treason.
2. an aspect of the wtc site that always commanded my attention, but mostly goes undiscussed, was the small rubble piles. imagine, multi-story buildings[1,2,7] collapse leaving virtually no rubble. and i say that in this sense, for 1 & 2, the rubble should have been 20-40 stories. how high was it really, no more than 8 stories.
now, why was that? well, for one reason, the towers were deposited into their basements that were blown-away. cratered for 5-10 stories. perhaps even deeper.
but, there is the reality that significant structural aspects of the building were pulverized into dust, small particles.
coa attacked me for saying that virtually all of the concrete was pulverized, turned into dust. and he used steve jones to support that. in one sense, he is correct...in another sense he is incorrect. as steve jones said, not all of the concrete was reduced to dust. according to jones, there were some fragments that measured 5cm X 2cm. not dust, to be sure. but smaller residue than could be expected.
3. the issue of symmetricity. three buildings collapse into their foundations. all within hours. none of them are subjected to any events severe enough or symmetrical enough to cause this.
you must know what it takes to put a building into its footprint. it requires a very skillful application of demolition technologies.
for a fine illustration of this, i recommend 911mysteries.com and their part 1 dvd entitled DEMOLITIONS.
4. BUT, it is the craters caused by demolitions of the basements, the subbasements of virtually all of these buildings that reveal that no aircraft "collisions with terrain" caused these collapsings.
5. the conventional wisdom is that jetA fires caused the collapsing of 1&2.
that is propaganda. the jetA fire in 1 was virtually out before its collapse.
and the jetA fire in 2 was mostly outside of the building.
both of these fires were virtually extinguished before the collapse.
these minimal fires could not cause the collapsing of the towers.
6. some say that the individuals that suicided by leaping out of the towers is proof that the fires were an inferno.
for a human being on a certain floor, yes it was. for structural steel, it wasn't.
650F for a human being is one thing. for a structural steel it is virtually unnoticeable.
my guess is that it wasn't the temperatures, however. it was the smoke from the dying fires. smoke kills more people in a fire than do the flames.
but,in a very real sense, it is a vanity site.
virtually no one has visited it since i established it.
and then, some weeks ago, i wrote a bit on the leftcoaster site concerning the taliban and al-fresco and the perpetrators of 11/09/01. basically asserting that our invasion of afghanistan was as much a war crime as our invasion of iraq.
that seems to have been a shit magnet.
their vitriol is essentially composed of half-truths and well-crafted distortions of engineering realities.
and it blows me away. why would anyone waste their time deploying their agitprop to injure this backwater site?
even though i think that i reveal truths about that day, why would anyone bother with those truths that i reveal? virtually no one will be reading them?
so, it makes me wonder, does the state monitor the internet exhaustively? and has the state ordered its agents to go after anyone who contradicts the "official" story?
and are coa, coyote, snark usg agents? probably.
so, let us think about that day once again......
1. for me, as a former aviator, the most disturbing aspect of the four "collisions with terrain" was that there was no effort made to secure the collision sites and conduct an investigation. i consider this a conspiracy to obstruct justice, ordered at the potus level. a misprision of a felony, at the very least. in reality, treason.
2. an aspect of the wtc site that always commanded my attention, but mostly goes undiscussed, was the small rubble piles. imagine, multi-story buildings[1,2,7] collapse leaving virtually no rubble. and i say that in this sense, for 1 & 2, the rubble should have been 20-40 stories. how high was it really, no more than 8 stories.
now, why was that? well, for one reason, the towers were deposited into their basements that were blown-away. cratered for 5-10 stories. perhaps even deeper.
but, there is the reality that significant structural aspects of the building were pulverized into dust, small particles.
coa attacked me for saying that virtually all of the concrete was pulverized, turned into dust. and he used steve jones to support that. in one sense, he is correct...in another sense he is incorrect. as steve jones said, not all of the concrete was reduced to dust. according to jones, there were some fragments that measured 5cm X 2cm. not dust, to be sure. but smaller residue than could be expected.
3. the issue of symmetricity. three buildings collapse into their foundations. all within hours. none of them are subjected to any events severe enough or symmetrical enough to cause this.
you must know what it takes to put a building into its footprint. it requires a very skillful application of demolition technologies.
for a fine illustration of this, i recommend 911mysteries.com and their part 1 dvd entitled DEMOLITIONS.
4. BUT, it is the craters caused by demolitions of the basements, the subbasements of virtually all of these buildings that reveal that no aircraft "collisions with terrain" caused these collapsings.
5. the conventional wisdom is that jetA fires caused the collapsing of 1&2.
that is propaganda. the jetA fire in 1 was virtually out before its collapse.
and the jetA fire in 2 was mostly outside of the building.
both of these fires were virtually extinguished before the collapse.
these minimal fires could not cause the collapsing of the towers.
6. some say that the individuals that suicided by leaping out of the towers is proof that the fires were an inferno.
for a human being on a certain floor, yes it was. for structural steel, it wasn't.
650F for a human being is one thing. for a structural steel it is virtually unnoticeable.
my guess is that it wasn't the temperatures, however. it was the smoke from the dying fires. smoke kills more people in a fire than do the flames.
posted by albertchampion at 11:05 PM
3 Comments:
their vitriol is essentially composed of half-truths and well-crafted distortions of engineering realities.
What vitriol? Anyone who disagrees with you is spewing vitriol? I’m interested in an actual factual debate. Something you seem incapable of.
Distorted engineering realities? You’re the one with the distorted realities. Denying the facts that are clear in front of your face.
and it blows me away. why would anyone waste their time deploying their agitprop to injure this backwater site?
Injure? Come on man! Get over it. No one is out to get you. You commented at The Left Coaster. When questioned you didn’t respond. Your comments at The Left Coaster link to this site. If you want to write in a vacuum, as it seems you do, don’t link your comments to your site. Simple. Or don't allow comments.
even though i think that i reveal truths about that day, why would anyone bother with those truths that i reveal? virtually no one will be reading them?
I read them. And they are not truths. They are fabrications and fantasies. If you have no desire to defend them then I shall leave you to your delusions.
so, it makes me wonder, does the state monitor the internet exhaustively? and has the state ordered its agents to go after anyone who contradicts the "official" story?
God. It must really be difficult living with your paranoia. I am a private citizen just like you. I witnessed the events of 9/11. I have observed the evidence and I seek an honest debate about what the FACTS dictate happened that day. I don’t work for the government. Much as you would like to imagine I do since it fits your persecution complex so well. I am very aware of construction and engineering realities. My understanding of events does not require me to believe, without a single shread of evidence, that the government fabricated a bulk of the physical evidence indicating that four airliners were hijacked by muslim exteemists and intentionally crashed into multiple targets. Yours does.
and are coa, coyote, snark usg agents? probably.
It’s a wonder you mange to operate a business. More delusions. Anyone who seeks to challenge your statements on the events of 9/11 is a government agent. You flatter yourself I think.
coa attacked me…
I didn’t attack anyone. More persecution. You attack men and women who work as civil servants of this country everyday with your rantings by accusing them of being complicit in the murder of thousands of their fellow countrymen. You sir are the attacker.
As to your numbered points;
1. There was an investigation. It was conducted by the FBI and by the 9/11 Commission. The cause of the ‘collion with terrain’ was known. The NTSB worked in conjunction with the FBI to assess the sites. As I have pointed out this was neither illegal nor unprecedented.
2. What method did you use to determine that the rubble piles should have been 20-40 stories tall? Intuition? You note that the debris was deposited into the sub-basements which were at least 8 stories deep. Why does this not eleviate your angst about the ‘virtual lack of rubble’ (even though it was still 8 stories high above ground level)? The volume of building materials compared to the total volume of each tower was a ratio of about 12% material to 88% enmpty space. Based on the volume of the material a total collapse stright down with no material falling outside the footprints would have resulted in a pile about 50 meters tall. Of which, by your own admission 8 stories worth would have been below ground. I believe the sub-basements were 18 meters deep. That leaves 32 meters above ground for a perfectly compacted perfectly stacked pile completely within the building footprint. 32 meters is equivilant to about 9 stories (based on a 12' story). No where near 20-40 stories. While the sub-basements may have been blown away it was surely a result of the tons of this debris falling on them from above that caused them to collapse.
You, in your demolition scenerio conveniently fail to deal with a couple of FACTS. The buildings did not begin their collapse from the basement levels. The lower portions of the buildings were stationary as the tops began to fall. Also, the video clearly shows towering portions of the central cores still standing after the perimeter walls and floors had collapsed. These spiring towers follow the rest of the building down in short order since they were not designed to stand on their own. And how do you explain this, if the sub-basement levels were detonated to facilitate collapse how is it that people managed to survive in the central stairwells as the buildings collapsed around them? Had the core been detonated as you suggest the cores would not have stood longer than the rest of the buildings and the lower levels of the core would have been obliterated as well making survival in these areas impossible. Many photos of the clean up show the massive core columns of the lower levels still standing in many places. Also, you have stated in the past that explosives could have been placed on vacant floors. But the scenerio you present here requires explosives on every floor. Your insistance on maintaining that the towers ‘collapsed into their own footprints’ contributes to your own undoing. They did no such thing. What would you expect the towers to do? Fall over like dominos? LOL! A physical impossibility. And again, what method did you use to determine the amount of concrete that was crushed into what different sizes? You should know that the energy required to ‘atomize’ (I believe that’s the word you used previously) concrete and the energy required to crush it into 2cm-5cm pieces is vastly different. This blows a big hole in the ‘there wasn’t enough energy in the buildings to pulverize all the concrete’ theory. There is an interesting paper that details the fracture effects one could expect in light weight concrete floor slabs in such a collapse. I’ll see if I can find it again.
3. I believe this falls under the ‘collapsed into their own footprint’ category which I addressed above. Let me just add, this building was designed as two steel tubes, one inside the other that only stood because they were tied together by the floor slabs. Lacking this connection to each other neither would remain standing. Once the large mass of building above the point of initial failure began to collapse onto the lower sections seperating the floor slabs (there are many photos of shorn truss to column connections) the perimeter wall, the more vulnerable of the two, began to collapse followed in short order by the core. Hard to believe? Yes. Physically impossible. Apparently not.
4. Frankly, this I just don’t understand. What craters? Again, the collpse did not begin from the basement as I explained above.
5. I understand your need to simplify everything to make your theories work. But you can’t treat the jet fuel fires in isolation. The impact of the planes did several things. They caused significant stuructural damage. The exterior damage was obvious. No one knows the exact extent of the damage to the interior cores. The cores were not protected by concrete. The fire rating around the cores and fire stairs was achieved by using multiple layers of gypsum wall board. This would have offered minimal resistance to the impact of the planes and left many core columns immediately exposed to the heat of the fires. The impacts are also believed to have striped the sprayed insulation off of the floor trusses. This allowed the fires, while they burned to weaken the floors which began to sag pulling the perimeter walls inward. And the fact that the fires were beginning to wane at the time of collapse is also not an issue. Had the floor trusses sagged as proposed and then began to cool they would have began to contract as they cooled. In their deformed state this could have increased the forces tending to pull the perimeter walls inward. You’ll note that the NIST report does not indicate that temperatures inside the towers reached levels capable of melting steel, just significantly weakening it. The combination of fire weakened steel and structural damage caused by the impacts resulted in the failure of the structures at the points of impact.
6. A true tragedy to have observed.
The wind in a storm put more stress on those buildings than the airliners ever did. Not to mention WTC7.
Amazing then that a storm never so much as broke a window in one of the towers!
The flaw in your reasoning is that a storm distributes stress equally over the envelope of the building. The plane strikes delivered point loads well in excess of any storm loads onto individual structural members.
An airliner is a birdcage with an aluminum skin. The only solid parts are the shafts in the engines and parts of the landing gear.
LOL! The only solid parts? What is aluminum? A liquid? Gas maybe?
A 757 weighs in the neighborhood of 250,000 lbs. Moving at several hundred miles an hour it is more than capable of fracturing steel. Or do your eyes not see the damage the planes inflicted on the WTC towers? Maybe they were some super secret government planes made totally of steel that flew in there?
You should chat with Albert though. He seems to think that the ‘non-solid’ wings of an airliner should have simply bounced off the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon and landed gentle on the lawn. And that there should have been lots of 'significant pieces' of 'non-solid' debris within the burned out shell of the Pentagon.
How do you think the thing flies?
The fundamentals of aerodynamics aren’t that complicated. Thrust. Lift. It’s pretty easy to understand if you want to.
I have to say, your effort here doesn’t do anything to improve my opinion of your mental faculties.
Or are you trying to sound stupid so Albert won’t think you’re a government agent?
But anyway albert, you are so right about the "matters of faith"!
He should know.
Many people will gladly admit that everything the USG tells us is a lie.
The people responsible for this website especially.
Except 9-11. That must be true.
Nothing MUST be true. But until the preponderance of the EVIDENCE demonstrates otherwise to BELIEVE it to be a lie can ONLY be a matter of FAITH.
Well, I'll stick with my faith in my own judgement. It's always done right by me.
Well at least you realize it's faith.
You stick with Bush, who knows, you may do better.
As I've said before I'm not a Bush supporter. Never have been. In fact, I have an impeach Bush sticker adorning the front of my computer screen.
This is not about Bush. The fact that you can't see that is part of your problem in recognizing the reality of these events.
But let's be clear: the beginning, and end of my arguement is that there were additional explosives which helped demolish the buildings. Who put them there and why, I have no idea.
Well then you should have just skipped all the nonsense about aluminum birdcages and storms.
As for why you come to a guy's blog...
He invited me here by posting a link to it in his comments. Again, if he doesn't want feedback he should disable comments.
...and start insulting everything you can get your hands on is another matter.
If you go back and reread the exchanges here I think you'll see that I was simply challanging Alberts statements. His response was to call me a "fascist bastid". It's clear who was doing the insulting.
But if I get the chance, I'll tell Bush and Cheney how loyal you are. I'm sure they'll apreciate it. After all they can do more for you than either me or Mr. Champion can.
I guess that's what you write when you don't have anything intelligent to write, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home