Qui Bono? Who Benefits?

Compared to earlier towers, the WTC structures were unique in that the outer columns were also tremendously strong, to the extent that they were probably capable of supporting the entire weight of the building by themselves.
To judge from the photo Charlie provided above, it does not seem like there was any outer columns at all comparable to the very obvious supports in the middle. Charlie's page on the core structure agrees with Jerry that, "These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building,"- according to the 9/11 report. However, it also finds the 9/11 report to have been mistaken about the central core structure, making this claim questionable.

This was in contrast to other traditional skyscrapers like the Empire State Building, which had columns and beams on regular spacing forming a rectangular grid. Thus, the floor spaces inside were interrupted at regular intervals by huge posts.
Charlie's page says, "the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart." Look at the upper left corner of the building and one can see no column at all any larger than these. I suggest that the absence of support columns between the center and the outer columns could be enough to explain the rapidity and thoroughness of the collapse.

"...the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep." "...the base of a core column, whose dimensions, minus the four flanges, are apparently 52 by 22 inches," -from Charlie's link above= http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Laurence,

Buildings like the WTC are built with a lot of extra strength. This is called the "safety factor". The goal is for the building to keep standing in spite of all sorts of adverse conditions: storms, earthquakes, fires, airplane impacts and so forth. Of course no matter how strong the building is, it will come down if conditions are severe enough.

Considering the safety factor, either the core columns or the exterior shell of the WTC were probably strong enough to support the entire weight of the building, based on the load ratings of the columns. But, under normal conditions, the weight was of course distributed proportionally to both the core and the shell, probably more or less 50/50. I'm sorry if my earlier statement was confusing.

At one time, there was a popular "pancake theory" that claimed that the floors of the WTC came disconnected from their supports at the shell and core columns, and came crashing down one on top of another, taking away strength from the overall lattice structure and eventually causing the failure of the exterior shell and core columns. I'm not sure why, but I think this has now been abandoned even by the gravity-driven collapse advocates.

For more reading about collapse mechanisms, and to understand the reasons I don't believe a gravity-driven collapse was possible from the starting conditions of fire and aircraft damage: I'd recommend taking a look at Gordon Ross' website, especially these three articles. Not easy reading, but perhaps you can grok his arguments. I have an engineering degree; these might be unreadable without it, I'm not sure.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

He also has a video presentation, which I haven't watched; but if you're into videos, it might be helpful:

 
The ultimate result of 9-11 was irreparable division of the country over 2 lost wars and permanent intimidation of the Western World by Islam!

There are 2 theories of terrorism:

1. The "false flag", provoked or allowed disaster that unites a country for war which nearly all 911 theorists believe. Of course sometimes this theory is true as exemplified by Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Maine in Cuba and the sinking of the Lusitania. These disastrous events rallied the US on to unity, sacrifice and victory at the expense of individual rights and peace.

2. The other use of terrorism is for an external power, often with the help of an internal 5th column, to attack and cause on over-reaction in both military response and internal repression that results in defeat, division, and permanent intimidation. Clearly, I think 911 fits 2. best. The 5th column of course is the Rockefellers with their long term alliance with Saudi Arabia for oil. Read David Rockefeller's Autobiography. He blamed 911 on the Israeli Lobby's control of Congress and continued to push World Government.

In the aftermath we are told to think Islam is a "religion of peace" and we should accept 10s of thousands of Islamic refugees for which the Saudis will build Mosques! Islam is the highest order of Masonry and a proven tool for world empire.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Laurence,

Buildings like the WTC are built with a lot of extra strength. This is called the "safety factor". The goal is for the building to keep standing in spite of all sorts of adverse conditions: storms, earthquakes, fires, airplane impacts and so forth. Of course no matter how strong the building is, it will come down if conditions are severe enough.

Considering the safety factor, either the core columns or the exterior shell of the WTC were probably strong enough to support the entire weight of the building, based on the load ratings of the columns. But, under normal conditions, the weight was of course distributed proportionally to both the core and the shell, probably more or less 50/50. I'm sorry if my earlier statement was confusing.

At one time, there was a popular "pancake theory" that claimed that the floors of the WTC came disconnected from their supports at the shell and core columns, and came crashing down one on top of another, taking away strength from the overall lattice structure and eventually causing the failure of the exterior shell and core columns. I'm not sure why, but I think this has now been abandoned even by the gravity-driven collapse advocates.

For more reading about collapse mechanisms, and to understand the reasons I don't believe a gravity-driven collapse was possible from the starting conditions of fire and aircraft damage: I'd recommend taking a look at Gordon Ross' website, especially these three articles. Not easy reading, but perhaps you can grok his arguments. I have an engineering degree; these might be unreadable without it, I'm not sure.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

He also has a video presentation, which I haven't watched; but if you're into videos, it might be helpful:

Jerry thanks for that video wow! You must watch it! It's the best talk on the fall I have ever seen. Open my eyes to the explosions every 3rd floor!! LJ
 
Buildings like the WTC are built with a lot of extra strength.
My understanding is that the World Trade Center building #7 was specifically reinforced and hardened to resist terrorist attack because it was designed from the beginning to be a government Command Center in the event of war or terrorism.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The other use of terrorism is for an external power, often with the help of an internal 5th column, to attack and cause on over-reaction in both military response and internal repression that results in defeat, division, and permanent intimidation. Clearly, I think 911 fits 2.
I'm not sure there is such a huge difference between (1) and (2). In either case, the result is that the control of the elites is solidified, and a blow is dealt to human rights. And while the US didn't exactly win the wars, I'd say that the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty clearly suffered the most seriously tragic outcome. And from the larger geopolitical perspective, the US has continued to move the front of war towards Russia and China while securing control of oil resources.

My understanding is that the World Trade Center building #7 was specifically reinforced and hardened to resist terrorist attack because it was designed from the beginning to be a government Command Center in the event of war or terrorism.
I heard that too, though I understand there was also an odd gap in the lattice structure of beams & columns in the lower floors, owing to the installation of a huge emergency generator facility in the building.
 
I'm not sure there is such a huge difference between (1) and (2). In either case, the result is that the control of the elites is solidified, and a blow is dealt to human rights. And while the US didn't exactly win the wars, I'd say that the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty clearly suffered the most seriously tragic outcome. And from the larger geopolitical perspective, the US has continued to move the front of war towards Russia and China while securing control of oil resources.
Gosh, I can't disagree more! #1 and #2 are polar opposites and so are the results: Expanding US Imperialism is quite different from the destruction of US/Western Imperialism in favor of Islamic dominated World Government.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
#1 and #2 are polar opposites and so are the results: Expanding US Imperialism is quite different from the destruction of US/Western Imperialism in favor of Islamic dominated World Government.
Ok, thanks for sharing your views. I'd like to continue looking for common ground here.

Of course there are differences between expanding US imperialism, vs. expansion of Islamic dominated government. But let me explain the similarities. "US imperialism" is basically driven by fundamentalist Protestant, Catholic and Jewish interests working in concert. Taken to its logical conclusion, I believe it would result in an end to democracy, an end to the middle class and a restoration of feudalism. That is, unless the advance of artificial intelligence & robotics allows the imperialists to do away with the need for "useless eaters" altogether. Fundamentalist Islam basically derives from the same historical roots as Judaism and Christianity: all three religions are known as "Abrahamic" and all give homage to the Old Testament with its tribalist, warlike politics. Furthermore, all three religions are connected through the Masonic conspiracy, and I see absolutely no evidence for your contention that "Islam is the highest order of Masonry."

I don't agree that the Saudis and the Rockefellers constitute an "external third column" -- rather I would say that the Rockefellers are a deeply entrenched, indeed central part of "US Imperialism", while the Saudis are also creations of the Anglo-American power structure and they remain beholden to it. In terms of organizing the 911 conspiracy, I think it's true that the Saudis and Rockefellers must have played a role, but I don't see how the operation could have been successfully carried out without cooperation of the Bush administration and Israeli intelligence as well.

Having said all that, I don't think that we're likely to see any Christian dominated world government ruling over the Islamic middle east, nor an Islamic government ruling in Washington. While I see fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam as two sides of the same coin, the adherents of each religion have been trained to hate and distrust the other. It's this fear and loathing that keeps the battle going, but prevents either extreme from ultimately winning.
 
Islamic countries already dominate the UN. Western Civilization, since WWII, has shown itself incompatible with World Government. Thus, the Internationalist Elite turns to Islam, a time proven system of World Tyranny. After the Mongols converted to Islam, the largest ever Empire was brought into existence. Only Islam's failure in Sea Power allowed the West to dominate Islam for a time. That time is running-out and the Rockefellers shift with the wind.
 
Top