Rebekah Roth retired air steward has been talking these many months about 911.
She brings it all together and this interview with Bill Ryan is supurb; it's all here after many years of extensive research!
Who are the most likely involved and what happened to the people on the planes!
Few will be the same after listening to this audio mp3.
Could the towers have been made stronger?
No building we can construct today would have been able to withstand the impact of the terrorist airplanes that struck the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001.
We can, however, learn from the collapse of the towers and take steps to construct safer buildings and minimize the number of casualties in the event of a disaster.
When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes.
The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights.
But, the consequences were devastating.
"What struck us guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive.
It was just unbelievable."
Michael Henderson, General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE
quoted in 'Stepping Through the Ashes' (p. 93)
According to the official report, the planes hit the towers cutting through exterior and interior supporting structural steel columns.
The fuel from the planes ignited office fires across several floors.
The fuel from the planes ignited office fires across several floors.
The structural steel frame was weakened and failed causing a total progressive collapse of each tower.
Does the official explanation make sense?
Was there a comprehensive investigation that examined all of the evidence?
Let's look at the detail.
Joel Miller, High-Rise Architect: These buildings were designed to take multiple impacts from airliners.
Daniel Barnum, FAIA, High-Rise Architect: I walked into the office and the first words that I heard was a plane has just run into the World Trade Center.
My initial thought was, 'Well, that's okay, it's built to withstand a 707.'
Alfred Lopez, P.E. Structural Engineer: Fuel would be dumped into the building but the building would still be there, although most of the fuel blew out the opposite side of the
Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E Mechanical Engineer: These building are built to handle several times the load above them.
The affirmative columns static columns can handle five times the load above them.
The core columns can handle three times the load above them.
Leslie Young, High-Rise Architect: The majority of the jet fuel was burnt up instantly in the big fire ball.
It was gone.
The fires that were left were office furnishings and carpets.
A lot of the materials in these buildings have to be fire resistance by code.
So there isn't a whole of fuel in there to begin with.
Edward Munyak P.E. Fire Protection Engineer: The media portrayed these fires as being extremely hot.
But the fires were not that hot in World Trade Center 1 and 2.
If you look at NIST's own data you can see that.
To use our own powers of observation you can tell by seeing black smoke come out the windows.
That means the fires were oxygen starved and so incomplete combustion.
So it was a low-temperature fire.
Robert Podolsky, M.S. Physicist/Engineer: I am Robert Podolsky.
I have a Master degree in theoretical physics from Xavier University in Cincinnati.
I worked for ten years as a professional physicist, engineer, systems analyst for government and for industry.
Companies like AFCO, GE, Bendix and also Air Force Avionics Laboratory and the Coast Guard electronics division.
Under the conditions that existed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 that jet fuel had to have been burning at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit.
The official explanation was that the heat from the fire softened the steel and thereby brought the buildings down.
You can hold a flame at 750 degrees under a steel beam forever and you will never reach a high enough temperature to bend steel, let alone melt it.
So immediately I knew that the official explanation was dead wrong.
There was no way those flames could have possibly brought about the collapse of the building.
William Brinner, Architect:
It did not seem possible that these towers that were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 could possibly collapse in such a short order of time from the time they were hit.
There is no way.
The building was designed to take the impact of one if not more airplanes.
They were designed to withstand hurricane force winds of up to 140 miles an hour.
My first reaction was that looks like controlled demolitions.
However I believed the official story because it was played to me over and over again.
I heard repeated experts telling me that this was terrorists that did this and that it was planes that brought those buildings down.
So I accepted the official story.
Anthony Szamboti, B.S.M.E Mechanical Engineer:
The NIST testing of the Twin Tower floor assemblies is done at Underwriters Laboratories.
This is done for AFTM-E1-19 in a two hour, two thousand degree fire test.
The main trusses sagged approximately four inches if they are sixty minutes, six inches if they are a hundred minutes
Yet NIST had the main trusses sagging well over four inches in their model.
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.
Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. *
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice.
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds.
Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the 1964 white paper cited, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. *
* City in the Sky, Times Books ..., page 133
Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that 'live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.' *
* How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964
9/11 Conspiracy Solved Names Connections and Details Exposed
In fact someone told me recently, 'I wouldn't believe what you are telling me even if it were true.'
PDF and now EPub versions for small tablets and Kindle, Nook and varied e-readers