Collapse Of WTC Buildings (Just the facts)

[Phillip]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
I do not know a Van Romero and I certainly don't remember him being director of energetic matls. Although, I will not say that he wasn't; however. If he was the Director of the department he probably is a manager and not a great engineer. I have seen very few directors who were good managers and good engineers both.

For these two people, one of which might have some experience and the other probably having zero experience with real energetics. And, if he has any experience, it no doubt is probably not very much.

There are also people who work in all businesses who buy into conspiracy theories.

Anyway, regardless of what they say, I will state to their face that it is ludicrus to believe that energetics that were planted could survive the crash and heat.

I will also give you another clue on why there were no explosives in the building. The Trade Center has been a target of terrorism before. It would be next to impossible for someone to "sneak" energetics into those particular buildings.

What differance does it make whether YOU know him or not?


Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

September 11, 2001
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects. </font>[/QUOTE]Because if he was an expert in this field I probably know him. It was a simple question. This technology is kept within a pretty tight knit group. So, this guy is from a tech school? You say tech? I thought he was Sandia Labs. This would be the only place in Alb. that would have anything to do with explosives. Except maybe construction demolition and quarry work, etc. Also, bomb squads who are trained by Sandia and military ammunition experts by the military's explosive school located down the block from me and the military's explosive safety directorate -- downstairs from me. What's a "Tech Expert" anyway? Can he fix my air-conditioner? I need somebody to do that.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Phillip:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />– no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

No building before has had a jet-airliner full of kerosene crash into it that was built the way the WTC were.

It is highly doubtful that a simple fire would cause a building collapse. Like most accidents two or more factors usually combine (often found in aircraft accidents).

In this case we have the unique structure of very heavy concrete floors literally hung on brackets from the external shell of the building which acted as a pipe.

Do you have any idea of the energy the building absorbed due to the inertia of the aircraft? Don't you think that would cause major damage to the building causing a weak link?

Then we have a major load of fuel. A hugh flying incendiary missile carrying a close equivalent to napalm.

Then we have the ducting of the heat directly to the damaged "weak-link" area as the fuel ran down to lower floors. Puff came when the floor collapsed and the pancaking began. (Much powder powderized.)

Molten Iron? You have a blast furnace being oxidized by air pulled upwards. With the heat confined in the pipe and bleeding out the damaged section which creates a low pressure zone causing more air to rush in from below increasing the oxidation. Just like a blast furnace used to melt iron. </font>[/QUOTE]In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

Also, watch the video of the second tower that was hit. There was a much larger visable fireball outside the building which suggests that much of the airliner's fuel burned outside the building. And yet, the second tower collapsed before the first one did even though the "inferno" burned longer and with more fuel in the first tower.

Finally, telephone calls were taped from people traped withing a few floors of the plane's impact and none of them mentioned the trremendous heat you claim was generated.

BTW, the Empire State Building was hit by a military aircraft during WW2.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I cannot resolve this link:

Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

???

I dunno if I'm resolving anything or not. I got a blank page and looked at the source code. It has a header and is blank!!!!?????

Maybe it was taken down by the GOVERNMENT.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
I'm sure that most buildings, when demolished, they let their rubble sit around for months just waiting. The towers fell, it was scrap, and it was a danger just sitting there.

But in this case, the structural steel was important evidence about what really happened. It didn't need to be left on site but it could have been left at the Staten Island location. Why was it removed so quickly and whisked out of the country?

 

[Phillip]

straight and narrow, yah got some stuff wrong with your information as it relates to the trade-center; ya wanna try to correct it before I do?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
LadyE, you conveniently ignroe the fact that, thoughout the process of recovery and cleanup, the WTC site was treated as a crime scene. By the time scrap was discarded, it had been examined for evidence, clues, etc.

Look, if you'd rather listen to tinfoil-hat kooks than experienced engineers like Phillip, I can't help you. The facts are the facts, whether you like them or not.

I'm an experienced engineer (32 year's experience). Listen to me. I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
LadyE, what professional experience helped you determine that the WTC collapses "looked like an implosion? How much experience do you have with shaped charges, and what is your experience with architectural engineering, demolition, and related fields?

Your information is anecdotal at best. As I have previously stated, Occam's Razor requires the simplest explanation, and that explanation is that large jet planes filled with a highly volatile substance (kerosene) were used as missiles.

If you must have evidence of the obvious, please go to Google or Yahoo and research the ongoing news reports concerning recovery and clearing efforts at the WTC site. Countless references to its treatment as a crime scene will be evident.

Why were Saudi princes allowed to fly out of the U.S. right after 9/11 when the U.S. airspace was still closed to all traffic other than our military?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
I'm sure that most buildings, when demolished, they let their rubble sit around for months just waiting. The towers fell, it was scrap, and it was a danger just sitting there.

But in this case, the structural steel was important evidence about what really happened. It didn't need to be left on site but it could have been left at the Staten Island location. Why was it removed so quickly and whisked out of the country? </font>[/QUOTE]It was a horrific ecological problem. Common sense dictates that hazardous waste be removed from the center of such a highly occupied area. Do you leave explosives around even if they are evidence if the public is within the danger zone?

These theories are actually getting beyond quite ridiculous.

Let's assume, just for a minute that it was blown from the inside. If so, a few questions:

1. Who blew it?

2. How many pounds of explosives would it take of various kinds?

3. How did they get it to the correct floor?

4. How did the charges survive the crash without detonating or cooking off or just being damaged? (Remember, a demolition requires every charge to go off in a near perfect configuration without failure.)

5. How did they get the explosives up the tower?

Before you can have an incident so complex as what you guys are proposing you would have to set it in place before the fact.

And finally:

6. Why bother with airplanes, why not just blow it up? Too many things to go wrong here for both buildings to go perfectly.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Phillip:
My questions on the WTC HAVE been answered by the US Government.

I agree with their findings.


The government has been transparent. What do you want them to do, make up stories for you? Would you like them to tell you that little green men from Pluto planted kryptonite in the stair-wells causing the plane's autopilots to drive them into the building?

I don't know what you are expecting of the government. It appears that every time a lead is found that it is made public. For reasons of national security, it would be completely "irresponsible" for the government to tell the public exactly who they are chasing and where in the investigation until they are ready. Otherwise, all you do is tip off the enemy.

Obviouly, the government has been doing a fantastic job of chasing Al Quida around because nothing else has occurred and I would have actually thought something else would have happened by now, due to the sheer size of this world and the number of potential terrorists.

Finally, back to facts, stick with these two questions.

Do you have any idea how much explosive it would take to collapse a building like a WTC tower from the middle?

How was that energetic material moved into place?

Finally, again, how would the terrorists know where to place it and what would keep the charges "intact" when the plane crashed and spilled its burning jetfuel?

As with most conspiracy theories, this one has more holes than the real explanation.

The government confiscated all security videos taken by businesses surrounding the Pentagon and has never released them.

BTW, the government must have done a great job between 1993 and 2001 since there weren't any attack in that period following the first WTC bombing. Right? In fact maybe they aren't really doing things much differently now than they were then.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
LadyE, you conveniently ignroe the fact that, thoughout the process of recovery and cleanup, the WTC site was treated as a crime scene. By the time scrap was discarded, it had been examined for evidence, clues, etc.

Look, if you'd rather listen to tinfoil-hat kooks than experienced engineers like Phillip, I can't help you. The facts are the facts, whether you like them or not.

I'm an experienced engineer (32 year's experience). Listen to me. I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy. </font>[/QUOTE]What kind of engineer? There are thousands of types. Have you EVER been involved in explosives designed for destruction?

I'm not being rude here, just stating a fact and there is nothing wrong with whatever type of engineer you are but: For all I know you could design MP3 players.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
The government confiscated all security videos taken by businesses surrounding the Pentagon and has never released them. [/QB]

What has this got to do with the Thread?

NOW, this is REALLY getting ridiculous. Have you EVER worked for the military at all? Ed can tell you that ALL "secured" buildings will not allow photos if they can help it. My goodness, this is basic SOP. Have you even heard of OPSEC?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:

BTW, the government must have done a great job between 1993 and 2001 since there weren't any attack in that period following the first WTC bombing. Right? In fact maybe they aren't really doing things much differently now than they were then.

You say it with tongue in cheek; but you are ABSOLUTELY right. The FBI alone was stopping approximately 100 to 150 terrorist incidents per year before 2001. AND that's just the civilian bunch. Remember the plot to poison Chicago's water? Just one of the very few that found its way to the press.

I would have to violate OPSEC in order to talk about what the Army is doing. and that, I won't do.

Just remember that you can sleep better at night knowing the Armed Forces are guarding the city wall.

Pull the plug on the military like you folks want to do and you'll get to see some REAL terror.

But, also remember, even with all the security in the world, one could slip through again. This is why we, even civilians should be on our toes for odd circumstances, situations and items.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Phillip: //But, also remember, even with all the security in the world, one could slip through again. This is why we, even civilians should be on our toes for odd circumstances, situations and items.//

Amen, Brother Phillip - right on!
And report them to the internal US anti-terrorist group: the FBI.

 

[Ed Edwards]

StraightAndNarrow: //Why were Saudi princes allowed to fly out of the U.S. right after 9/11 when the U.S. airspace was still closed to all traffic other than our military?//

My Brother and Sister-in-law flew from OKC to Chicago
on 9/12/2001. When did the Saudi Prince fly and how did
you find out about it. Aren't CIA moves kinda hid from
most of us? If those Conspiracies are SECRET, how come
the conspirasy theory gossips know all that is going on
behind closed doors?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I cannot resolve this link:

Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

???

I dunno if I'm resolving anything or not. I got a blank page and looked at the source code. It has a header and is blank!!!!?????

Maybe it was taken down by the GOVERNMENT.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yep. Doesn't everybody know that these web
sights are watched by Homeland Security?

I get what you get, I call that 'unresolved'.

Anyway, we don't have to debunk hidden materials

 

[Phillip]

Ed, I think I heard about this and it was nothing more than a diplomatic movement of a private aircraft that was escorted by you guys. Or it could have been Navy since they also reponded to 911 due to their close proximity. This was all public info I think and the talking-heads were trying to make a big deal out of it and we were trying to get them out of harms way. Since the Bin Laden bunch and the rich Sheiks don't see eye to eye.

We are still trying to have good relations with Saudi Arabia and it only make sense that we would help them move. I wouldn't want them to have to stay in America right after 911. Their lives would probably be at risk by those who don't understand the middle-eastern politics.

Just my take on the situation.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I cannot resolve this link:

Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

???

I dunno if I'm resolving anything or not. I got a blank page and looked at the source code. It has a header and is blank!!!!?????

Maybe it was taken down by the GOVERNMENT.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yep. Doesn't everybody know that these web
sights are watched by Homeland Security?

I get what you get, I call that 'unresolved'.

Anyway, we don't have to debunk hidden materials

</font>[/QUOTE]In reality, when they tried to provide "facts" for their side of the case, that was their answer. ROFL.

 

[Ed Edwards]

My Brother & Sister-in-law were going
from Tulsa to Chicago and catch an
Areoflot to Moscow (they were going to get
three Russian Orphans) on Sept 12, 2001.
The plane from Moscow was diverted to
Montreal, Canada on 9/11. (It took the
passengers who wanted to go to Chicago on 9/12
and went back to Moscow empty).

My Brother & Sister-in-law went to Chicago
on 12 Sept and waited 3 or 4 days until
the next Chicago to Moscow Areoflot flight
(Russia insists on traveling Areoflot
to pick up kids).

The oldest child is now 19 and is a
naturalized citizen of the USofA.

One of my nieces and two of my nephews have
a WTC Bombing survival 'story'.

 

[Phillip]

Wow, Ed, what a day to pick to fly.

I guess that poor Iranian who worked at SeaGate and was taking his brother some needle nose pliers and wire cutters because he liked to tinker and couldn't get them in Iran really picked a bad day to fly too. Poor guy paid his price for being Iranian.

I'm going on a tangent here, but I have a friend who is an Iranian -- but, American citizen engineer. We talk about what the situation in Iran is like. The politics of the mid-east are really fascinating and twisted like a puzzle.

I flew with him to Pennsylvania on training and everybody on the planes kept looking at him. It was sad since he works so hard for America. However, if you talk to him for ten minutes you know where his allegiance lies. He LOVES our freedom. (you know---the one the Patriot Act took away from us......

 

[Phillip]

Isn't it amazing that we live in a country where you can question the government, second guess them and even slander them for the world to see and you don't go to jail?

Now THAT'S what I call a GREAT country. Like no other.