Flickr
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
|
The question before us is how is the potential energy represented by the elevated building mass harnessed to destroy the rest of the building, and much more importantly, not only to produce all the POWDER that we witnessed but also (do) all the damage that we see in the videos and pictures and do this all in only 10 seconds. Dr Brian Moran, Chair Dear Dr. Moran I believe there are a number [of] issues with the 9-11 investigation process itself and major flaws in the paper as presented that must be corrected before the paper representing the work of a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University is published as a paper of record. The first issue is the potential conflict of interest that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics has as an organ of the ASCE. The ASCE supports the "official government story". Because of the ASCE's position on such an important issue, how can they be independent in their analysis of it. Any articles published in an ASCE Journal that support the "official government story" are suspect because of the ASCE's support for the "official government story". Are we searching for the truth or are we supporting the "church" in the case of Galileo or the "official government story" in what happened in NYC on 9-11-01? If the paper is published it should be one of a number of papers addressing the question of how the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11-01 in NYC. Such a publication would afford the Engineering and Scientific communities a level playing field for discussing the question as stated by Dr. Bazant "Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What did and did not Cause it" or as Dr Steven E. Jones stated "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse"? A second issue was and is the willingness of the Engineering and Scientific communities to allow the government to produce an "official government story" without their disciplines playing the significant roles they have traditionally played in all investigations of an engineering and/or scientific nature. I will mention just two such investigations that occurred after 9-11-01, the Northeast Electric Blackout and the loss of the Columbia Space Shuttle. Let us examine each of these events to see how they were resolved. This will also help us understand the investigative process that has been used in the past and is supported by the public. First the Northeast Electric Blackout of August 14, 2003. Immediately after the blackout an investigation was called for and a committee, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, made up of people who know how electric grids work and others in the industry were appointed by U.S. and Canadian Government officials. The computer data was retrieve[d] from each control point in the grid, that generated such information. This information was then analyzed millisecond by millisecond and any changes in the systems' components were recorded. What did they find out? They found out that an electric utility in Ohio had not trimmed the trees below some of its high tension lines for a number of years and that they did not even have a clue how much power was flowing through their grid because they were busy saving money to make their bottom line look good. What is important is that WE NOW KNOW WHAT HAPPENED and WHY and HOW IT HAPPENED. We hopefully learned from that event. Now let us look at the Columbia Space Shuttle loss on February 1, 2003. Again first and foremost immediately after the loss, an investigation was called for and agreed to. People of stature and knowledge were appointed to investigate why the shuttle was lost and to make recommendations on changes for future shuttle flights. As you may recall a day or two after the loss it was noted that a piece of "foam" was see blowing off the shuttle just as it was lifting off. It was suggested that the "foam" may have damaged the shuttle and NASA denied that, that was possible. For the next few weeks each time someone would suggest that the "foam" had something to do with the loss of the shuttle it was vehemently denied. As the investigation began in earnest groups of people, starting on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, began their journey east following the path the shuttle took as it slowly disintegrated across the southwest. As a piece was found it was bagged and it was noted where it was found and sent to the facility where the pieces would be analyzed and put in place. As we know it was the "foam", that had punctured a hole in the wing, that lead to the loss of the shuttle. What is important is that WE NOW KNOW WHAT HAPPENED any WHY and HOW IT HAPPENED. We hopefully learned from that event. As we are painfully aware the investigation into the collapse of the 3 building in NYC on 9-11-01 is significantly different from the investigations into Northeast Electric Blackout and the Columbia Shuttle loss. Rather than immediately having an investigation, it seems as if road blocks were put in place, to either slow down or stop all together an investigation that would have lead to our full understanding of what happened in NYC on the morning of 9-11-01. Now let us look at the events after 9-11-01 dealing with the investigation. As we slowly began to catch our breath Representative Cynthia McKinney suggested and called for an investigation. A fury was unleashed on her. Why? Later we found out that in early January of 2002 the President and Vice President asked Senator Tom Daschle not to call for an investigation and he agrees not to. Finally four widows whose husbands had died in the towers, lobbied for an investigation and Congress over the objections of the President and Vice President approves the appointment of a Commission. A Commission of insiders was appointed and a report was produced that is most unfortunately not credible by any standard!! In all of this, where was the voice of the Engineering and Scientific communities? Where was their call for an investigation that would have the same reasonable standards as the investigations into the Northeast Electric Blackout and the Columbia loss? Where are we today? WE DO NOT KNOW in total WHAT HAPPENED and WE DO NOT KNOW in total WHY or HOW IT HAPPENED. It seems that even at this late date rather (than) writing papers that only deal with very small parts of the question before us, that the Engineering and Scientific community should be working together for the release (of) all of the information that is under lock and key. From the evidence that is burried in land fills, to the steel and debris in Hangar 17, to the pictures that the NY Police have of Building 7 etc. We, as a community, should with one voice say that ALL the evidence must be made available to the Engineering and Scientific communities so that the usual and customary procedures and practices that have gotten us to where we are today in the rest of the Engineering and Scientific world can get us through this time of unbelievable crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people have died and hundred of thousands are at great risk of dying because of the silence of the Engineering and Scientific Communities to date. When the Engineering and Scientific communities are silent on such basic elements of the scientific process itself one has to question why the Engineering and Scientific communities would violate one of [their] basic principles and that is the ability to judge and evaluate one another's work. Now let us move on to the specific flaws in the paper "Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers - What Did and Did Not Cause It" The first flaw is very basic [so] it is surprising that it would be included in such a paper. It is stated in the abstract with great authority that it would take 237 tons of TNT to destroy one of the towers. No reasonable person would suggest that this quantity of TNT could be placed in each of the Towers in a timely fashion. No reference is made to any person for this bold assertion and no mention or calculations for it are made in the paper itself. How is it possible that such an assertion would be acceptable for publication. A second flaw deals the depiction that the section of the tower above the plane of failure is like a brick and the brick just smashes the (tooth pick) structure below and then the brick itself self destructs as it hits the pile. While this is an interesting image and given another building it may even have a factual basis, but in relation to the Towers it has no basis in fact at all. First the section of the each tower above the failure plane is weaker than any other part of the building. It is far more likely that as each tower collapsed that the stronger structure in the lower floors would begin to break up the falling section (the brick). The image that is presented in Figure 1of "Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It" shows the top of the Tower 1 smashing the tower structure below. This image has no factual basis. Videos of the collapse of Tower 1 show that the plane of failure is the 95th floor and that immediately 10 floors above the failure plane explode and disintegrate. That leave only 5 floors plus the disintegrated floors to smash through the 95 floors below. As Tower 2 begins to collapse the failure plane is about the 80th floor and the mass of the 30 floors above the plane of failure can be seen as the "brick". The issue here is that the videos of this collapse also shows that this section again begins to disintegrate before it is totally engulfed in POWDER. Yes, POWDER becomes "dust" but it begins as POWDER. POWDER must be produced. Another way of looking at this is that we have Niagara Falls and a 100 watt light bulb. Now we all know that there is a great deal of kinetic energy in the water as it spills over the falls and we know that it takes 100 watts of energy to light up our light bulb. What is missing is the mechanism (machine) to harness the kinetic energy of the water at the top of the falls so that it can be turned into electrical energy to light the light bulb. The question before us is how is the potential energy represented by the elevated building mass harnessed to destroy the rest of the building, and much more importantly, not only to produce all the POWDER that we witnessed but also (do) all the damage that we see in the videos and pictures and do this all in only 10 seconds. We can do energy equations until we are blue in the face but it will not make any difference without describing the mechanism (machine) that can produce the product that we all witnessed and in the time that we saw it happen. I will suggest that this is the absolute proof that explosives had to be used because no mechanical, gravity driven process, can produce in 10 seconds the POWDER and total destruction, that we all witnessed, and still can see if we close our eyes. A third question is the documentation of the energy needed to do all that was witnessed as the collapse of each of the towers progressed. First we see that all of the windows in the buildings facing the Towers were blown out. How much energy and again more importantly how was gravitational energy converted, such that the windows were blown out? Is this an absolute smoking gun or just a probable smoking gun? We see many columns pushed up so there trajectory is in an arch. We also see a few massive sections of the exterior wall moved horizontally. What are the lateral forces that are in play as the towers collapse? My request of you is to ask Prof Bazant to rework his paper in light of the videos showing the initial collapse of each tower. He should also tell us HOW the gravitational energy was harnessed to cause the collapse and to produce the POWDER and to cause the off site damage as well. This is not the first time a proponent of a theory will be proven wrong and it is not the first time a department or school will have to disavow the work of one of its senior faculty but the truth demands that you do so. As in all things the quicker the issue is resolved, the less pain that all will suffer. Peace Thomas Spellman
|
