Things The NYT Doesn't Want To Talk About

[Pamela Brown]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:41 PM, Micah Mileto said:

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact, page 131

https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/debunking911debunkingwtcwithstand707impact2-1.pdf

With all due respect, this is a scenario that seems to require more definition.  A 707 is not a widebody.  A plane aimed directly into the center of the building will have a different effect from an accidental hit, etc. etc. In addition, I think the assumption that a plane dumping fuel into the building would leave the structure intact is unrealistic, again, considering the load-bearing walls. And a plane that goes through to the center of the building, hitting the girders at its core and severing all access to the area above it is imo a particularly devastating scenario, as it involves both the core of the building and the load-bearing walls, plus fuel.  

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

15 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

With all due respect, this is a scenario that seems to require more definition.  A 707 is not a widebody.  A plane aimed directly into the center of the building will have a different effect from an accidental hit, etc. etc. In addition, I think the assumption that a plane dumping fuel into the building would leave the structure intact is unrealistic, again, considering the load-bearing walls. And a plane that goes through to the center of the building, hitting the girders at its core and severing all access to the area above it is imo a particularly devastating scenario, as it involves both the core of the building and the load-bearing walls, plus fuel.  

 

 

All I feel qualified to say is that a 707 has four engines, while the planes that crashed into the Towers only had 2. In this context, plane engines would act like battering rams to the columns that support the buildings. So it's 2 large battering rams versus 4 slightly smaller battering rams.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

All I feel qualified to say is that a 707 has four engines, while the planes that crashed into the Towers only had. In this context, plane engines would act like battering rams to the columnd that support the buildings. So it's 2 large battering rams versus 4 slightly smaller battering rams.

 

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

All I feel qualified to say is that a 707 has four engines, while the planes that crashed into the Towers only had. In this context, plane engines would act like battering rams to the columnd that support the buildings. So it's 2 large battering rams versus 4 slightly smaller battering rams.

1) Think about the height of the Twin Towers.

2)  We know, for a fact, that they collapsed at near free fall acceleration-- indicating no significant resistance to collapse from the exterior and interior steel girders of the lower 80+ floors (i.e., something demolished the steel girders all the way down to ground level.)

3) Even if "jet fuel" could have melted 80+ floors of steel girders, (no way) how could sufficient jet fuel have "trickled down" 80+ floors to demolish all of those steel girders within an hour?

4)  Ergo, the "trickle down" jet fuel NIST theory is absurd.

WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished by pre-planted steel-melting explosives.

 

 

 

 

[John Butler]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2020 at 10:56 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Pamela,

    Think about all of the massive steel columns in those buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) on all of the floors below the level of the upper floors where the planes crashed into the buildings.

    What changed in the way of the total gravitational force (weight) exerted on those lower level columns as a result of the crashes?  Very little.  Those Boeing fuselages are made of light weight aluminum.

    (Don't forget that those steel girders and struts were designed to hold all of the weight of the upper floors of the building-- as they had done for years.)  

     A plane crashing into an upper floor of the building would not have significantly altered the resistance of the lower level steel girders to gravitational collapse.

    Therefore, the official (NIST) government narrative was that "burning jet fuel" somehow weakened all of the steel beams-- presumably all 100+ floors of them.

    It's analogous to the Magic Bullet Theory of JFK's assassination-- a scientific absurdity.

    To begin with, how much burning jet fuel could have possibly seeped to floors far below the crash sites on the upper floors-- especially after a substantial amount of the fuel exploded upon impact?

    Secondly, even if there had been enough jet fuel to heat all 100+ floors of steel girders (an absurdity) jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to liquefy steel-- which is what precisely what happened to WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.    Molten steel is clearly visible on the film of the demolitions, and was witnessed at Ground Zero-- which firemen described as looking,  "like a foundry." 

    I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but he was absolutely correct when he said on 9/11 that, based upon his knowledge of the construction of WTC1 and WTC2, the Twin Towers "could only have been destroyed by bombs."

    

   

I've never really had an opinion on the Twin Towers.  After listening to this, I think I will go back and review, in more depth, what Jack White said about the visual aspect of the buildings.

OBTW, some folks think Trump is right on more things that others are willing to admit.  He was elected president and will probably be reelected despite what others may say.  It appears to be a bleak future for those making anti-Trump remarks.

OTOH, it may be just the circumstance to rally and sharpen their views.

Edited July 7, 2020 by John Butler

[Pamela Brown]

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.  The public is not supposed to figure this out -- hence the 'explosives' rabbit trail.  Those who designed 9-11 knew what they were doing.  They figured out that the structure of the buildings had an Achilles heel...

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pamela Brown said:

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.

Pancaked! Please show me the photos of a stack of pancakes. 94 floors, or so.   TIA...

Edited July 8, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

55 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.  The public is not supposed to figure this out -- hence the 'explosives' rabbit trail.  Those who designed 9-11 knew what they were doing.  They figured out that the structure of the buildings had an Achilles heel...

Pamela,

       In addition to the steel columns of the core, WTC1 and WTC2 had massive columns of heavy steel around their perimeters.*  Donald Trump accurately described this aspect of the Twin Towers' construction in his original 9/11/01 commentary (above.)

       Also, there was no "pancaking" of floors driving the near free fall collapses of the Twin Towers.  (See the film clips above.)

 

*The Perimeter Walls

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behalf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." ¹   Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.

As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.

There were 59 perimeter columns on each face of the towers, and one column on each corner bevel, making a total of 240 perimeter columns in each tower.

Like the core columns, the thickness of the perimeter columns tapered from the bottom to the top of the towers. The illustrated cross-sections represent columns near the top, and near the mid-section of the towers.

https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

Edited July 8, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Pamela Brown]

On 7/7/2020 at 8:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Pamela,

       In addition to the steel columns of the core, WTC1 and WTC2 had massive columns of heavy steel around their perimeters.*  Donald Trump accurately described this aspect of the Twin Towers' construction in his original 9/11/01 commentary (above.)

       Also, there was no "pancaking" of floors driving the near free fall collapses of the Twin Towers.  (See the film clips above.)

 

*The Perimeter Walls

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behalf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." ¹   Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.

As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.

There were 59 perimeter columns on each face of the towers, and one column on each corner bevel, making a total of 240 perimeter columns in each tower.

Like the core columns, the thickness of the perimeter columns tapered from the bottom to the top of the towers. The illustrated cross-sections represent columns near the top, and near the mid-section of the towers.

https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

I believe their integrity was destroyed by the gaping holes made by the 767s.  I don't want to argue.  I acknowledge your position.  I just don't think there was any need for planted explosives, as the planes themselves, with 20K gallons of fuel provided all that was needed to begin the process that took down each building.

The larger question, to me, is who understood the structure of WTC I and 2 well enough to put this together and carry it off.  Bin Laden, or something even more sinister?

[W. Niederhut]

17 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

I believe their integrity was destroyed by the gaping holes made by the 767s.  I don't want to argue.  I acknowledge your position.  I just don't think there was any need for planted explosives, as the planes themselves, with 20K gallons of fuel provided all that was needed to begin the process that took down each building.

The larger question, to me, is who understood the structure of WTC I and 2 well enough to put this together and carry it off.  Bin Laden, or something even more sinister?

Pamela,

    From the standpoint of Newtonian physics, a central issue is the near free fall collapse of the 100+ steel floors of WTC1 and WTC2.  The observed free fall acceleration is evidence no significant resistance to collapse by the entire steel exo- and endo-skeletons of those massive towers.

   Something synchronously demolished the massive lower steel sub-structures.

   Jet fuel (or office fires) on some upper floors could not possibly have done that.

    Finally, there is ample evidence of explosive demolition -- on film, audio, and the suppressed testimony of scores of witnesses.

[Joe Bauer]

17 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

I believe their integrity was destroyed by the gaping holes made by the 767s.  

 

Just a contemplating thought here regards PB's take on the jet crash created holes undermining the buildings support structure above them, along with the structural weakening heat generated by the explosion and igniting of up to 20,000 gallons of jet fuel.

My recollection of the holes were that they were very noticeable on the sides of each tower they hit.

However, not to the same degree at all to the non-impact sides.

My point is that you would think that the collapsing heavy weight building structure above the undermining holes might fall over the gaping holes more unevenly than the sides that weren't taken out ?

Kind of a slanted falling versus straight down?

Also, after viewing the immediate beginning of the entire tower collapses over and over, you see the part of the towers above the lower impact floors literally exploding into a great shooting out direction spray of what looks like a mass of small powdered dust material.

An evenly dispersed spray that involves the entire above impact structure all around, in one instant!

Like the entire top part of the towers above the impact sites just exploded itself.

And how could the non-heated, non weakened structure underneath the burning higher floors ( the huge physical majority of the entire building) turn into dust in seconds themselves as well?

Look at the pictures of the collapsed structures debris pile immediately after their fall.

It's mostly disintegrated dust!

As well as the massive cloud of powdered debris (that looked just like the ash from a volcanic eruption) and was pushed out so voluminously it was up to several inches deep in some areas city blocks away!

The powdered volcanic ash looking debris clouds shooting out of the tower collapse looked just like the pictures of the 1980 Mount St. Helen eruption!

Do controlled demolition experts feel the massive disintegrated dust cloud and it's incredible volume matches what they would expect from a non-controlled high rise building collapse? My common sense tells me they did not.

Building seven is another matter unto itself. No building that big falls into it's own footprint that evenly and instantly without controlled demolition being used. So obvious, even to people uneducated in that field imo.

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Pamela Brown]

On 7/11/2020 at 8:30 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Pamela,

    From the standpoint of Newtonian physics, a central issue is the near free fall collapse of the 100+ steel floors of WTC1 and WTC2.  The observed free fall acceleration is evidence no significant resistance to collapse by the entire steel exo- and endo-skeletons of those massive towers.

   Something synchronously demolished the massive lower steel sub-structures.

   Jet fuel (or office fires) on some upper floors could not possibly have done that.

    Finally, there is ample evidence of explosive demolition -- on film, audio, and the suppressed testimony of scores of witnesses.

Again, I maintain my position. Let's just agree to disagree and move on...

[Pamela Brown]

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just a contemplating thought here regards PB's take on the jet crash created holes undermining the buildings support structure above them, along with the structural weakening heat generated by the explosion and igniting of up to 20,000 gallons of jet fuel.

My recollection of the holes were that they were very noticeable on the sides of each tower they hit.

However, not to the same degree at all to the non-impact sides.

My point is that you would think that the collapsing heavy weight building structure above the undermining holes might fall over the gaping holes more unevenly than the sides that weren't taken out ?

Kind of a slanted falling versus straight down?

Also, after viewing the immediate beginning of the entire tower collapses over and over, you see the part of the towers above the lower impact floors literally exploding into a great shooting out direction spray of what looks like a mass of small powdered dust material.

An evenly dispersed spray that involves the entire above impact structure all around, in one instant!

Like the entire top part of the towers above the impact sites just exploded itself.

And how could the non-heated, non weakened structure underneath the burning higher floors ( the huge physical majority of the entire building) turn into dust in seconds themselves as well?

Look at the pictures of the collapsed structures debris pile immediately after their fall.

It's mostly disintegrated dust!

As well as the massive cloud of powdered debris (that looked just like the ash from a volcanic eruption) and was pushed out so voluminously it was up to several inches deep in some areas city blocks away!

The powdered volcanic ash looking debris clouds shooting out of the tower collapse looked just like the pictures of the 1980 Mount St. Helen eruption!

Do controlled demolition experts feel the massive disintegrated dust cloud and it's incredible volume matches what they would expect from a non-controlled high rise building collapse? My common sense tells me they did not.

Building seven is another matter unto itself. No building that big falls into it's own footprint that evenly and instantly without controlled demolition being used. So obvious, even to people uneducated in that field imo.

 

I acknowledge your position. I disagree.  Let's just move forward...

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/7/2020 at 8:58 PM, Pamela Brown said:

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.  The public is not supposed to figure this out -- hence the 'explosives' rabbit trail.  Those who designed 9-11 knew what they were doing.  They figured out that the structure of the buildings had an Achilles heel...

The core columns held up 60% of the buildings, the exterior columns only help up 40%. The core structure was sturdy enough to have acted like it's own skyscraper if it were left free standing. We know from the photographic evidence that the antenna of the North Tower dipped ~10 feet before the roofline started to move a single foot. This "roof caving in" scinareo is also indicated by the fact that the crown trusses were not found intact at ground zero (a web of connected steel columns on the roofs of both twin towers). Not saying demolition is a fact or anything, but if the twins collapsed naturally, a science-based explanation would have to explain these things. Not aware of any study that has tried to explain these observations that the conspiracy theorists gave been bringing up for over 10 years by now.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Micah Mileto