DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charles Pellegrino,
My name is David Brennan and, after hearing that you and James Cameron (both of whom I'm fans of) were conducting an archaeological study of Ground Zero, I thought that you might have some evidence to contribute to, and/or learn from, a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The organization is among the more scientific of the numerous organizations of physicists and scholars who use empirical data - rather than the government's edicts - to study the events of 9/11, with an emphasis being on the collapse of the three WTC skyscrapers. Of course, these physicists and engineers study schematics, fall patterns, chemical analyses....every sort of hard science available. But, in my opinion, just casual empiricism will clue you off that something wasn't right about WTC 7.
I read your account of collecting your belongings from the rubble after 9/11, and I'm sure that between that and your and Mr. Cameron's investigation, you've already studied the bizarre collapse of WTC 7. So it won't surprise you to know that every single engineer, demolition expert, and physicist has said it was a controlled demolition. I've seen the testimony of the most knowledgable, no-nonsense men imaginable. Every one says the same thing, again and again: "Controlled demolition"
So hopefully you will contribute your own information for peer review and analysis.
Now, when James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici were doing their publicity tour for 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus', they repeatedly begged people not to submit to reflexive, pre-programmed responses to their hypothesis, but rather to look at the information objectively, dispassionately, scientifically....whatever word you want to substitute for "honestly".
Tragically, of course, that was not the case. And it's perhaps even more tragic that that same sort of attachment to an old faith has caused people to not be objective here, either, but rather immediately begin name-calling and morally pompous gibberish (in this case, that faith is not love of old Christian dogmas, but love of government).
But you two have obviously proven that you haven't got any fear of being called names or anything else, so you'd make great fits in this field of scientific study.
Thanks,
David Brennan
P.S. If you've any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at David@TheGreatRebellion.com, or [Removed]
Charlie Pellegrino wrote:I have interviewed survivors who were actually in Building Seven when the South Tower collapsed. They escaped and the building was unharmed before the North Tower surge cloud - which carried the most intense snake-heads effect (a stream of blast furnace level fire) east along the north side of Vessey Street and, along with the most powerful effects of the surge cloud (velocity above 80mph), struck WTC 7 on the west and south sides - with the force of a very small tactical nuclear weapon. There is nothing at all suggestive of planted explosive charges, at the core of what happened to Building Seven. As for melted steel at the WTC site - that's how you make steel: you melt it. 2000 years ago, most Roman iron (with a carbon component) was being fired with a heat generated by ordinary wood (same in China, where the steel was chromed). Plastic in the Towers would have burned even hotter than the necessary wood temperatures - and once the aluminum clading ignited, it burned with its own blast furnace force (especially at the NE corner of the South Tower). Note that iron softens substantially even at relatively low temperatures of 750deg.F. If you have the equivalent of a large office block on top of the softening steel, the soda machine principle takes over (See chapter 10, "Ghosts of Vesuvius"). I should add that not a single credible engineer, architect, or forensic archaeologist of my acquaintance believes the thermite charge conspiracy theory anymore than any of us believe in the faked moon landing conspiracy theory.
I'm no great fan of President Bush, despite being a Republican (I never believed anyone could make me feel nostalgic for President Clinton) - but anyone who believes George Bush engineered 9-11 has to be a few arches short of an aquaduct. Ask a few obvious questions, before accepting such a silly hypothesis. If Bush were smart enough to arrange for controlled charges to be placed in buildings and even to fake Bin Laden's boasts about the act, and to fake the Flight 11 hijackers' manifesto, and to place charges in advance of knowing precisely where the planes would hit - then oh how many magnitudes easier would it have been for him to arrange for just a few grams of 90% pure Uranium 235 to be placed inside a wall of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces? That's all that would have been necessary to say, "See! WMD - proof positive!" That alone indicates a president who might be capable of horrible miscalculations in the field of war; but not likely adept as a liar. Were he a good liar, and as cold-blooded as you seem to believe, we would probably have won this war by now.
C.R.P.
DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charlie Pellegrino,
First, I appreciate that you took the time to respond, which displays much more thoughtfulness than I anticipated, primed as I was by the name-calling and venom I received at your message board.
Before I quickly address some of your points, let me refer you to this organization of 130 licensed architects and engineers (some of them very prominent), who say that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition: 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' (http://www.ae911truth.org).
(Please feel free to write Richard Gage (AIA), the founder of the group, at this e-mail: rgage@ae911truth.org. I know he'd be happy to speak with you.)
So hopefully that organization proves that the idea has merit, and refutes your notion that no credible engineers believe this.
Comparing 9/11 Truth to faked moon landing theories.
Please don't conflate these two ideas, as they have no correlation whatsoever. This data is wholly independent from any theories about JFK, the moon landing, Elvis, Pat Tillman, the USS Liberty, or anything else. As I said, this is about science and data, not sociology.
George W. Bush hasn't the means nor the ability to pull of such a massive assault and fraud.
I agree. I don't believe that I mentioned his name, nor the Iraq war, in my letter. If I did, I apologize, as that was a non sequitur. (However, this doesn't mean that George Bush couldn't have been informed beforehand about the attacks, with or without the specifics. Here's a one-minute video from CBC news wherein George Bush claims to have watched the first plane crash into the tower live, when, obviously, nobody saw the plane hit the building live!)
The fires in WTC 7 were sufficient to weaken the steel and cause the collapse. The "soda machine principle."
Charles, you're severely mistaken in this issue. There have been dozens of steel-framed buildings which burnt for days on end....and they never collapse. This 16-minute video shows many such infernos.
I'm no structural engineer, but even if the fires did reduce the steel frame to putty, it would seem to me that the building would fall in a slow, asymmetrical manner, not in the perfectly uniform manner in which it did. (The engineers at AE911Truth.org can speak to this with more authority than I, although I believe it to simply be common sense.) Consider that you have a wax framework and you place a couple of small heat lamps inside to melt the wax....would the wax warp and melt progressively, or would the whole thing fall down in perfect symmetry in 6 seconds?
-----
Now, there's much more that I could respond to, including Osama bin Laden's boasting about the attacks (never happened, and why hasn't the most powerful entity in mankind's history, the DoD, been able to capture the 6'7" Saudi yet?), and your claim that the "snake-heads effect" was comparable to a tactical nuke (How many kilotons? Why didn't it make the other buildings implode? Why didn't it incinerate those standing nearby?)....but I believe that you probably want to get on with your evening!
I'd be thrilled to hear your responses to these ideas, and to the specific ideas of AE911Truth.org. (Also, if you'd like a "further reading"-type of letter from me, just ask and I'd be happy to send you one.)
Thank You,
David Brennan
[Removed Personal Information]
Charlie Pellegrino wrote:I've been quite busy on another project, so time really does not permit answering all questions. Also, some of the questions get into the area of comparative vulnerability of skyscrapers - a subject I and my colleagues have always avoided even speculating about with people (on the principle of not doing homework for the terrorists).
The one fire-damaged building I studied was the rather remarkable sagging event in Philadelphia - and it was indeed a very different situation from the three buildings that fell on 9-11. Primarily - Philadelphia did not involve as much mass pressing down on weakened structures. WTC 7 had multiple fires along the lower floors with a whole skyscraper pressing down. Once fractures began developing along the central line all the way up to the roof, and the entire cage structure dropped just 10 inches, it became an unstoppable mass in motion, quickly reaching a vertical velocity of 60mph.
WTC 1 survived longer than I would have anticipated: to me, though we lost four in this family, the Towers stood long enough through impossible punishment for nearly 30,000 people to escape the range of collapse column and radial surge clouds (which exerted instantly lethal effects as far as 1/3 mile south along Washington and West streets - and exploded bomb-like out of the tunnel to Brooklyn). That the two Towers stood so long has brought be to love those buildings more than before they fell.
WTC 1 survived the fight 11 impactor by means of a Roman arching effect. Once it shifted (fell) just 18 inches, it became an unstoppable mass accelerating within 3 seconds toward a 120mph collapse column, force fed by a downblast effect - meaning a 120mph initial surge cloud. This is roughly equivalent to being struck by a 60 foot Tsunami, if you were located within the 80-120mph zone.
WTC 2 had no Roman arching effect and there was more mass pressing down on the blast zone - which had produced a wound much like a V cut into an ax-felled tree. Contrary to popular notions, the collapse did not begin as a vertical pancaking of decks. The initial snap had an approximately 40mph eastward horizontal velocity; but within 3 seconds, vertical velocity far exceeded horizontal velocity.
The wax analogy (simply on the basis of mass and scale alone) cannot apply.
It is not true that everything was pummelled to dust and no objects inside the Towers survived. This was true for the central core within the collapse column (combined force 1.6 kilotons for collapse, kinetic, alone: 15% of a Hirishima). Objects on the outer column were ejected by the out-splash intact - to such extent that part of a legal library travelled to the fire escapes of O'Hara's pub, still in alphabetical order. Also, those horizontal "squib" explosions preceding the outsplash effect are without doubt compressed air in the core (more than 7% of a Hiroshima concentrated in a diameter of under 200 feet, each building). A building is, after all, 95% air.
True, George Bush made some confused statements about 9-11. He makes confused and confusing statements every day (like wanting to help Americans "put food on their families"). As for my own records, were I not on coms and recording all events (aboard the Russian research vessel Keldysh), I would never have noticed that in times of stress, and trying to make logical sense out of an illogical sequence of events, I had re-ordered, in my memory, the sequence of events that occurred over a 24 hour period. In times of great stress, this is a normal human response, this reordering of events. It would be an unusual day in which President Bush, especially, did not say something confusing or eveen ridiculously spoken.
As for the subject itself, my friends saw that my eyes had seen a bit too much inside the crater - and this was a reason they took me to Israel and back again into ancient archaeology. Quite simply, WTC is a subject I need to get away from, for a while.
DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charles Pellegrino:
I understand and will adhere to your wish to not further investigate the WTC collapse, but I'll first respond to each of the points in the last post and then make a quick statement.
Also, are you aware that CNN and the BBC magically reported the "collapse" (not fires, not damage, "collapse") of WTC 7 before it actually happened? Are you aware that the owner of the entire WTC complex said that they "pulled" the building?
"....some of the questions get into the area of comparative vulnerability of skyscrapers - a subject I and my colleagues have always avoided even speculating about with people (on the principle of not doing homework for the terrorists)."
Don't be scared of doing homework for the evil Arabs, as they can simply go to a Barnes & Noble and grab an engineering textbook if they want to. Plus, the blueprints are already readily available online.
And haven't you heard that "information wants to be free"? I've got a copy of the 'Avatar' script to help prove that.
(Incidentally, you must support government regulation of engineering data, eh? Should people need the government's permission to do research? Doesn't seem compabable with freedom, to me.)
WTC 7 had multiple fires along the lower floors with a whole skyscraper pressing down. Once fractures began developing along the central line all the way up to the roof, and the entire cage structure dropped just 10 inches....
How the heck do you know "fractures" began developing? Where did this "10 inch" drop occur? Every single video I've seen shows WTC 7 collapsing from the very bottom....and that's what all the engineers say, too.
With all due respect, you appear to be concocting this "evidence" out of thin air. If not, please show this astounding new evidence to the engineers, as they'd love to study it.
-WTC 1 survived the fight 11 impactor by means of a Roman arching effect. Once it shifted (fell) just 18 inches, it became an unstoppable mass accelerating within 3 seconds toward a 120mph collapse column, force fed by a downblast effect - meaning a 120mph initial surge cloud. This is roughly equivalent to being struck by a 60 foot Tsunami, if you were located within the 80-120mph zone..... WTC 2 had no Roman arching effect and there was more mass pressing down on the blast zone - which had produced a wound much like a V cut into an ax-felled tree. Contrary to popular notions, the collapse did not begin as a vertical pancaking of decks. The initial snap had an approximately 40mph eastward horizontal velocity; but within 3 seconds, vertical velocity far exceeded horizontal velocity. ....Also, those horizontal "squib" explosions preceding the outsplash effect are without doubt compressed air in the core (more than 7% of a Hiroshima concentrated in a diameter of under 200 feet, each building). A building is, after all, 95% air.
I won't dispute any of these assertions. In fact, I'll stipulate them as fact for the sake of discussion. But nothing here addresses WTC 7. (Nor, for that matter, the sworn testimony of hundreds of firemen that there was molten steel at the bottom of the trade center.)
True, George Bush made some confused statements about 9-11. He makes confused and confusing statements every day (like wanting to help Americans "put food on their families"). As for my own records, were I not on coms and recording all events (aboard the Russian research vessel Keldysh),
I know you were on board the Keldysh, as I saw you in 'Ghosts of the Abyss' and knew you lived in Manhattan. Is was this connection, and my great, great admiration for James Cameron, that made me contact you in the first place.
And for the record, Bush didn't have a mere slip of the tongue in his description of 9/11, he made a prolonged statement which was manifestly a lie.
-----
I'll be honest with you, and tell you that I think that your replies seem disingenuous and predisposed to believing the government. I know that that's patronizing for me to say, but I truly believe this is the case, and I believe you know it, too.
I also want to note that my brother {name witheld} works for {removed}. Like the 130 engineers at AE911Truth.org, he absolutely and emphatically disagrees with every one of your claims. So I'll agree with my brother, the engineers I've spoken with, and AE911Truth.org. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
I wish you the best, but I cannot hope that you reap whatever profits you hope to gain from espousing what I believe you know to be a lie.
Once more, if you have evidence for your claims, please share them with AE911Truth.org, as they'd love to embrace new information.
All The Best,
David Brennan
[Moderation Notice: Repaired Order of Replies -- Mr. Titanic.]Charles Pellegrino wrote:I'm not predisposed to believing the government about anything. (As the child of a woman who was removed from a good home, by the government, and in the name of an ill conceived agenda of reuniting children with their biological parents no matter what - even if in my mother's case the biological father was a murderer and rapist - believe me, I do not believe people who are in authority simply because they are in authority.) I am, however, predisposed to believing my own two years of on-site research, and the previous 15 years of research in forensic archaeology and forensic physics that spanned everything from Thera to the bombs at Bikini Atol and led from the Titanic to Ground Zero. Please read my previous letters more carfully. The collapse conditions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are analagous, exactly, to what happened with WTC 7 - which as I state did collapse from the bottom and which had more mass pressing down on the wound than even WTC 2. It was also a cage structure subjected to slow heating at the bottom, without an airplane impactor preceding the softening with the massive physical wounds described (for WTC 1 and WTC 2) in the previous letter.
On the melting of steel, I have addressed this in my first reply. I would be very surprised had we not found pockets of melted steel under the Towers. Even wood-fueled fires can actually melt iron - and has been used to forge iron (and later, steel) since at least the time of Egypt's late 18th dynasty. Note also that the amount of melted steel has been exagerated because many structural engineers assumed that steel could not be bent like leaves and twigs without the application of heat. However, when crystal structure is checked, one sees that the bent steel has usually not been heated and annealed at all. (The same thing happened with steel at the Titanic's stern, where fire was definitely not a significant player). In most cases, the bending was structural and occurred within 1/20 to 1/200th of a second. Most people and even many engineers still attribute the bending (often in error) to heat combined with pressure - a case in point being the caption for the piece of WTC steel on display at New Jersey's Liberty Science Center.
The collapse sequence was also perfectly analogous to the junction break between Titanic's bow and stern sections. We see the same "liquification" action (in which even between plates and frames of steel, granulation of structure becomes all fluid mechanics and for all intents and purposes, no solid structures exist at the junction): the whole junction resembles a giant waterfall, a spreading shower effect.
WTC 7 crakage: You should refer to the first WTC scientific report, referenced in the bibliography of GoV (not the 9-11 Commission Report - which I agree is among the most chaotic investigations I've read since Lord Mersey's hearings into the loss of the Titanic).
I'm signing off on this subject for now.
CRP, over and out.
[Moderation Notice: Removed some personal information, at poster's request. -- Brad]