Two of our readers has made mention of the theory going around that the disappeared Flight 370 out of Malaysia had been loaded with US-drone equipment stolen by the Taliban, and supposedly shipped away to China for a handsome reward. The article below has comments on that theory, but I offer the article (compliment's of a regular reader, thank you) for another reason, as follows:
...an NSA reply to an attorneys' F[reedom]O[f]I[nformation]A[ct] request for all information concerning the disappearance of Malaysian Flight MH370 was a "currently and properly classified matter."
"We have determined that the fact of the existence or non-existence of the (MH370) materials you request is currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526..."National Security Agency, April 16, 2014
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2200&category=Environment
The only person that can issue an Executive Order at this time is Obama, the fink whom has assured that the people and the world not learn of what the NSA knows of the flight's disappearance. It doesn't take an especially bright person to know that, if Obama doesn't want us to know the truth that the NSA knows, then the media has not fed us the truth, and, besides, it makes Obama appear complicit with a crime rather than it being a mere pilot suicide or terrorist act.
See below how the Malaysian government and others ignored a possible clue to the disappearance, and ask why. It's not normal to simply ignore such a thing. In the least, any possibility should be entertained and even explored. In the least, Malaysia was expected to be on speaking terms with GeoResonance until the possibility was either established or discredited:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/world/asia/malaysia-plane-georesonance/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+ResultsIn a related story, we find an interesting statement: "GeoResonance said it analyzed images [on the sea floor between Malaysia and India] taken in the same area five days earlier. The analysis showed that an anomaly had occurred between March 5 and March 10, 2014." That's when the flight went missing. The company is suggesting that before and after pictures of this particular spot were not the same. The page has the company's sonar photo showing what looks much like a plane.
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1997/20140429/australian-exploration-firm-georesonance-finds-chemicals-suspected.htmThis is a story to keep tabs on. Another article: "Pope said the company's experts compared their findings with images taken on March 5, three days before Flight MH370 was reported missing -- and they did not find what they had detected at that spot. "The wreckage wasn't there prior to the disappearance of MH370. We're not trying to say that it definitely is MH370, however it is a lead we feel should be followed up," Pope told 7News.
http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/aussie-firm-claims-mh370-wreckage-found-in-bay-of-bengalIn light of what looks like very decent evidence of flight 370 on the sea floor, you would think that the Australian government would be open. Instead, the Australian agency in charge of searching the Indian ocean has come out to say the incredible, that because the Inmarsat satellite company tracked the plane to a certain arc, therefore GeoResonance must be wrong. It looks like the Australian agency is in bed with Inmarsat, part of the goons who have led the world to believe a lie as to where the plane ended up. "The joint international team is satisfied that the final resting place of the missing aircraft is in the southerly portion of the search arc."
When I see "international team," in this case, I see CIA-related goons. The article below has already passed the plane-like structure off as minerals on the sea floor. http://www.khou.com/news/world/Flight-370-Survey-company-says-wreckage-of-a-commercial-airliner-found-257302371.htmlPLUS, the location of this plane-like thing, that wasn't showing on sonar days earlier, is very close to the northern arc as reported by Inmarsat. It's 118 miles south of Bangladesh, to the near south-east of Calcutta, and therefore about 20 minutes of flight, at most, off the center of the northern arc. That places it within the northern arc.
Note how the gold shape of the mystery object is identical on both sides of what looks like a fuselage. The object looks like the plane's rear section minus the fuselage to the front of the wings. The sea is not particularly deep there so that something can be sent down to take a look. We would love to know what resistance GeoResonance is experiencing in getting some craft to go down to take a look.
If nothing goes down to take a look, then I would begin to suspect that, because GeoResonance happens to be an Australian company, that this is a deliberate hoax to locate the plane in yet another false location. I've believed, due to reports from the Thailand and Vietnamese government, and other clues, that flight 370 went down in the gulf of Thailand.
Gregory UrichIn the past few weeks, I've received about five different methods, between Bing, Yahoo and Google search engines, to block my entry to 9-11 pages. As yet another example, I clicked the link to a Henry-Makov page at a Yahoo-result page, and was twice brought to this page:
You don't have permission to access this URL on this server.Please check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. If you're having trouble locating a destination on Yahoo!, try visiting the Yahoo! home page or look through a list of Yahoo!'s online services. Also...[blah blah]
What? But when I copied the URL (from the result page) and of the Makov page and pasted it into the Yahoo search box, the page showed up. The same problematic Yahoo page above was obtained when trying to get into www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf, where we find a page by Gregory Urich, but if that URL is pasted to Yahoo's search box, Urich's page loads the first time, no problem. The Makov page loaded on the first try too:
http://www.henrymakow.com/911_nano-thermite.htmlThe page says:
From: NIST & the World Trade Center, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions:Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
If goes on to give the excuse that, since placing thermite in the towers was a difficult / vast mission, NIST relegated it to the realm of fantasy. But when Steve Jones produced thermitic materials in some dust:
On Professor Jones's discovery NIST has commented that is not "scientifically valid" because Jones can't prove the "chain of custody" of the dust he tested. For NIST and debunkers, Professor Jones has replied, "They don't need my dust to test. They have plenty of dust of their own where they know the chain of custody. They just won't test it."Good response, Mr. Jones. And we could add that, even if the authenticity of the Jones sample had been deemed a 50-50 chance, NIST had the duty to check it out. NIST was led by the criminal insiders, plain and simple.
Gregory Urich, whose purpose is to calculate the mass of the towers, offers a paper with many new-to-me things. He perhaps trusts the NIST numbers and even the inconsistencies too much, but I do appreciate his offering some official details that can be used against NIST. Mr. Urich says:
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads [people, furniture, etc.]. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST's SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons....NIST gives the total the weight of structural steel in the two WTC towers as 200,000 tons.
...According to NIST:
"The original structural drawings of the WTC Towers were issued in two main formats: (1) Large-size drawing sheets containing plan and elevation information, and (2) Smaller book-sized drawings containing details and tabulated information of cross-sectional dimensions and material properties. The larger-sized drawings referred to the structural drawing books in their notes, section and details..."None of the original structural drawings were released by NIST. However, the larger drawing sheets for WTC-1 (north tower) were leaked subsequently to the general public and are generally available. The smaller drawing books still have not been made public.
If at any time you'd like to see the leaked blueprints:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.htmlNobody's going to convince me that there's a legitimate reason for not sharing, with the world at large, the drawings and other such important information. The world has been clamoring to have these simply because NIST has proven unworthy. There are two expectables to begin with in this conspiracy: 1) NIST will exaggerate the overall weight of the building to favor the collapse by jet-fuel scenario; 2) NIST will under-report the total weight / strength in steel to favor an aircraft slipping entirely into the building, as well as to favor the collapse by jet-fuel scenario once again. The heavier the building and weaker the steel, the more likely a total collapse when one upper block of the building falls through one storey. One 911-Research page laments:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.
The core columns alone, beyond the midway point of the buildings' midway point, had core-column dimensions larger than six outer columns combined.
It's of course going to be troublesome for NIST to under-estimate the steel weight while exaggerating the overall weight. The 317,500 tons as the overall weight in the quote above is from Mr. Urich, as best he can muster a figure based on "available" data. He shouldn't have to be guessing. Apparently, the thicknesses of the columns at any given floors remain unknown, and NIST likely does not wish to have these figures known anymore than a liar wants to be held up to a public flogging.
Mr. Urich goes on to reveal that NIST took its figures from the original contracts to do the construction work:
When the core column steel mass is varied in this manner, the total core column steel becomes 24,576 tons with 5,801 tons below floor 9. This amount of core column steel below floor 9 should be 6,500 tons according to the steel contracts [i.e. NIST under-reported]. This discrepancy may be due to errors in the SAP2000 model, errors extracting data from the SAP2000 model or maybe the contract included cross bracing not seen in the model data. Regardless, an extra 699 tons is distributed evenly among the floors below floor 9 based on the assumption that the steel contracts were correct at least in terms of the amount of steel.There is a question of whether NIST's report even showed the actual contracts, or whether it merely quoted from the contracts. In the latter case, it could give erroneous details by intention, with pre-planned excuses should it get caught. I cannot discover by Urich's words whether copies of the contracts were visible to him, or whether he's just taking NIST's word for the contract details. In any case, this is the first time that I've seen details of the core columns, and so I would like to take them to task.
There is a question of whether the contract-based 6,500 tons is accurate. If not, and if the figure is much higher, then NIST appears guilty of wrongly reporting the contract numbers. Below is another example of inconsistency reported by Urich, noting first of all the round figure of 200,000. Why is it so round?
NIST gives the total the weight of structural steel in the two WTC towers as 200,000 tons. NIST describes [doesn't say "exposes"] steel contracts in NCSTAR1-3 (p.16), and the values [as given by NIST, we may assume] are shown in Table 2 below. These contracts do not include trusses outside the core, steel deck, concrete reinforcements or grillages.Table 2: Weight of steel [per tower] from supplier contracts
external columns w/ spandrels; 27,900 short tons
rolled core columns and beams; 12,950 bifurcation columns; 3,400 external box columns; 6,800 core box below floor 9; 6,500 core box above floor 9; 15,500 slab supports below grade; 6,000 total; 79,050How do we get to 500,000 tons from this total even when adding concrete? (Did it include partitions, furniture, etc.? Nobody I've read has been suggesting it.) The list above leaves out trusses, concrete "tubs," and reinforcing rods within the concrete. It is not specified what "core box" includes, but Urich thinks it includes all core steel aside from some beams. The box columns are the outer grid from the 6th (bottom) basement floor to, and including, the 3rd floor above grade. The bifurcation columns are the trident-like ones in this image, where the box columns below them split into three. Everything above the bifurcation columns are the outer-with-spandrel columns.
However, the page below says: "27,900 [tons] Exterior columns and spandrels, 9th to 107th floor [and] 12,950 [tons] Rolled columns and beams above 9th floor, in cores; also exterior wall steel above 107th floor" It sounds as though spandrels did not exists above the 107th floor, and that they used hot-rolled steel with regular floor flanges instead.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150182375034838Let's look at how low NIST reported when conducting its part in this crime.
Urich: "...Thus, the steel mass allocated to the external columns and spandrels is 21,600 [short] tons and 6,300 tons respectively. " From the 21,600 figure, we can calculate the maximum average thickness of the outer columns, asking whether it's reasonable, or whether NIST has minimized the thicknesses on behalf of the criminal goons.
While others have said that there were 244 columns per tower, Urich says: "...80 exterior [box] columns (transition to 238 columns at 7th floor)..." The problem is, 238 does not divide into four sides evenly, and suggests 59.5 columns per side (we can't seemingly have that). Urich confirms that the building was perfectly square so that we don't expect 59 on two sides and 60 on the other two. In this image, one counts either 58 or 59 columns per side, not including the four corners. But neither number divides evenly by three (i.e. how could there be 19.33 or 19.67 spandrels across one side?). I'll use a total of 244 because there needs to be some columns at the corners too.
The average tower height (from the ground up, we must assume), according to Wikipedia, was about 1,365 feet, or (1365 / 110 =) 12.4 feet per floor. From the floor of the ninth storey to the ceiling of the 107th, I gather about (98 x 12.4 =) 1,215 feet. (For the record, Urich's page: "The height of WTC1 from the base to the roof is 437.69 m." That's 1,436 feet over 116 floors.)
According to Eager and Musso (last update), columns were 14.2 inches wide, or, assuming all four sides equal, 56.8 inches all around. Then, multiply 56.8 by 12 = 681.6 square inches per one linear foot of column. We want to know the cubic feet, however (unknown due to the thickness of the metal left unrevealed), and we now have what it takes to find average thickness when using these figures. To convert cubic inches into cubic feet, divide by 1728, wherefore we do this: unknown thickness x 681.6 / 1728 x 1215 x 244 x 490 = pounds of column (using Urich's 490 pounds per cubic foot). In order to find the unknown thickness where the total weight as given by NIST is 21,600 tons = 43.2 million pounds, we do the formula above in reverse: 43,200,000 / 490 / 244 / 1215 x 1728 / 681.6 = .75 inches thick on average.
In other words, this math predicts floor 58, midway between 9 and 107, to have a column thickness of .75 inches, but this seems low because the steel thickness at the 94th floor, I've read, was 5/8 = .625 inches. One could expect larger than .75 inches, 36 floors down, because the difference between .625 and .75 is only 1/8 of an inch. Once again, it seems that figures determined by NIST data are on the too-light side of the reality. Why does this expected trend persist?
I've also read that the columns, at the south-tower crash site, at roughly the 80th floor, were 13/16th = .812 inches thick. I do not know whose figures the 5/8 and 13/16 are (i.e. whether they are reliable).
Urich: "The bifurcation columns were used between floors 6 and 9...[Later he says] The mass for the bifurcation columns is distributed evenly over floors 6-8." It sounds as though the upper forks only touched upon / reached floor 9, which looks right in this image. However, my view of the image suggests a span of five floors for the mass of bifurcation columns, for I see them reaching down a considerable distance from the start of the forked areas. After finding this problem, I went surfing to find someone else claiming the bifurcation columns to be over five floors; plus, this page adds some steel weights not found in the Urich-page list:
The Steel Inventory (tons per tower) now stands at:...3,400 Perimeter bifurcation columns (trees) 4th to 9th floor [italics mine]
...3,023 Steel decking
4,949 Grillages
11,261 Floor trussesAlso, one can use the man to measure the bifurcation columns as more like six stories in this old image:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911ColumnBifurcation2.jpgIf the bifurcation columns start at, and include, the 4th floor, and reach to the end of the eighth, as it appears to me, then Urich is wrong about the box columns (directly below the bifurcation columns) spanning to the end of the fifth floor. Therefore, I'm viewing the box columns as spanning only nine floors (from Basement 6 to the 3rd floor above ground), not 11, as Urich has it implied.
Here's from a story long before the towers fell: "The World Trade Center project in lower Manhattan last week entered a new phase of construction. A crane placed the first of 76 huge steel columns, shaped like short-handled pitch-forks, that will transfer the load of 101 stories of office space to the substructure. The four-story columns are the largest structural components of the project's twin 110-story towers." Still, I'll use 80 of them (for the math) in case the 76 was in error. By using 76, they become four percent heavier in wall thickness. The "101 stories" tends to verify that the bifurcation columns reached the ninth floor. The box columns are shown, appearing perfectly square in cross section at ground level, yet, from a lower photo, they're thinner higher up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htmThe page above is likely the source for the 500,000 ton full-weight of each tower: "Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures)." It doesn't sound as though live loads are included in the million tons. It's difficult to fathom just 100,000 tons of steel and yet a total of 500,000 tons. Perhaps the steel was under-reported for a reason.
The total weight of 80 rows of box columns was reported by NIST as 6,800 short tons. Or (6800 / 80 =) 85 tons per row of box columns. I'll assume 12-foot storeys for a total length of (12 x 9 floors) = 108 feet per row. We then divide 85 by 108 to find .79 ton per linear foot of material, on average, with the lightest at the top directly below the bifurcation columns. Click on the link to see that the tops of the bifurcation columns are slightly wider than the upper core columns.
The image above does not have sufficient lighting to expose the approximate depth of the box or bifurcation columns. The page below vividly shows a couple of old / recovered bifurcation columns installed on display in the re-built Trade Center. It seems the tops of the forks were cut short for display purposes. We shouldn't assume that all bifurcation columns had the same wall thicknesses. These ones on display may be some of the lighter ones (near the corners of the towers, for example).
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/perimeter-box-columns-world-trade-center-wtc-installed-photo-072748694.html;_ylt=AwrBTvoKwm9TeGsA9p3rFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NHBpN3MzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA01TWUNBQzFfNzY-You can click the image to see a larger version showing the thicknesses at the bottom. If the image disappears, see the larger version here:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911ColumnBifurcation.jpg Urich: "There is no information given by NIST regarding the external box column dimensions..." NIST refused to reveal this even after people begged to have the dimensions. I'll guess the box to be 32 inches wide and 26 inches deep. One can see that the 26-inch sides are three to four inches thick while the 32-inch sides look to be about one inch thick. My calculations, on two counts, are that a linear foot of this situation (not respecting the forked parts) atop the box columns is about .5 ton (rather than the .79 average), though the forked parts are predicted to weigh more per linear foot. None of this is able to indicate solidly how thick the lowest upper columns are. You can beg NIST for it, but it's gagged by the goons.Determining the dimensions of the upper bifurcation columns helps to predict the thicknesses of the lowest upper columns. I've settled on a length of 66 feet for the bifurcation columns, judging by this image. Having confidence in the .5-ton figure for the box part of the columns, and judging by the man standing next to one that these parts are each about ten feet long (before the column begins to spread out), that's 5.0 tons so far, or, for all 80 columns, just 400 tons of the 3,400 total. It means that I judge there to be 3,000 tons in the top 56 feet of all 80 columns, or 37.5 tons per column.
For the rest of this calculation, the 56-foot lengths are regarded fully as three separate fork columns; each of the three consists of (37.5 / 3 =) 12.5 tons = .22 ton per linear foot = .9 cubic foot (per linear foot). It's important to see that the three forks taper to narrower dimensions toward the top, meaning that .9 is an average figure expected half way up the forks, not at the upper ends. As the upper ends appear to be slightly larger than the upper columns, I'll assume 18 inches square for allowing the 14.2-inch upper columns to telescope within them. The middle of the forks could then be estimated to be 22 inches wide and 18 inches deep. The steel thickness for the middle is then solved with: t x (2 x (22 + 18)) x 12 / 1728 = .9 cubic foot, or, in reverse, .9 x 1728 / 12 / 80 = 1.6 inches thick. As we shall see, this figure is on the low side. According to other data, the lowest upper columns come in at more than 2.2 inches thick. If the bifurcation columns were that thick too, then their 3400-ton figure seems under-reported.
Let's now take the 6,300-ton figure for the entirety of spandrels. Assuming spandrels from the 9th floor up (I'm not sure whether they were lower down), with 244 columns all around: 244 / 3 x 98(floors) = 7,971 spandrels. Thereby, each spandrel supposedly weighed (6300 / 7,971 =) .79 ton = 1,580 pounds on average.
Urich gives us another way to figure spandrel weights: "NIST NCSTAR1-3 describes the variation of spandrel thickness from 1.375 in. at floor 9 to 0.375 in. at floor 107." That's an average of .875" thick (predicted at roughly the 58th floor). If the primary job of the spandrels was to hold concrete floors (one floor per set of spandrels), then all of them, on all storeys, would require the same thickness. But if spandrels were also reinforcing the columns, it can explain why they were thicker in the lower levels.
Up until two days after this update was placed online, I was under the impression, from pictures such as this one, that spandrels had two faces/plates, an inner and outer one. That is, they look like rectangular boxes. I then ran into this image, showing the spandrels from above, and exposing that spandrels are just one plate of steel. I then took another look at the column hanging in the air at this image (I had failed to look at the spandrels when seeing this many times previous) to find that, indeed, the spandrels are just one plate of steel. I apologize for envisioning the wrong thing, but am happy to clear this up because I could not understand why a box design would be used for attaching floor joists.
Also, up until now, I thought that spandrels were thin metal, two faces each in the range of 1/4 inch. I cannot fathom any reason for having them 1.375 inches thick. Perhaps for sway purposes, but certainly not for maintaining column integrity.
Spandrels were three meters (9.84 feet) long. I read that spandrels were 52 inches wide, wherefore the weight per spandrel, of average thickness, works out as: 9.84 x 12(inches) x 52 x .875 / 1728 = 3.11 cubic feet = 1,524 pounds = .76 tons. When we multiply 1,524 by 7,971 spandrels, we find 12.15 million pounds = 6,074 tons. That works well with NIST's 6,300-ton figure for total spandrel weight.
For a purpose below, I've got to show the weight of the lightest spandrel: 9.84 x 12(inches) x 52 x .375 / 1728 = 1.3 cubic feet = 653 pounds = .3 tonne. The heaviest spandrel comes in at 2,394 pounds = 1.09 tonnes.
The page below: "These units, ranging in weight from 22.3 to 6.0 tonnes..." By "units," the triple column section with spandrel is meant, and by "tonnes," a metric ton of 2,205 pounds, is meant. The lightest column-and-spandrel section, at 6 tonnes, when the lightest spandrel is figured at .3 tonne, or .9 due to three spandrels per section, leaves (5.1 / 3 =) 1.7 tonnes per single, three-story (36-foot) column, which works out to 104 pounds (= .21 cubic feet) per linear foot.
http://www.911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htmWe can work out the steel thickness of the lightweight like so: t x 14.2 x 4 x 12 / 1728 = .21 cubic feet, or, to find t, we do the reverse: .21 x 1728 / 12 / 4 / 14.2 = .53 inches.
If we do the same for the heaviest section, at 22.3 tonnes, removing firstly the weight of three spandrels each at 1.09-tonne, we are left with 19 tonnes so that each of the three 36-foot columns weighed in at 6.34 tonnes, or .176 tonnes (or .19 tons) per linear foot = .792 cubic foot. Therefore: .792 x 1728 / 12 / 4 / 14.2 = 2.0 inches thick. The average thickness of the columns: (2.0 + .53 / 2 =) 1.27 inches. Earlier, by NIST figures, the average column thickness worked out to only .75.
At the time, I said: "In order to find the unknown thickness where the total [outer-column] weight as given by NIST is 21,600 tons = 43.2 million pounds, we do the formula above in reverse: 43,200,000 / 490 / 244 / 1215 x 1728 / 681.6 = .75 inches thick on average. " It appears that we need substantially increase the 21,600 figure, or, to conform perfectly with .75 versus 1.27, the figures are 21,600 versus 36,600. We then add the 6,300 for spandrel weight for a total of nearly 43,000 tons...as opposed to the 27,900 as given by NIST for the total column-and-spandrel combination.
Now look at this garbage obtained from the same page: "The wall thickness and grade of steel in the external columns are varied in successive steps in the upward direction: wall thickness decreasing from 12.5 to 7.5 mm..." 12.5 millimeters is a mere half-inch thick. They have the half-inch thick at the bottom of the tower! How, then, could the heaviest columns weigh in at .176 tons per linear foot while translating to 1.2 inches thick???
Note how the page lays out a cross-section of the column, with a "vermiculite plaster" shown some three times as thick as the steel wall. Perhaps the people forming this page were hoping that you would view the tonnage as mainly the plaster. But it cannot be, for plaster weighs little compared to steel.
Perhaps the people making this page wish for us to think that most of the columns were plaster rather than steel. Later in the article: "Fire protection of the steelwork is provided by 3 mm thick sprayed vermiculite plaster." Their problem is, 3 millimeters is just .12 inch (!), yet in the drawing it's seemingly over an inch thick. What sorts of clowns are these? They're not honorable engineers, that's for sure.
Here is the image from my files in case it disappears:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Column/Diagram.gifAfter writing the above, I came across the following 1960's news article that may either discredit or uphold my 53,800 figure (approximate), depending on whether the one below is for one or two towers:
The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up [it neglects to mention that it might only be to the 107th floor].In all there are 5,828 of these [column-with-spandrel] panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square [it's nice to verify that], made up of plate up to 3 in. thick [!!] and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels [that's the first time I've read that figure].
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm
Even with 22 tons as the totality of the columns alone (no spandrels), the thickness works out to less than 2.5 inches, wherefore I'll assume that the 3-inch figure was a lazy / sloppy approximation by someone. Later on the page, another old article makes the mistake of saying two stories per column section...meaning that we can't fully trust the fact-finding of some news reporters of that early time, especially if the builders / contractors / engineers were not being truthful with them.
I'm having a problem believing that the 55,000 tons is for the outer columns-with-spandrels FOR BOTH towers. How possibly could the heaviest sections be 22 tons with steel nearing three inches thick if the whole lot weighs only 27,500 tons per building? Even at 5,828 sections, that's just 4.7 tons per section on average. How can one go from 4.7 average to 22 as the heaviest???
Here's from one old article: "Wien [owner of the Empire State Building] questions the steel estimates [of 180,000 tons], saying the towers require 220,000 tons, and that rumors put the proposed prices at $650 per ton, not $400 a ton as estimated by the authority's staff. The authority neither denies nor confirms Wien's charges...[Wien's] advertisement also says, 'The staff estimate for excavation was $16 million. It is reliably reported that the first group of bids are about $36 million'" (webpage above). It could be that the Port of New York Authority, the builder, simply didn't want to let the truth out as to how much the towers would cost, and thus gave a low-and-erroneous figure for steel amounts.
Earlier, I had shared from another old article:
The page above is likely the source for the 500,000 ton full-weight of each tower: "Into the towers rising from the excavation are going some 200,000 pieces of steel having a total weight of about 200,000 tons (about 1/5 of the total weight of the structures)." It doesn't sound as though live loads are included in the million tons. It's difficult to fathom just 100,000 tons of steel and yet a total of 500,000 tons.Urich himself thinks the 500,000 figure is suspect. Could it be that New York lied about 180,000 tons of steel, saying that it was for both buildings when it was for only one?
I have an issue with the 5,828 figure. If, as the old article says, the sections were "from the ninth floor up," that's at least 101 floors each with some 19 or 20 sections per wall for a total of at least (101 x 19 x 4 =) 7,676 sections. At most, 5,828 sections gets 77 floors. Was the number of sections under-reported by design of the Port of NY Authority?
It looks like I stand corrected on an issue of a previous update, and yet I'm not convinced. The page says more than once that the outer columns were designed to take the full wind loads. Yet the core columns were the thick and heavy ones as far up as the roof. The charts in the Urich page show core columns .73 and .61 inches at the roof level (see last chart of Appendix 3). Obviously, there is little weight to hold there so that these thickness seem for wind / sway purposes only.
The old article says that the outer columns were made of steel with higher yield strengths (in some cases, up to 100,000 psi), while "All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point)." The goon squad is not expected to mention the higher yields for outer columns when arguing their truss-failure-and-bowing-column theory.
In addition: "In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind" In that case, why were the core columns so heavy??? Perhaps the NY Authority neglected to inform reporters on the full sizes of the core columns. For example, at the page above, a core-column section is shown with dimensions of 54 x 22 x 5", and yet the largest core columns were 52 x 37.5 x 5" (i.e. much more metal).
To accentuate the bad news reporting of the day: "When completed, 5,828 panels will compose the two 110-story, 1,350-ft-high towers, topping the Empire State Building by 100 ft." It conveys the idea that 5,825 sections were for BOTH towers, but the figure is already too low for one tower.
Core ColumnsI'm still convinced that the true steel weight of the outer walls was cut in half by the goon squad as per their official NIST reports. Might something similar apply with the inner core? Urich:
As described in the introduction, the steel contracts included 6,500 tons for core box columns below the 9th floor, 15,500 tons [22,000 in total] for core box columns above the 9th floor and 12,950 short tons for rolled columns and beams [not 34,950 in total]. The amount of steel attributed to rolled columns (wide flange shapes) is calculated in Appendix 2 as 3,268 short tons. Thus, the total core column steel is 25,268 short tons.He seems to be saying that all the beams in the core weighed 12,950 - 3,268 =) 9,682 tons. We might be able to check on these figures using his Appendix 3 (see bottom of page), if only we could understand the figures in the charts therein. I'm stumped. In the charts, one can find the dimensions of all 48 core columns at various, key floors. The columns are all numbered in the charts, and so see here a schematic with the same column numbers:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911CoreNumbers.jpgSix of eight core columns in rows 501 to 508, and six of the eight in rows 1001 to 1008, are given a weight each of 18.24 tons over 12 feet of length, all in the first four basement floors. That's 1.5 ton per linear foot. The twelve are said to be 4.375 to 5.0 inches thick. The problem is, the depths of the columns are not given, such a lousy thing, making me suspicious. Although the chart uses 'd' for "depth," it does not truly give the depths, for figures under 'd' are obviously thicknesses. Moreover, there are three different 'w' figures and three different 'd' figures for the same columns. We are left to guess at what this could mean.
As an example of the confusion, the first four basement floors for column number 501 gives the following data: 1) 52 inches wide and 5 inches thick; 2) 12 inches wide and 5 thick; 3) 39 inches wide and 6.5 thick. What could that mean? To which of these figures does the 18.24 tons pertain? I have no idea what this could mean, unless 2) and 3) are figures advanced by other parties before the 1) truth was secured by some means.
If we respect only 1), then the depth of column 501 can be figured using the given cubic-foot figure of 74.46. The formula to determine depth by this figure is: (52 + depth) x 2 x 5 x 144 / 1728 = 74.46 cubic feet. Or, in reverse: 74.46 x 1728 / 144 / 5 / 2 - 52 = 37.35 inches.
There is a square-foot figure of 6.2 that, at first thought, should refer to the cross-section area of column 501, or simply 52" x 37.35" / 144. That's not correct; it doesn't give 6.2. Rather, the latter figure refers to the square footage of steel material, not including the space between steel. The formula here is (52" + 37.25) x 2 x 5 / 144 = 6.2.
Still in Appendix 3, we find column dimensions for the 51st to 53rd floor, where column 501 is still 52 inches wide, but now has a thickness of 3.25 inches and a cubic-foot volume of 36.56. Under these figures, the depth works out to 15.5 inches, in which case the square area is (52 + 15.5) x 2 x 3.25 / 144 =) 3.05...which is the figure given in the chart.
In the page below, one can see the core columns from a top view in a floor near ground level. As the widths were 52 inches there, the depths appear to be about 26 inches, or roughly half as much.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911CoreTopView.jpgThe chart for floor 51-53 show a total 181.5 tons per floor, and as these floors are almost midway the total 116 floors, they represent the near average tonnage per floor. As the middle floor was the 52nd, that's roughly 181.5 x 116 = 21,050 tons for core columns alone. As NIST had given a similar figure for core columns alone, can the figures in the charts be trusted? If NIST wanted to minimize anything, it wanted to turn the core into a house of cards. While the corner core columns, one of which was 501, are always large, the other columns, by-and-large, are much thinner. Was the data for the other core columns falsified?
If you would like to pursue the weight of trusses, we saw earlier in this update that one figure offered was 11,261 tons total. Also this: "So the first 8 + 6 = 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses."
http://www.911research.com/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htm
I don't imagine that I'll be adding significantly to this update, though some fine-tuning or housework might be in order. I have enjoyed the excursion away from bloodline topics. I am experiencing a loss of esteem and some indifference toward the continuation of the updates for the time being, and yet I am conformed to the habit of writing each and every morning. I don't know where I will go from here, but do know that my Iraq-related chapters need updating.
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents
