This is all that I can find so far. Apparently there were 10 parts, of which part 7 and part 9 are missing.
Video credit to Chris Barrett & Xtian Bretz
http://www.directyourownlife.com
http://www.xtian.tv
part 1
part2
part3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part8
part 10
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Joe Biden delivers an ominous message about Barack Obama
So what is Biden doing talking about that would ordinarily be top secret stuff? Well, it isn't only him of course, but is probably coming directly from Bu$hco, and the Neocorporate Republic. Colin Powell mentioned a similar thing on Meet The Press Oct. 19th. and UN Ambassador John Bolton re-enforced Bidens warning. Is it just me or does this smell like the NWO?
CNS News
Thursday, October 23, 2008
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden’s warning that a President Barack Obama would be tested by an “international crisis” in his first six months in the White House is not unrealistic, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told CNSNews.com on Wednesday.
However, at a campaign stop in Richmond, Va., that same day, Obama dismissed his running mate’s comments, explaining that Biden sometimes employs “rhetorical flourishes” while speaking.
Bolton told CNSNews.com: “I agree with Senator Biden’s concern. I think there are a variety of things going on internationally that could result in a crisis for the next president within six months or even before.”
At a fundraiser on Oct. 19, Biden had said: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. … The world is looking. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Article
MSNBC 'Meet the Press'
statement at 2:40 into video...G:
Friday, October 24, 2008
Power of the POTUS
Helen Thomas reveals the true power of Ronald Raygun in this , short video, which doesn't surprise me at all. It is ridiculous to believe the main stream media as they attribute all of the important world decisions to one man, the president of the US, especially when considering our present sock puppet, George Duhhbya Bu$h.
Helen dumbfounded Duhbya at his first press conference, where she got the usual first question. This ended a tradition that she had enjoyed since the times of John Kennedy.
On May 17, 2000, after fifty-seven years working with the organization, Thomas resigned from United Press International (UPI) the day after the announcement of its acquisition by News World Communications Inc., a company founded and controlled by Unification Church leader Reverend Sun Myung Moon. She later described the change in ownership as "a bridge too far".
Viewpoint with James Zogby 2/14/08 - Helen Thomas
video part 1
video part 2
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sarah Palin, Colin Powell, and the Bush Doctrine
John McCain Explains The Bush Doctrine To Sarah Palin
Colin Powell Decimates McCain's Rationale
The Bush Doctrine Explained
Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine
Feb. 28, 1991
A war with Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would be the first test case in the Bush administration's larger strategy for projecting U.S. power and influence in the post-Cold War world. Here's an overview of the people, the events, the major statements, and the policy battles behind what's become known as the Bush Doctrine.
The Gulf War's Ragged Ending; U.S. Decides on Containment Policy for Iraq
With a Gulf War cease fire declared, President Bush, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell believe Saddam's hold on Iraq is tenuous. Bush urges Iraqis to rise up. They do, and within days Saddam has lost control of southern Iraq. But the rebellion is soon overwhelmed by Saddam's forces, which include helicopter gunships, and Bush orders U.S. troops not to intervene. It is estimated that thousands of Shiites were killed.
The failed uprising is a defining moment for neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz complains that the U.S. inaction is comparable to "idly watching a mugging."
With Saddam clinging to power, Bush decides on a containment strategy towards Iraq: tough U.N. inspections, economic sanctions, and no-fly zones to protect the Kurds in the north and south of the country.
The War Behind Closed Doors
PBS: FRONTLINE
published feb. 20, 2003
In the first emergency meeting of the U.S. National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case." The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption", American unilateralism, and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.
Colin Powell Decimates McCain's Rationale
The Bush Doctrine Explained
Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush DoctrineFeb. 28, 1991
A war with Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would be the first test case in the Bush administration's larger strategy for projecting U.S. power and influence in the post-Cold War world. Here's an overview of the people, the events, the major statements, and the policy battles behind what's become known as the Bush Doctrine.
The Gulf War's Ragged Ending; U.S. Decides on Containment Policy for Iraq
With a Gulf War cease fire declared, President Bush, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell believe Saddam's hold on Iraq is tenuous. Bush urges Iraqis to rise up. They do, and within days Saddam has lost control of southern Iraq. But the rebellion is soon overwhelmed by Saddam's forces, which include helicopter gunships, and Bush orders U.S. troops not to intervene. It is estimated that thousands of Shiites were killed.
The failed uprising is a defining moment for neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz complains that the U.S. inaction is comparable to "idly watching a mugging."
With Saddam clinging to power, Bush decides on a containment strategy towards Iraq: tough U.N. inspections, economic sanctions, and no-fly zones to protect the Kurds in the north and south of the country.
The War Behind Closed Doors
PBS: FRONTLINE
published feb. 20, 2003
In the first emergency meeting of the U.S. National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case." The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption", American unilateralism, and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Michelle Bachman R Minn revives McCarthyism
McCarthyismJoseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957) was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period of intense anti-communist suspicion inspired by the tensions of the Cold War. He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.
Salon
The Palins' un-American activities
Imagine if the Obamas had hooked up with a violently anti-American group in league with the government of Iran.
By David Talbot
Oct. 7, 2008 | "My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."
This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.
Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")
AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. "She's Alaskan to the bone ... she sounds just like Joe Vogler."
So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?
Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Paraguay: Mariscal Estigarribia Airport is wide enough for B-52 bombers
According to the US government:
United States Has No Plans for Military Base in Paraguay
The June 13, 2005, Clarin article claimed that American “B-52 airplanes” could be used at Mariscal Estigarribia. In reality, the runways are too narrow for them. B-52s typically need a runway width of 150 feet (46 meters) to land and re-engined models will require a runway width of 175 feet (53 meters), according to a June 2004 report (page 28) of the U.S. Defense Science Board Task Force on B-52 Re-Engining. However, the runways at Mariscal Estigarribia are only 131 feet (40 meters) wide.
However if you scale it on Google Earth. It is .04 miles (60 meters) wide and 2.17 miles (3500 meters) long.
.04 x 5280= 211 feet which is 64.25 meters. So I could be off a little bit. It was probably built at 60 meters wide (60 Meters = 196.8503937007874 Feet), which is fine for a B-52
THE AIRSTRIP LOOKS PLENTY WIDE ON THIS VIDEO
Information Clearing House
Press Release - Council On Hemispheric Affairs
07/22/05 - - This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Mary Donohue and Melissa Nepomiachi.
• On June 1, 2005 the Paraguayan National Congress entered into an agreement with Washington that allows U.S. troops to enter into Paraguay for an 18-month period.
• The troops will help train Paraguayan officials to deal with narcotrafficking, terrorism, government corruption and domestic health issues.
• The agreement grants the U.S. troops legal immunity from possible offenses committed during their stay.
• Washington has long sought similar immunity for its troops in the Southern Cone, but Argentina and Brazil have firmly restricted granting such judicial liberty to U.S. troops.
• Bolivian officials and its press are also speaking out against the agreement, fearing the U.S. presence as a means to control the petroleum and natural gas sources in their country.
• Though Asunción and Washington claim that the U.S. has no intentions of establishing a permanent base in Paraguay, history shows a strange resemblance between the current situation in Paraguay and the development of the Manta base in Ecuador from a “temporary” facility into a major base.
Article
Thursday, October 9, 2008
I don't know a lot about the stock market,and speak from the viewpoint of a retired small business owner. I quit my regular job for health reasons, and went into the second hand and then antique business, which is maybe one of the last vestiges of free enterprise. What I heard in these discussions by members of the global elite was about solving problems from the top down, and in my opinion there are many problems down here on the bottom. The grass roots aren't doing so well these days, what with all of the chemical farming going on and no one hoeing their weeds because they seen an ad on TV & believe that Roundup is God's gift to the suburban lawn. This once great country was built on the concept of free enterprise and anyone could jump in without having to worry about restrictions and rules from every branch of government that quickly stifle any attempts to build something like, say, a more effecient automobile. In the 1910's & 20's there were at least two hundred makes of automobiles and trucks, many of them from small companies: they ran on gas, electricity, kerosene,or steam. If you owned a small farm you could buy a truck to haul your produce to market, of which there were many, or your grain to the family that owned an elevator. It was free enterprise and at that time was built from the bottom up. I'm not saying that its as simple as all this, but do think that this must be considered, and who knows, if this downhill slide continues with no brakes, we may be doing just that...G:An early republican viewpoint:
"The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty--none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost."
Abraham Lincoln
Senior citizens hold their breath as Bu$hco promises more Social Security Benefits
Social Security Benefits To Go Up By Larger-than-Usual Amount
MarketWatch
October 8, 2008 Wednesday 8:22 PM EST
Robert Powell has been a journalist covering personal finance issues for more than 20 years, writing and editing for publications such as The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and Mutual Fund Market News.
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Amidst all the volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets these days, one thing is definite: Come October 16, Uncle Sam will announce the cost-of-living adjustment for 34 million Americans who now receive Social Security benefits.
Unlike in years past, however, that adjustment is expected to be among the largest increases in 25 years.
No one yet knows exactly how big the automatic benefit hike will be. But experts are predicting that Social Security beneficiaries will see their monthly benefit rise by at least 5%, perhaps more. In calculating the COLA, Social Security will look at inflation over the 12 months ended September 2008. For the year ended August 2008, inflation as measured by the consumer price index (CPI-W) was running at 5.4%.
That means the average monthly benefit could rise to about $1,137 from $1,079 now, a $58 increase.
What's more, unlike in years past, that increase won't be eaten up entirely by increases in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums, though it will be close. For about 95% of Medicare recipients, Part B premiums will remain at $96.40 in 2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said last month.
Well, I haven't heard any good news like this for a long time,except for the fact that McPain is way behind in the polls. If Bu$hco and John McSame get their way there will be an attempt to put
some of the social security payments into the stock market so I'll be keeping my ear to the ground untill election day...G:
.......zzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman February 29, 2008
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired
Posted February 29, 2008
WTC's Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.
Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which peeled away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.
Figure 20a. Floors 8 to 45 plan. (Courtesy of NIST)
Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing. Since the perimeter wall columns were shear walls that resisted wind loads, the long-span floors (53 feet) acted as a diaphragm, transferring loads between exterior walls and between the walls and the core; the center core structure, as in the towers, supported only gravity loads with no lateral bracing except the floors. One important difference was that instead of steel bar-joists, the primary floor structure was more typical in that it had two-foot-deep wide flange steel 'I'-beams, nine feet on center, composite with a concrete slab.
The long-span steel I-beams had ¾-inch diameter by five-inch-long steel shear studs, about two feet on center that projected into the concrete. These studs provided bonding and composite action under load with the 5½-inch concrete floor. Shear studs were not provided in the core.
Similar sorts of floor-failure mechanisms, as those responsible for the towers' collapse, might have been responsible for Building 7's interior column failure, which triggered the progressive collapse. NIST studies (2, Appendix L) show that because of the large areas and long spans failure of one or more of three key interior columns on the east side of the building would travel vertically to the roof, collapsing all the floors on the east side and producing the initial kink in the east penthouse roof - the first indication of collapse as videotaped. As seen on the videotape, the west penthouse roof sank into the building five seconds after the east penthouse sank and indicates a horizontal collapse progression to the rectangular core, imploding the building.
I believe the collapse was unlikely to have started below the 5th floor, since the construction below the 5th floor was more conventional. These lower floors were reinforced with much lateral bracing and thick, reinforced membrane floors that would redistribute any lateral loads throughout the lower floors. The 5th floors to 7th floors were transition floors. There was speculation about the fire’s being on these floors and fed from oil-fired generators supplied from tanks on the lower floors. There was evidence for fire on the 7th and 8th floors.
The fire shown in photos 21 and 22 appears to be a very severe, but ordinary, office fire and was well above the area supplied with oil lines. There is a strong possibility that this building collapsed from this office fire alone. NIST was scheduled to complete its analysis of the cause of the collapse in late 2007. This report is my contribution toward the analysis.
Figure 21. The approximate fire location on the east side of floor 12. (Courtesy of NIST, modified by author)
Fire was first seen on the south side spreading east than photographed coming out of eight windows on the east side on the 12th floor. This fire must have dropped down to or spread up from the 11th floor, since another photo shows fire at four windows on the 11th floor. There was also fire showing at multiple 12th-floor windows on the north side and some windows on the 7th floor. This is a serious high-rise building fire that would have necessitated multiple alarms to control. There were various other fires on different floors. These photos were taken at around 2 p.m. Later photos show extensive numbers of windows burnt out apparently on the 11th and 12th floors and the 6th and 7th floors on the north side. The building collapsed about 5 pm, after the fire had burned out in most areas on the11th and 12th and 6th and 7th-floors.
Collapse Initiation Hypothesis
With a serious large area fire on the 12th floor, the two foot wide, long-span steel beams on the 13th floor, depending on the amount of fireproofing insulation installed, could have expanded and bowed, sagged or buckled downward and possibly twisted out or flopped over from the uncontrolled fire. The same scenario could have been happening on the 7th floor with fire weakening the steel on the 8th floor. Steel expansion and buckling would have deflected the floors possibly into suspension or the fire may have been burning long enough to weaken the steel causing additional sag. Unlike the bar-joist failure producing early pull-in forces, steel I-beam composite floors usually maintain push-out forces,- at least in the short-span configuration used in the standard frame construction,- caused by their expansion, during the fire, while the slab floors sag into tensile membrane action. It is unknown whether long-span floors act the same way. The large area of the concrete slab may have limited or increased tensile membrane action. As the steel beams first expanded from the heat, the studs might have pulled the slower expanding concrete into tension, possibly cracking it and removing some compression capabilities. This would have allowed the steel beams to bow or buckle sooner from the loads and thermal forces and the floor to sag and put torque on the connections to the girder supported by the three key columns on the east side. The sag could have also separated the wire mesh bond in the concrete over the girder. The girders themselves may have also been sagging.
As the sagging steel beams and girders cooled after burnout, they began to contract. Since they would have been seriously deflected downward, the beams would have been unable to overcome the inertia and lift the floor loads as they contracted, and strong pull-in forces would have developed. According to Seputro “Plastification of the steel beam leads to very high tensile stresses that may cause rupture damage to the connections after cooling. If the fire decays before the beam fails, the deformation and the steel strength will recover. The cooling phase causes shortening of the beam, which can be dangerous in the pin-pin and fix-fix cases as it may cause tensile rupture of the end connections”. Lamont, Lane, Flint and Usmani’s studies also indicate that in long span (10 meter) floors the beams can disconnect from thermal buckling and contraction on cooling.41
The increasing tension or torque in the 13th floor’s (or 8th floor’s) connections from suspension forces as the floor cooled and contracted after burnout could have started an edge detachment, or rip failure, detaching the beams along the north-south girder along the line of columns 79, 80, and 81. The “typical floor beam-to-girder and girder-to-core column connection was a single shear plate,” (2, Appendix. L, 7) but certain floors had reinforced connections. This tension or torque could have disconnected the west side of the east floor from the girder, allowing tension in the remaining portion of the floor to laterally displace one or more columns and break the column splices as the beams contracted. There were fewer beam connections to the west side of this girder than on the east side. The sinking of the east roof penthouse before any other visible failure indicates that one, two or three of the key columns (79, 80, and 81) were the first to fail. These were massive columns and most probably adequately fireproofed and would not have failed directly from heat.
The girder itself along the line of columns 79, 80 and 81 could also itself have sagged and detached from the remaining girder creating pull-in forces on the column(s) as the girder buckled from the heat and/or contracted from cooling.
A less likely scenario is that the floor attachments to Columns 76, 77, and 78 initially failed. As the 13th floor (or 8th floor) sagged and contracted as it cooled, the floor could have initially detached at these east core columns. The loss of restraint could have allowed the remaining tension in sagging and contracting floors to laterally deflect one or more of the three key columns (79, 80, and 81). There was a layer of welded wire mesh reinforcement placed in the concrete over the girders along columns 79, 80, and 81; this additional reinforcement might have strengthened these connections and thus caused the connections to the core to fail first. There was also fire on the 11th floor, and possibly the 14th floor (and the 6th and 7th floors). This could have assisted the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 by producing additional lateral forces.
Vertical Progression
Figure 22. East-West building middle section as viewed from the north showing column failure and resulting progression, putting all floors above in suspension; and the east roof shed is sinking. Reinforced floors are darker. (Diagram by author.)
This initial column failure was evidenced by the kinking and sinking of the east penthouse into the building’s roof and the simultaneous breaking of the windows on the east side of the north wall as it was pulled in by the suspended floors. The east wall was also reported bowing inward.
NIST studies have shown that because of the large floor areas, the failure of just one key column on any one of the lower floors would cause a vertical progression of collapse upward so that the entire section would come down. (NIST, S. Shyam Sunder lecture) This single-column’s failure initiating progressive collapse is a design defect noncompliant with the NYC codes. The buckling of these three key columns (79, 80, and 81) would have removed support for all columns directly above, putting all upper floors in immediate long-span suspension with eventual collapse. The breaking of the widows on the east side of the north face simultaneously with the buckling of the roof shed was evidence of this tension as the north wall was pulled and leaned in. This high tension in all the floors above could have failed the floor connections or buckled more columns, depending on the stresses and strains developed. As can be seen in the illustration, the floors would have been equally deflected in the initial collapse because of the geometry of the rigid columns pulling or pushing on the floors. This equal floor deflection would have created pull-in forces in the floors increasing, from the top floor downward, on the exterior walls and interior columns on the west side. This sequential increase of pull-in forces progressing downward is because the walls would have been leaning inward a greater distance at the top.
If the connections had held, and because the 14th floor was still intact, even though sagging, the exterior and interior columns more likely would have buckled near that floor. The question that needs analysis is what connections would fail first and what connections would hold with all 35 floors in suspension? NIST reported that the information available indicated that the floor–to-column connections would fail under this scenario without seriously damaging the perimeter or interior columns. However, certain connections on Floors 19 and 20 were reinforced, and Floors 21 to 23 used heavier steel. (2,126) These floors could have developed a higher degree of column destabilizing tensile forces before connection failure cut off these lateral forces.
Horizontal Progression West
One of NIST’s hypotheses involving the horizontal progression is that the impact of the debris from the falling floors hit a robust transverse truss between Floors 5 and 7 and rotated the truss, which would have pulled a line of core columns eastward, collapsing the core. This is certainly possible and may have happened, but probably not until after the core had already started collapsing from the tensile forces from the floors in suspension.
Floors 21 to 23 had slightly heavier steel framing than the others (shown darker in diagram, Figure 22). Portions of Floors 10, 19, and 20 had reinforcing plates on the bottom flange, and certain connections were reinforced. If other floor connections failed, these strong connections might have held and pulled a line of core columns eastward, especially if impacted by falling debris from the collapsing floors above. The fact that Core Columns 76, 77, and 78 on all the floors would have been subjected to suspension induced ‘pull-in’ eastward with increasing ‘pull-in’ on the lower floors, should be figured in.
Tension in the suspended floors above the buckled columns could have put floor connections to the core columns under immediate severe lateral stress on all the floors above 13. The failure of columns 76, 77 and 78 could have started the progression westward and been responsible for the kink in the north facade. If the floor connections to Column 77’s connection held on any of the levels above the 13th floor, a middle line of Core Columns 77 to 62, and possibly 59, could have been pulled eastward on any floor under the lateral forces. This line of middle core columns would more easily have been pulled eastward, since there were elevator shafts along this line and there were fewer floors that could have restrained these columns and floor beams from deflection. The connections to columns 76 and 78 on any floor above the thirteenth would probably fail first allowing the connection to column 77 to hold and pull the line the line of core columns 77 to 62 and possibly 59 eastward.
The reinforced connections on Floors 19 to 23 could have made it more likely that these connections would have held and buckled the middle line of core columns destabilized the remaining core columns. As this middle line of columns deflected, they would have pulled the remaining core columns inward toward the middle line, possibly buckling all the core columns on a floor. Debris hitting the girders and beams might have assisted in deflecting this middle line of columns. Columns 78 to 63 and/or 76 to 61 could have been pulled inward more easily since the attached beams did not have shear studs connecting them to the concrete floors. The elevator shafts without floors would offer little resistance to this inward buckling. These core columns which probably had weak splices would have had to buckle on only one floor to collapse the core structure and implode the whole building.
Five seconds after the east penthouse failed, the west shed disappeared into the roof indicating that the core failed before the building began descending. The breaking of the vertical line of windows near Column 54 on the east side of the north wall simultaneously with the sinking of the east penthouse indicates that the wall was being pulled inward by the sagging floors above the buckled core columns.
Figure 24. As-built elevations. Building 7. Courtesy of NIST.)
There were numerous diagonal braces in the core below the 7th floor. There were also thick reinforced concrete floors on the 5th and 7th floors. The 5th floor diaphragm was 14 inches thick and reinforced with imbedded steel “T” sections. The 7th floor was eight-inch reinforced concrete. This would have made it less likely that the initial failure started or progressed on these lower floors but, since the fire was also on the 7th floor, and the 8th floor was not reinforced and would have been receiving all the heat from the 7th floor fire, the 8th floor could have sagged and could have affected those columns.
The belt truss around the building at the 22nd to the 24th floors stiffened the perimeter wall and probably supported the outer frame and helped it come down as a unit above the buckling columns.
As the core failed, the perimeter walls were pulled inward, with the greatest deflection at the top floors. This “lean in” of the perimeter walls sequentially decreased the pull-in forces on each floor moving upward, and produced increasing forces on each consecutive floor moving lower. Various exterior columns and connections would have failed on the lower floors with the increasing tension. This perimeter wall’s buckling was not seen in the videos because it was below the line of sight because of the buildings in the foreground; it looked as though the building had just descended straight into the ground.
The evidence of dust expulsions from floor to floor upward from the southwest corner near the roof, said to be from “detonations,” would have been caused by the floors’ disconnecting sequentially in the corner as the tensions in the suspended collapsing floors increased after core failure. That these failures were sequentially upward shows that there were sequentially increasing tensions in lower floors due to exterior wall’s leaning inward.
The possibility that some weaknesses exist in high-rise buildings constructed with long-span floors and cores without lateral bracing and with weak column splices necessitates that all possible failure mechanisms be studied to determine the cause of failure and means to prevent future failure. NIST can do a computer analysis of the forces involved and connection strength to confirm or disprove the analysis and clarify this theory. With the increasing spans and size of floor areas of high-rise office buildings allowed by the use of steel, there is a critical need for new methods to test long-span floors to determine if they are, or can be, adequately protected from fire.
New methods should be developed for testing and determining the forces that affect these floors and their connections under collapse conditions. Long span ‘I’ beams may be affected by differential heating and expansion of different parts of the web or flanges causing early bowing, buckling or twisting, affecting structural integrity. Contraction of sagging steel beams of girders as they cool after the fire burns out may put extra pull-in forces on columns pulling them out of alignment and buckling them. If these long-span floors cannot be adequately tested and protected against progressive or global collapse, the spans should be reduced and the steel size and strength increased. Surely, lateral bracing of core columns on each floor should be required, the column splice strength increased and alternate load paths should be built in to handle floor loads in case columns fail. In situations where the failure of floor assemblies could affect the lateral stability of the columns, these floors should be considered part of the frame and should have the same degree of fireproofing protection as the columns.
By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired
Posted February 29, 2008
WTC's Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.
Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which peeled away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.
Figure 20a. Floors 8 to 45 plan. (Courtesy of NIST)
Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing. Since the perimeter wall columns were shear walls that resisted wind loads, the long-span floors (53 feet) acted as a diaphragm, transferring loads between exterior walls and between the walls and the core; the center core structure, as in the towers, supported only gravity loads with no lateral bracing except the floors. One important difference was that instead of steel bar-joists, the primary floor structure was more typical in that it had two-foot-deep wide flange steel 'I'-beams, nine feet on center, composite with a concrete slab.
The long-span steel I-beams had ¾-inch diameter by five-inch-long steel shear studs, about two feet on center that projected into the concrete. These studs provided bonding and composite action under load with the 5½-inch concrete floor. Shear studs were not provided in the core.
Similar sorts of floor-failure mechanisms, as those responsible for the towers' collapse, might have been responsible for Building 7's interior column failure, which triggered the progressive collapse. NIST studies (2, Appendix L) show that because of the large areas and long spans failure of one or more of three key interior columns on the east side of the building would travel vertically to the roof, collapsing all the floors on the east side and producing the initial kink in the east penthouse roof - the first indication of collapse as videotaped. As seen on the videotape, the west penthouse roof sank into the building five seconds after the east penthouse sank and indicates a horizontal collapse progression to the rectangular core, imploding the building.
I believe the collapse was unlikely to have started below the 5th floor, since the construction below the 5th floor was more conventional. These lower floors were reinforced with much lateral bracing and thick, reinforced membrane floors that would redistribute any lateral loads throughout the lower floors. The 5th floors to 7th floors were transition floors. There was speculation about the fire’s being on these floors and fed from oil-fired generators supplied from tanks on the lower floors. There was evidence for fire on the 7th and 8th floors.
The fire shown in photos 21 and 22 appears to be a very severe, but ordinary, office fire and was well above the area supplied with oil lines. There is a strong possibility that this building collapsed from this office fire alone. NIST was scheduled to complete its analysis of the cause of the collapse in late 2007. This report is my contribution toward the analysis.
Figure 21. The approximate fire location on the east side of floor 12. (Courtesy of NIST, modified by author)
Fire was first seen on the south side spreading east than photographed coming out of eight windows on the east side on the 12th floor. This fire must have dropped down to or spread up from the 11th floor, since another photo shows fire at four windows on the 11th floor. There was also fire showing at multiple 12th-floor windows on the north side and some windows on the 7th floor. This is a serious high-rise building fire that would have necessitated multiple alarms to control. There were various other fires on different floors. These photos were taken at around 2 p.m. Later photos show extensive numbers of windows burnt out apparently on the 11th and 12th floors and the 6th and 7th floors on the north side. The building collapsed about 5 pm, after the fire had burned out in most areas on the11th and 12th and 6th and 7th-floors.
Collapse Initiation Hypothesis
With a serious large area fire on the 12th floor, the two foot wide, long-span steel beams on the 13th floor, depending on the amount of fireproofing insulation installed, could have expanded and bowed, sagged or buckled downward and possibly twisted out or flopped over from the uncontrolled fire. The same scenario could have been happening on the 7th floor with fire weakening the steel on the 8th floor. Steel expansion and buckling would have deflected the floors possibly into suspension or the fire may have been burning long enough to weaken the steel causing additional sag. Unlike the bar-joist failure producing early pull-in forces, steel I-beam composite floors usually maintain push-out forces,- at least in the short-span configuration used in the standard frame construction,- caused by their expansion, during the fire, while the slab floors sag into tensile membrane action. It is unknown whether long-span floors act the same way. The large area of the concrete slab may have limited or increased tensile membrane action. As the steel beams first expanded from the heat, the studs might have pulled the slower expanding concrete into tension, possibly cracking it and removing some compression capabilities. This would have allowed the steel beams to bow or buckle sooner from the loads and thermal forces and the floor to sag and put torque on the connections to the girder supported by the three key columns on the east side. The sag could have also separated the wire mesh bond in the concrete over the girder. The girders themselves may have also been sagging.
As the sagging steel beams and girders cooled after burnout, they began to contract. Since they would have been seriously deflected downward, the beams would have been unable to overcome the inertia and lift the floor loads as they contracted, and strong pull-in forces would have developed. According to Seputro “Plastification of the steel beam leads to very high tensile stresses that may cause rupture damage to the connections after cooling. If the fire decays before the beam fails, the deformation and the steel strength will recover. The cooling phase causes shortening of the beam, which can be dangerous in the pin-pin and fix-fix cases as it may cause tensile rupture of the end connections”. Lamont, Lane, Flint and Usmani’s studies also indicate that in long span (10 meter) floors the beams can disconnect from thermal buckling and contraction on cooling.41
The increasing tension or torque in the 13th floor’s (or 8th floor’s) connections from suspension forces as the floor cooled and contracted after burnout could have started an edge detachment, or rip failure, detaching the beams along the north-south girder along the line of columns 79, 80, and 81. The “typical floor beam-to-girder and girder-to-core column connection was a single shear plate,” (2, Appendix. L, 7) but certain floors had reinforced connections. This tension or torque could have disconnected the west side of the east floor from the girder, allowing tension in the remaining portion of the floor to laterally displace one or more columns and break the column splices as the beams contracted. There were fewer beam connections to the west side of this girder than on the east side. The sinking of the east roof penthouse before any other visible failure indicates that one, two or three of the key columns (79, 80, and 81) were the first to fail. These were massive columns and most probably adequately fireproofed and would not have failed directly from heat.
The girder itself along the line of columns 79, 80 and 81 could also itself have sagged and detached from the remaining girder creating pull-in forces on the column(s) as the girder buckled from the heat and/or contracted from cooling.
A less likely scenario is that the floor attachments to Columns 76, 77, and 78 initially failed. As the 13th floor (or 8th floor) sagged and contracted as it cooled, the floor could have initially detached at these east core columns. The loss of restraint could have allowed the remaining tension in sagging and contracting floors to laterally deflect one or more of the three key columns (79, 80, and 81). There was a layer of welded wire mesh reinforcement placed in the concrete over the girders along columns 79, 80, and 81; this additional reinforcement might have strengthened these connections and thus caused the connections to the core to fail first. There was also fire on the 11th floor, and possibly the 14th floor (and the 6th and 7th floors). This could have assisted the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 by producing additional lateral forces.
Vertical Progression
Figure 22. East-West building middle section as viewed from the north showing column failure and resulting progression, putting all floors above in suspension; and the east roof shed is sinking. Reinforced floors are darker. (Diagram by author.)
This initial column failure was evidenced by the kinking and sinking of the east penthouse into the building’s roof and the simultaneous breaking of the windows on the east side of the north wall as it was pulled in by the suspended floors. The east wall was also reported bowing inward.
NIST studies have shown that because of the large floor areas, the failure of just one key column on any one of the lower floors would cause a vertical progression of collapse upward so that the entire section would come down. (NIST, S. Shyam Sunder lecture) This single-column’s failure initiating progressive collapse is a design defect noncompliant with the NYC codes. The buckling of these three key columns (79, 80, and 81) would have removed support for all columns directly above, putting all upper floors in immediate long-span suspension with eventual collapse. The breaking of the widows on the east side of the north face simultaneously with the buckling of the roof shed was evidence of this tension as the north wall was pulled and leaned in. This high tension in all the floors above could have failed the floor connections or buckled more columns, depending on the stresses and strains developed. As can be seen in the illustration, the floors would have been equally deflected in the initial collapse because of the geometry of the rigid columns pulling or pushing on the floors. This equal floor deflection would have created pull-in forces in the floors increasing, from the top floor downward, on the exterior walls and interior columns on the west side. This sequential increase of pull-in forces progressing downward is because the walls would have been leaning inward a greater distance at the top.
If the connections had held, and because the 14th floor was still intact, even though sagging, the exterior and interior columns more likely would have buckled near that floor. The question that needs analysis is what connections would fail first and what connections would hold with all 35 floors in suspension? NIST reported that the information available indicated that the floor–to-column connections would fail under this scenario without seriously damaging the perimeter or interior columns. However, certain connections on Floors 19 and 20 were reinforced, and Floors 21 to 23 used heavier steel. (2,126) These floors could have developed a higher degree of column destabilizing tensile forces before connection failure cut off these lateral forces.
Horizontal Progression West
One of NIST’s hypotheses involving the horizontal progression is that the impact of the debris from the falling floors hit a robust transverse truss between Floors 5 and 7 and rotated the truss, which would have pulled a line of core columns eastward, collapsing the core. This is certainly possible and may have happened, but probably not until after the core had already started collapsing from the tensile forces from the floors in suspension.
Floors 21 to 23 had slightly heavier steel framing than the others (shown darker in diagram, Figure 22). Portions of Floors 10, 19, and 20 had reinforcing plates on the bottom flange, and certain connections were reinforced. If other floor connections failed, these strong connections might have held and pulled a line of core columns eastward, especially if impacted by falling debris from the collapsing floors above. The fact that Core Columns 76, 77, and 78 on all the floors would have been subjected to suspension induced ‘pull-in’ eastward with increasing ‘pull-in’ on the lower floors, should be figured in.
Tension in the suspended floors above the buckled columns could have put floor connections to the core columns under immediate severe lateral stress on all the floors above 13. The failure of columns 76, 77 and 78 could have started the progression westward and been responsible for the kink in the north facade. If the floor connections to Column 77’s connection held on any of the levels above the 13th floor, a middle line of Core Columns 77 to 62, and possibly 59, could have been pulled eastward on any floor under the lateral forces. This line of middle core columns would more easily have been pulled eastward, since there were elevator shafts along this line and there were fewer floors that could have restrained these columns and floor beams from deflection. The connections to columns 76 and 78 on any floor above the thirteenth would probably fail first allowing the connection to column 77 to hold and pull the line the line of core columns 77 to 62 and possibly 59 eastward.
The reinforced connections on Floors 19 to 23 could have made it more likely that these connections would have held and buckled the middle line of core columns destabilized the remaining core columns. As this middle line of columns deflected, they would have pulled the remaining core columns inward toward the middle line, possibly buckling all the core columns on a floor. Debris hitting the girders and beams might have assisted in deflecting this middle line of columns. Columns 78 to 63 and/or 76 to 61 could have been pulled inward more easily since the attached beams did not have shear studs connecting them to the concrete floors. The elevator shafts without floors would offer little resistance to this inward buckling. These core columns which probably had weak splices would have had to buckle on only one floor to collapse the core structure and implode the whole building.
Five seconds after the east penthouse failed, the west shed disappeared into the roof indicating that the core failed before the building began descending. The breaking of the vertical line of windows near Column 54 on the east side of the north wall simultaneously with the sinking of the east penthouse indicates that the wall was being pulled inward by the sagging floors above the buckled core columns.
Figure 24. As-built elevations. Building 7. Courtesy of NIST.)
There were numerous diagonal braces in the core below the 7th floor. There were also thick reinforced concrete floors on the 5th and 7th floors. The 5th floor diaphragm was 14 inches thick and reinforced with imbedded steel “T” sections. The 7th floor was eight-inch reinforced concrete. This would have made it less likely that the initial failure started or progressed on these lower floors but, since the fire was also on the 7th floor, and the 8th floor was not reinforced and would have been receiving all the heat from the 7th floor fire, the 8th floor could have sagged and could have affected those columns.
The belt truss around the building at the 22nd to the 24th floors stiffened the perimeter wall and probably supported the outer frame and helped it come down as a unit above the buckling columns.
As the core failed, the perimeter walls were pulled inward, with the greatest deflection at the top floors. This “lean in” of the perimeter walls sequentially decreased the pull-in forces on each floor moving upward, and produced increasing forces on each consecutive floor moving lower. Various exterior columns and connections would have failed on the lower floors with the increasing tension. This perimeter wall’s buckling was not seen in the videos because it was below the line of sight because of the buildings in the foreground; it looked as though the building had just descended straight into the ground.
The evidence of dust expulsions from floor to floor upward from the southwest corner near the roof, said to be from “detonations,” would have been caused by the floors’ disconnecting sequentially in the corner as the tensions in the suspended collapsing floors increased after core failure. That these failures were sequentially upward shows that there were sequentially increasing tensions in lower floors due to exterior wall’s leaning inward.
The possibility that some weaknesses exist in high-rise buildings constructed with long-span floors and cores without lateral bracing and with weak column splices necessitates that all possible failure mechanisms be studied to determine the cause of failure and means to prevent future failure. NIST can do a computer analysis of the forces involved and connection strength to confirm or disprove the analysis and clarify this theory. With the increasing spans and size of floor areas of high-rise office buildings allowed by the use of steel, there is a critical need for new methods to test long-span floors to determine if they are, or can be, adequately protected from fire.
New methods should be developed for testing and determining the forces that affect these floors and their connections under collapse conditions. Long span ‘I’ beams may be affected by differential heating and expansion of different parts of the web or flanges causing early bowing, buckling or twisting, affecting structural integrity. Contraction of sagging steel beams of girders as they cool after the fire burns out may put extra pull-in forces on columns pulling them out of alignment and buckling them. If these long-span floors cannot be adequately tested and protected against progressive or global collapse, the spans should be reduced and the steel size and strength increased. Surely, lateral bracing of core columns on each floor should be required, the column splice strength increased and alternate load paths should be built in to handle floor loads in case columns fail. In situations where the failure of floor assemblies could affect the lateral stability of the columns, these floors should be considered part of the frame and should have the same degree of fireproofing protection as the columns.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Defence + Bailout = $1.3 Trillion Dollars!
Yep, We the Sheeple have been fleeced for $1,312,000,000,000 to prop up the Industrial War Complex and the Corporate Government that pre-emptively and systematically put us into war in the Middle East. Not only did Bu$hco lie, cheat,and steal to do so, but also entrenched Neoconservative operatives in every part of government, education, business, social programs etc. etc. etc. Bu$hco also initiated the Ownership Society and the necessary loan and credit programs to put this in place, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not only that but Bu$hco initiated the Healthy Forest's Initiative to make more lumber available to build the homes that are now being foreclosed on. And, as you and I know, the list of Bu$h crimes would easily fill his proposed Presidential Library.
I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about keeping warm this winter...G:
Bush signs sprawling spending bill
Sept 30, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush on Tuesday signed a sprawling, stopgap spending bill to keep the government running for the next 12 months.
The president's move, which came on the last day of the government's budget year, was expected even though the measure spends more money and contains more pet projects than he would have liked. The legislation is one of the few bills this election year that simply had to pass.
The $630 billion-plus spending bill wraps together a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The measure also lifts a quarter-century ban on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans.
CRISIS ON WALL STREET
Bush signs sweetened bailout bill
Chastened House reverses itself and approves potentially the most expensive government intervention in U.S. history
PAUL KORING
October 4, 2008
WASHINGTON -- A $700-billion financial bailout, now adorned with many more billions to make it politically palatable, was finally passed yesterday after a wild week in which fear sent markets plunging and the broader economy showed serious signs of stress.
U.S. President George W. Bush hastily signed the bailout bill that could cost American taxpayers $700-billion and then, in a short Rose Garden appearance, told them they would probably get their money back.
"The government will purchase troubled assets," he said. "And once the market recovers, it is likely that many of the assets will go up in value. And over time, Americans should expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back."
Mr. Bush's successor in the Oval Office will inherit the massive payout designed to restore confidence and liquidity to a system savaged and choked by toxic debt. Any payback could be several presidents away.
Massive US military budget passed
October 4, 2008
US wrong to believe it can maintain both a military and civilian economy
While debate over the Paulson bailout package dominated the headlines, the US Congress quietly passed a landmark $615 Billion defense spending bill. One of the few people to comment on the measure was Chalmers Johnson, in his article "We have the money". Chalmers explains to Real News Senior Editor Paul Jay how the military-industrial complex is a driving force behind the current financial crisis and a determinant of much of what happens in Washington. He also criticizes the omission of the military-industrial complex from the political discourse determined by the two major parties and the media.
Bailout a "really big number"
October 4, 2008
Bailout bill no relief on foreclosures as 159,000 more jobs were lost in September, markets down again
The financial bailout package was passed by the US House of Representatives on Friday but 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats still refuse to approve the bill. Markets drop anyway with the Dow Jones losing 818 points on the week. Jobs in September slashed by 159,000 and home foreclosures at 770,000 since August 2007 expected to continue to rise. The Real News Network talks to Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics at California State University, Chico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
