Re: Ping Henry - a forgotten conspiracy?
- From: Henry <9-11truth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:03:09 -0400
The Older Clown amused its many sane betters with:
saddlebag <saddlebag@xxxxxxx> wrote:
While Henry's pet theory is more than likely wrong
And saying crap like this just encourages them further. It *is* wrong.
Yet, if one were to ask the clown to explain, in detail,
what it disagrees with in the write up below, the clown
will =simply= come further undone, and reveal even more
of its insanity by mindlessly babbling about janitors
and drains. That's because, rather the the thousands
of experts and me, it's clearly the clown who believes in
an insane and physically impossible cartoon fairy tale.
And of course, the clown's belief is based on *nothing* but
its fear, blind faith, and ignorance...
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front. The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor. There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables. All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ping Henry - a forgotten conspiracy?
- Next by Date: Re: Determining netkook status
- Previous by thread: Re: Ping Henry - a forgotten conspiracy?
- Next by thread: Re: Ping Henry - a forgotten conspiracy?