FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8358

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:55 pm    Post subject: The Dust Hits The Fan Reply with quote



THE DUST HITS THE FAN

by Fintan Dunne, 10 August, 2006

Many 9/11 researchers will well recall when Jim Hoffman produced his mid-2003
paper analysing the dust cloud for the North Tower. He computed the
energy required to produce the cloud and concluded that gravity alone
could not have generated the vast clouds.

It quickly became a cornerstone of explosives theories about the collapse.

Too quickly, it seems. Now Hoffman is already up to version 4 of his
revised analysis. Version 2 used far smaller estimates of concrete and
total building mass --because the first estimates were horrendously wrong.
Later versions also adjusted the arguments for the mixing and expansion
of the dust cloud.

But Dr Frank Greening has published papers on the WTC collapse. One of
them countering Hoffman's latest analysis.

By the way, Greening's main WTC paper is not a wholly mainstream apologia.
He discounts the fire theory:

Quote:
I do not believe that we need to invoke anything as extreme as the melting of structural steel in the WTC to explain why
the towers collapsed. The smoky appearance of the fires suggests that the flames inside each tower were fuel-rich and therefore
probably below 900 C. In addition, the structural steel was
heated indirectly and entire columns probably never attained temperatures much above 750?C. Nevertheless, ~ 20 % loss
of strength is to be expected for steel heated to 550?C, a temperature that may have been reached by someWTC core columns.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Greening asserts that the magnitude of the asymmetric loading on WTC2
was alone "sufficient to initiate a total collapse of the buildings" -without
fires. But by my initial reading he's not taking account of the support
provided by the reinforced concrete in the core. For that, and other
reasons, I don't buy it.

But it's Greening's supplemental paper of the WTC dust clouds
that thoroughly deconstructs Hoffman's analysis.

Here's Hoffman's key error, according to Greening.

Quote:
Mr. Hoffman concludes without proof, that all the gas and dust in each
dust cloud originated from inside the appropriate WTC Tower. While it is
self evident that all the solid material making up a dust cloud was
expelled from one Twin Tower, it is totally unreasonable to assume that
all the gas in a dust cloud came from within a Tower
. But this is what Mr.
Hoffman tacitly does when he calculates his “expansion ratio” of 3.41.

For this expansion ratio, Mr. Hoffman concludes... that the temperature of
the dust cloud was over 700 degrees C! Mr. Hoffman now proceeds to
calculate the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of the gas
(air) and the dust by 700 degrees.


Greening jokes that anyone "would surely have roasted to death after a
few seconds in a 700 degree C dust cloud!"

But joking aside, Hoffman is way off if he assumes the dust clouds
expanded out of the air inside the towers. Clearly the air inside the
towers
would be mixing with outside air as the collapse took
place. And that means that energies Hoffman calculated are way off.

By comparison imagine the force you would need to expend to blow up
a balloon with one long single lungful of air. As opposed, say, to
blowing it up in stages with repeated partial lungfulls. That's the same as
Hoffman saying the whole cloud had been expanded out of tower air only.

So if Hoffman's heat energy calculations are wrong, then:

Quote:
Mr. Hoffman simply invokes an enormous heat input –one that he shows
could not be delivered by gravitational collapse; therefore it must be
recognized that the need for explosives is pretty much built into Mr.
Hoffman’s calculation by his unwarranted and unphysical assumptions.


Moving on, Greening attempts to work out how much concrete was turned
to dust. He figures, no more than 10% of each floor's concrete:

Quote:
We will assume that 10 % of the concrete, or 4,800,000 kg, was ejected
as dust. ...The kinetic energy imparted to the dust is.... per floor... much
less than the energy needed to collapse the support structure of one floor.

I assume that only 10 % of the concrete was dispersed as a fine dust.
This may appear to be not enough material to account for the vast clouds
of swirling dust that were observed for each WTC tower collapse;
however, I would argue otherwise. First, concrete was not the only
component of the dust. Crushed gypsum wallboard, glass fiber and
asbestos insulation were also found in significant quantities in the dust
fallout. But let’s consider what 10 % of the concrete in one WTC tower
represents. It is almost 5 million kilograms of material.....

Spread over an area of radius 1 km... we have a layer of concrete dust
1 mm thick over an area of more than 3 sq. km . This, I believe, is close
to what was observed after the events of 911.

I would add that 10 % of the concrete from each floor represents less
than ½-inch thickness of the 4-inch layer poured to form each WTC floor
.


While Greening's comments on the dust cloud are well founded, some of
his conclusions are very debatable. He allows only a delay of 1 millisecond
per floor to crush each floor during the collapse. Which would have only
increased the collapse time of a tower by about 0.1 seconds.

That ignores recound effects and inertia. And, critically, it discounts the
time to crush entirely the reinforced core of the tower. And we know it
had to have been crushed somehow, because the core is not left sticking
out of the ruins.

Greening admits that the yield strength of the core columnsis were about
6.7 times higher than the yield strength of the exterior columns, yet he
seems oblivious of the fact that these incredibly strong columns are
wrapped around a reinforced concrete core.

All of this opens some very interesting lines of inquiry (more soon), but
meanwhile this could be the end of proving explosives were used based
on the dust cloud. Of course there are other arguments for explosives,
such as the amount and speed of heavy ejected material. But the dust
cloud argument may be weak.

And that's how it should be, if a theory is weak. Perhaps forum members
might know of other critiques of mainstream and alternative collpase theories?

I'd rather a half dozen strong arguments than a score of weak ones
which fall on examination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
All of this opens some very interesting lines of inquiry (more soon), but
meanwhile this could be the end of proving explosives were used based
on the dust cloud. Of course there are other arguments for explosives,
such as the amount and speed of heavy ejected material. But the dust
cloud argument may be weak.


Point well made.

I think I agree.

The 'pyroclastic' flow argument isn't all that strong in terms of proving anything, as it isn't actually a feature of of controlled demolitions, but rather volcanos - so it kind of confuses rather than clarifies.

And Stallion will go bananas if I post my volcano theory...(kidding). Wink

I also read (now I can't remember where exactly) that the floors were 'lightweight' concrete which may have qualities that help account for the dust.

I can see how the dust cloud issue is a bit like a door on a hinge that can constantly be pushed either way. No way to nail it down - plus it involves lots of math, which I never trust. Wink Toss it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8358

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hawkwind: Think about what would happen if a deadly sine wave was created to vibrate the steal columns. I’m not an expert in the use of harmonics but would that wave ‘powder’ concrete, throw the steel beams in all directions as they failed at each weld point? Is it possible that the ‘failure’ happened so quickly because the ‘failure’ happened all at once and gravity finished the job?

Jerry F:In relation to the bridge video, and as far as I think I understand your hypothesis, those kinds of resonance frequencies are going to be very long, and are going to show amplitude modulations of tens to hundreds of feet between oscillations - like the extreme waving and bending of the bridge.

That implies to me that the towers would have gone all 'gooey' or wave-y looking, and the debris patters would show a wider range and been flying all over the place like the bridge.

Also, from what I understand, creating that sort of resonance vibration requires both ends of the 'string' to be fixed to a surface solid enough to 'reflect' a phase reversed version of the vibrational energy introduced into the system.


The 'Tacoma Narrows Bridge' collapse is just illustrative. The sine wave
technique could easily be used on a structure which has one end fixed
to bedrock and the other end free to move.

And if you crank up the frequency you could get movement which is not
huge but microscopic. Also, I'm not up to speed on this, but I think you
can have two waves in synchrony and then start to offset one of them.

It could feasibly detach steel from concrete, but I see more problems
with getting the freq. right for localized effects, 'cos the beams are
of differing dimensions. Haven't got a handle on the gross effects yet.

The frequency of a building is definitely part of the design process.
They move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 740

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of ... Reply with quote

I found this article "very interesting" ... and yes Jerry, it is a bit 'science-y'. Laughing

Fintan was kind enough to archive this on breakfornews.com and it is worth a careful read.

Quote:
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Author: Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984.

Summary:

This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the constraints of this paper.

[....]

Conclusion:

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation. This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within about 0.02 seconds of impact. Without the many assumptions made which favour collapse continuation, the energy deficit would be far higher than the calculated value of -390 MJ.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.


It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials.

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

http://breakfornews.com/offsitearchive/PTransferRoss5.pdf

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie


Last edited by hawkwind on Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:15 pm    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

Neo said:

Quote:
Let me just explain this point I'm making, and then I'll drop it for now. This is quite tedious, but I can't apologize for that.

No need to apologize, really.
Quote:
It's tedious in inverse proportion to the amount of fun you're having concocting this spy story.

That is to say not very tedious at all,then,coz I for one find it quite entertaining.Wink
Quote:
What is happening here, with your deep cover-up theory, is that a hypothesis is being stated, and then turned into a conclusion by interpreting a number of things in a manner which would conform to that hypothesis. These interpretations then become your supporting evidence -- your only evidence. You apparently think yourselves clever -- too clever, too hip, to be tricked -- but this is not cleverness. It's muddled thinking. And if I we’re in the business of confusing people for a living, I certainly wouldn’t need to spend time focusing on you, since you’re already your own worst enemies.

"Controlled Demolition knows how to bring the house down. It is a global leader in controlled demolition, explosive demolition, and implosion of buildings and other structures. Controlled Demolition has brought down some 7,000 structures worldwide. ... In addition, Controlled Demolition provides mass concrete, rock, and debris removal and assists architects and engineers with blast-resistant design services. Founded in 1949 by Jack Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition is owned by the Loizeaux family and part of the Loizeaux Group of companies."

Yes, I understand all that. I know where you're coming from, I really do. Forget about it. The name 'CDI' was mentioned in passing,possibly as a kind of dark humour,either on their part,or our part or possibly both. Fuggedaboudit already.

Wouldn't it be a funny old meme if the 'Controlled Demolition' theory turned out to be a honeypot somehow, especially in conjunction with a 'Thermate Only' pyroclastic 'Dust Cloud' theory that turns out to be complete bullshit?

Not funny haha, you understand, more a *groan* kinda thang.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Neo
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Giving Neo Nazi a new meaning Reply with quote

That's cool, Continuity. It's quite possible I don't understand the language you guys are speaking yet.

Man, I just watched this Alex Jones "Martial Law" film. I've never actually sat down and watched an Alex Jones film. What a con. What a slick con. It's all in the third part. The NWO according to Alex Jones. It goes: Bush and Kerry are both Skull & Bones ... Bohemnian Grove is an offshoot of S&B ... which is the Illuminati ... which was run by Madam Blavatsky ... and which was also the Thule Society as well ... of which Hitler was a member ... and Bush's daddy was in there, with IBM ... here's the computer that killed 6 million people ... and Arnold Swarzenegger's dad was in the S.S. -- See the hats! -- and now they're going to do what Hitler almost did.

Fucking Alex Jones, man. He's so likeable too, that's the thing. You kind of want to give him a pass anyway.
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:15 am    Post subject: Hi Neo... Reply with quote

Neo said:
Quote:
It's quite possible I don't understand the language you guys are speaking yet.

You and me both, brother...Wink
Quote:
Man, I just watched this Alex Jones "Martial Law" film.....What a slick con.....Fucking Alex Jones, man. He's so likeable too, that's the thing. You kind of want to give him a pass anyway.

LOL... Yeah - I kinda keep up with what AJ (and quite a few others) are up to, not coz I subscribe to their worldview or anything, but coz I think IMHO it's instructive to keep up with what all sides are saying, to try and get a better image of what's going down.

Your reaction, I think shows that you're definately on the same page I am, 'cept I *don't* find AJ particulalry likeable - I think he's a pompous, arrogant, rude, pedantic, motormouthed, fear-mongering, low-IQ-catering twat.

But he does make some good points, sometimes.

It's just the *way* he makes them that I have a problem with - he's a fake for sure. Like you've noticed he's *all* about the mindfuck, learned helpnessness, as much as he goes on about 'waking people up' and 'Bog's will'.

I listened to his show, today, in fact, and I don't know if you know this, but he 'predicted' exactly that Bush et al would use their asset, ObL to attack targets, probably the WTC, possibly with planes - this was before 9/11, in June of 01, I think.

Today (yesterday?) he made his *second* ever on-air 'prediction' that, in light of these 'terror arrests' in the UK, that they're getting ready for some next round of *really* bad shit to come down. Possibly nuclear, possibly biological, possibly in th UK or the US, or even in the Middle East.

At one point, he (or one of his callers) seems to go for the idea that maybe a nuke will come into play somewhere, and Iran will be made the patsy for supplying it, justifying Bog-knows-what shit to go down.

Please, have a listen and tell me what you think. It's pretty heady stuff.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.


Ok - Another big strike against the pancake house, and more apparent support for core destruction one step ahead of the free fall.?.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
Quote:
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.


Ok - Another big strike against the pancake house, and more apparent support for core destruction one step ahead of the free fall.?.


I'm fumbeling a little bit in the dark here... Bear with me...Wink

As I seem to remember a building like this has to be brought down from the top down, simply because it cannot implode on itself (hence the explosion of the building). In that regard you wouldn't need to take out the central coloums (as oppose to building 7), because strategically placed explosivees would cut the coloums into convenient pieces on the way down? Does anyone know of documents that would explain this (as it pertains to very tall buildings)? Are they usually dismanteled?

On the other hand, if it indeed is necessary, could it be that such explosions were timed to coincide with the impact of the planes to "hide" the seismic data, so to speak, which it almost did according to testimony (workers in the basment levels hearing explosions from below, then the next second a distant from above)? I think the coloums, since the WTC is build on a landfill (Manhatten was smaller before), extended about 70 feet down to the bedrock.

I am uncertain as to how you would place such explosive practically (I must have misplaced my WTC blueprint Wink) and how it relates to the report of pools of molten steel found weeks after the collaps. These are technical aspects grounded in physics and construction science,and since the tower fell straight down on themselves at almost freefall speed, pulverizing the concrete into the fine particles, I am confident that the general public will grasp what really happened eventually (given that we gather and present the soundest evidence for whatever we find).

Not to mention the visual "theatre" of the collapses themselves (and the impacts), which leaves no doubt in my mind that we witnessed nothing short of a demolition, both of the buildings and our ability to think rationally. In my mind the small puffs of smoke so often eluded to and other surrounding inconsistencies (reports of bombs in the building, secondary blasts, sounds from locked off floors, etc) are parts of this theatre as well, and probably has little to do with weakening the structure of the towers, although people has blamed it on that very thing. The multitude of visual and auditory "effects" plays a central part in creating the scenario that spreads attention as it pertains to future investigations and throws people emotionally out of balance as it happens, and when trying to recall what happen (and when watching footage of it).

~E~
------------------------------------
Extracts from a little play I wrote in school... Wink

[Somewhere in Switzerland, summer 1999]

Mr Y: "Explain that please..."

Mr X: "Terror is a "great" metod for bringing about change rapidly. In out continuing imperialistic/capitalist/strategic quest we must use terror to make it happen to our advantage."

Mr X "We have talked about this for years now...Lets for instance create a domestic terror attack agains a building in the most powerful country in the world. Let's use, let sasy, the twin towers again, the test went so well... That would generate, as Mr B.B. called it, "a helpful wave of national indignation", wouldn't it? Even international... And lets make it spectacular and on a few other fronts as well. Let them think it that if it can happen to the US, it can happen to other as well. If we should blame it on Al Quida? Well, of course... they'll be terrified, wouldn't they"

Mr Y: "What do you mean by spectacular?"

Mr X: "Well... let's bring the towers down! Fly commercial planes into them or something...Bombs going off everywhere. Basement explosions. You name it...and then demolish them! Lets make it so unbelieable, that people don't dare question it. Let a few blame the government, or the "Illuminati"... most of them will believe it was "the Base". The conspiratorial media will have a field day... We should probaly fund a few for operational and opositional purposes. Or create a few 'channels' ourselves. And then effectively terminate them... A controlled oposition is always an asset. Believe me, I know..."

Mr Y: "When should this take place? Next year? In the summer? In the morning, perhaps..?"

Mr X: Yes, the morning would be best. We don't want too much collateral... We should have a few days "booked", so to speak... The weather should be clear, so as to see everything clearly... That is our objective. Some time after the next election in the US would probably be good, late summer perhaps... I'll have our team over there look into the details of that... Operation Morning Surprice... isn't that a good name for it?

Mr Y: "Most suitable, J. More Calvados?"

Mr X:"No, it's quite enough already... We probably also should have some military exercises going on somewhere far away from New York that day.. Well, well..we will meet again soon, all of us, and discuss the possible details... Say hello to that beautiful wife of yours...Ciao!"

Mr Y:Goodbye! (...) New York...Hmmm.. Now where was that drawing..?"

Wink -EAK-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos said:
Quote:
As I seem to remember a building like this has to be brought down from the top down

IIRC, it's not so much 'from the top down', as 'from the centre inwards', if you see what I mean. They usually 'crimp' a supporting column near the centre, slightly off-line, I think, and that 'pulls' the building inwards into itself.
Quote:
I am uncertain as to how you would place such explosive practically (I must have misplaced my WTC blueprint Wink) and how it relates to the report of pools of molten steel found weeks after the collaps.

I think that these are two different issues. Cutting charges applied to the steel would *not* have molten it or left puddles of molten metal. It just blasts the join apart, leaving a smooth, distinctive surface to the cut. I think that explosives were built-in to the structure, most probably the concrete.

Maybe just blowing the supports out with shaped-charges would be enough to bring the towers down. Maybe the voluminous dust clouds were deliberately done (with the concrete?) to disguise the operation, and to provide an element of the 'visual theatre'.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8358

PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:08 pm    Post subject: WTC Dust Reply with quote

Here's the analysis of the dust. We got to live with this report --unless all
the scientists who participated in the study are in in the 'Op'. The presence
of uranium in the dust samples has been cited by some promoting the
A-Bomb theory. But the report also says that radiation was only at
background levels or just above. They also found evidenmce of jet fuel
fire compounds.

Quote:
Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol
that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001


Generally, the samples were very light and fluffy, and were white to pinkish-gray. The mass of each sample was dominated by nonfibrous material and construction debris, and the Cortlandt and Cherry Street samples contained approximately 0.8% asbestos. In contrast, of the mass collected, the Market Street sample contained 3.0% asbestos.

Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides.

We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html


And here's the best summary of the various collapse theories.
You don't have to buy the spin --but it's a comprehensive overview.

Quote:
Collapse Theories
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html


Last edited by Fintan on Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mona
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen Jones was Jim Fetzer's guest on his Thursday program on RBN. He had just completed a preliminary examination of WTC dust sent to him by a woman who collected a sample in her own apartment and saved it.

He said it had a high zinc content, along with aluminum and iron. He doesn't yet know what to make of the zinc. It also contained a substantial amount of magnetic particulate. This was all he mentioned on the show.

Now I know you don't put any store in Jones, but I thought I'd pass that along.

Another interesting development was a call from an architect named Tom who has just sent a registered statement to the Arkansas Gov. office, where he lives, with a complete description of activities he participated in and witnessed at the WTC in 1989, dealing with a proposal from Controlled Demolition Inc. to remove WTC buildings because of asbestos. He was working with the team that was to actually bring down the towers, as I understood it. The documents were then removed from the Architect's office by men claiming to be FBI and all employees had to sign statements that they would never tell anyone what took place. They were all transferred to Seattle or other architect's offices. He also said that Silverstein put a bunch of $ into the towers or bldg. 7 or both (?) at the last stage.

There was more ... I don't have a link, but it is at RBN's broadcast archives, under Non-Random Thoughts with J. Fetzer on Thursday, Aug. 10, if anyone is interested in checking it out.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 9 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.