Why did WTC7 collapse?

World architecture... what's happening generally....

Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby SunnyDub » Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:00 pm

Since this is a forum for architects, I thought I might ask you guys what you think of the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7?

How did a 47 storey tower that wasn't hit by an airplane collapse that day in a manner that appeared to be similar to a controlled demolition? Why did the 2 towers fall in the manner similar to a controlled demolition?

Check out Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org - apparently no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in history before the WTC tower collapses. There's a video presentation from Richard Gage, AIA Architect, at the University of Manitoba on the site.

There may be some structural engineers and physicists on these forums who may also have views on this. I'm very interested to hear your views.
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby notjim » Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:47 pm

SunnyDub wrote: - apparently no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire in history before the WTC tower collapses.


No steel framed building was ever hit by a 737 in history before the WTC tower collapses.

Why is this in the Ireland thread: in this conspiracy theory was it somehow our fault, was our opposition to high rise so extreme that we destroyed the twin towers?
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby PVC King » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:22 pm

No building yet has been hit by a 737 not deliberately at least!

The weapons used in 9/11 were 757 and or bigger Boeings; ironically I do remember a programme that was on discovery channel c August 2001 about a DC2 or DC3 wing that hit the Empire State building in the late 1940's causing localised damage but thankfully that building did survive in all its glory.

Please move to World forum or delete as I agree with Notjims sentiment as the thread lacks relevance at best and more like a lack of taste to my mind.
PVC King
 

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby notjim » Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:00 pm

Yes, sorry, they were 767s.

Also, PVC King; I should also apologize for being in arguably poorer taste than the op: I was trying the usual George Melly strategy of trying to kill an wanted debate by pilling foolishness on foolishness, maybe inappropriate here.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby SunnyDub » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:34 pm

I posted this in the Ireland thread as I'm interested in what my fellow colleages in this country have to say on the subject, but the world thread is fine.

This is not a debate about high rise (although I don't know if Freedom Tower has been debated on these forums), it is just asking do any architects or engineers think the claims made about controlled demolitions are credible? And how did Tower 7, that wasn't hit by any plane, end up falling?


- It's beside the point but just regarding "lack of taste", there are over 100 family members of victims of the collapse of the towers supporting the quest for answers. Since when does it "lack taste" to ask for a thorough and complete investigation of something this important? There was never an investigation. The FBI weren't allowed in and what we got was the 9/11 Commission which is widely recognised (even by its Chairman)as being totally inadequate. It failed to even deal with Tower 7.
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby PVC King » Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:35 pm

notjim wrote:
Also, PVC King; I should also apologize for being in arguably poorer taste than the op: I was trying the usual George Melly strategy of trying to kill an wanted debate by pilling foolishness on foolishness, maybe inappropriate here.



No just witty!


The FBI weren't allowed in and what we got was the 9/11 Commission which is widely recognised (even by its Chairman)as being totally inadequate. It failed to even deal with Tower 7.


Now we are getting somewhere; this is just the latest JFK conspiracy theorist hobby horse but unfortunately unlike JFK where one family was affected in this case 3000 people were killed. No other event in mankind has ever been so over-analysed.
PVC King
 

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby GregF » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:40 pm

Plenty of conspiracy theories out there suggesting what really happened.

Check out this movie 'Zeitgeist'.

The World Trade Center is dealt with in Part 2, and it what it says is an eye opener.

Why not watch the whole lot as the first bit about religion just shows how gullible people are.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

(Check it out! Initially, it just takes a litle while to warm up and get into it.)
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:40 pm

Building near twin towers felled by fire, not explosives: report
Last Updated: Thursday, August 21, 2008 | 1:44 PM ET Comments2Recommend4
CBC News

Fires brought down a 47-storey office building at the edge of the World Trade Centre on Sept. 11, 2001, U.S federal investigators concluded Thursday, refuting conspiracy theories of explosives being responsible for the collapse.

The collapse of the World Trade Centre 7 building was, however, the first known instance of fire causing the complete collapse of a skyscraper, said scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The fire weakened floor beams and a critical support column, leading to the collapse, according to the 77-page report released Thursday by the investigators.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the project.

The collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water, the investigators concluded.
Conspiracy theories

The structure, at one point home to Central Intelligence Agency and Secret Service offices, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers were felled.

The timing of the building's fall had led conspiracy theorists to speculate that someone planted explosives, intentionally bringing down the building and providing the White House greater justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

No one died when the building collapsed.

The team of investigators looked into the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation, said Sunder.

Investigators also concluded there was no evidence that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structures succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby Bourgeoise » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:38 am

This is really a question for Jim Corr.

he will not like the above explanation.
Bourgeoise
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby SunnyDub » Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:53 pm

Well Richard Gage & co aren't accepting the latest report...

CNN: Conspiracy theorists ‘not swayed’ by WTC7 explanation

David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story
Friday, August 22, 2008

What really happened at 7 W.T.C. on Sept. 11, 2001? Government investigators say they know the truth.

Fires, and not controlled demolition, caused the collapse of the tower, claims a new report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The institute, a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards, is the first government agency to present an all-encompassing theory of the building’s demise.

But that theory is being met with consternation among those who believe something more sinister was afoot on 9/11.

“It has been a mystery since 9/11,” said CNN’s Deborah Feyerick in a Friday report. “Why did World Trade Center building seven collapse nearly seven hours after the twin towers fell?




“Was it diesel fuel in the building? Or planted explosives, a controlled demolition of government offices as conspiracy theorists allege in films like Loose Change?”

No, says Dr. Shyam Sunder, who directed NIST’s team of researchers in the investigation. Fire triggered a “new phenomenon” — thermal expansion of structural steel, which caused a cascade of collapsing floors, ultimately bringing the building down symmetrically, into its own footprint.

“This is the first time that we’re aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarilly due to fire,” said Dr. Sunder during Thursday’s NIST press conference. Had the city’s water mane not been cut, and WTC 7’s sprinkler systems been active, the building may still stand, he said.

Still, said CNN, conspiracy theorists are “not swayed” by the report, though the news channel failed to provide any reason why some still cling to differing opinions of WTC 7’s collapse.

Richard Gage, founder of the activist group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is chief among those :confused:.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

His group has membership of over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, who say that they have the science to back up their claims. They argue thermite, a steel cutting agent used by the military and controlled demolitions companies, was responsible for bringing the building down.

“FEMA found it,” said Gage during a press conference on Thursday. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”

“Investigators said they did consider certain so-called ‘conspiracy theories,’ reported CNN. “But none held up.”

“Alternative theories are, really, none of them have been found to be credible,” said NIST’s Dr. Sunder.

Glenn Corbin, a fire expert interviewed by CNN, said he believes the most important thing to take away from the NIST report are means of making skyscrapers safer.

This video is from CNN’s American Morning, broadcast August 22, 2008.:confused:
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby SunnyDub » Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:46 pm

As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”

The George Washington blog
:eek:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html

has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded.

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby brianobrien » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:38 am

[quote="PVC King"]No building yet has been hit by a 737 not deliberately at least!

The weapons used in 9/11 were 757 and or bigger Boeings; ironically I do remember a programme that was on discovery channel c August 2001 about a DC2 or DC3 wing that hit the Empire State building in the late 1940's causing localised damage but thankfully that building did survive in all its glory.

Please move to World forum or delete as I agree with Notjims sentiment as the thread lacks relevance at best and more like a lack of taste to my mind.

Lack of taste ? Are you kidding ? Its people like you that have buried their heads who have allowed the US Administration to get away with some of the most serious crimes in modern history ? Do you know at all what's going on here ? From an architectural/ engineering viewpoint its pretty clear even to the unqualified layman that the so called explanations and official reports are lies. If it was so called "terrorists" those guys were pretty clever because they've bent the laws of science and construction overnight !. Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50 a.m.;
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html ). Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
Geographic information for WTC given at http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen -- or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.

Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C -- hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements -- floor trusses and columns -- so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel -- though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).

I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline, must it ?

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html ).


Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space
BBC News Image (left) is misleading:
A "beam" is always horizontal, "columns" are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.
The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.
The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts



Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm )


The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.

This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).


According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge -- inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems -- all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time -- and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides -- else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

Images cached from PsyOpNews:
The Splitsecond Error

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg ).

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg ).

This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg ).

Whatever irregularities caused the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 250 ft high) falling a 1000 feet onto the buildings below.

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).

I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.

This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.

But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air -- as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.

Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.

Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks -- nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.

The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why ) or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why ). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.

The University of Sydney -- Department of Civil Engineering

And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm /thirdexplosion.jpg ).

What has happened here?

I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.

In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed.

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg ,
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcaerial.jpg ).

I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.

Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews ).

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog )

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building -- phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events -- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why )
In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case of perfect hindsight?

Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam )
Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.

I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm , then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal ).

But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:

Other buildings -- including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ).
(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg ).

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.

I believe in the President of the United States, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.

And I believe all Americans and those looking on in the outside world are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them. Would/nt they ????
brianobrien
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby paul h » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:49 pm

Nutters!
Ive even heard some lunatics claim, with a straight face, that the planes were holograms, or remote controlled.
There is a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands conjuring up these conspiracy theories

Who physically planted all the explosives? What about the massive in house security presence in these buildings?
All in on it also?
None of the hundreds of maintenance workers noticed a single thing?

Why did the 2 towers fall in the manner similar to a controlled demolition?

Do you realise the huge time and effort involved to bring down a building, never mind a pair of quarter mile tall , fully operational towers.
paul h
Member
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby shanekeane » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:15 pm

paul h wrote:Nutters!
Ive even heard some lunatics claim, with a straight face, that the planes were holograms, or remote controlled.
There is a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands conjuring up these conspiracy theories

Who physically planted all the explosives? What about the massive in house security presence in these buildings?
All in on it also?
None of the hundreds of maintenance workers noticed a single thing?


Do you realise the huge time and effort involved to bring down a building, never mind a pair of quarter mile tall , fully operational towers.


9/11 conspiracies are actually taking over the internet. it's like the cyber version of ebola. Unlike most people, I've looked at a lot of the evidence and it seems to me that while there are some areas difficult to explain, that ultimately the evidence is not strong enough when you consider that nobody of the supposed thousands involved in this conspiracy has ever leaked any information.

HOWEVER, anybody interested in engineering matters will have to conclude that WTC7 is a total mystery. Of course, the suggestion that this building was collapsed to give further justification for invading Iraq is an idiotic one - as if everything else that happened wasn't enough! But it seems to me that this report is really clutching at straws regarding the explanation, which is evidenced by the fact that it took seven years to appear. Here's my theory: there was a lot of sensitive information in that building because if housed the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. In recognition of the fact that the WTC might be vulnerable to attack, and that if it was, WTC7 might be vulnerable to looting with the consequent loss of top secret files, the US government had placed demolition charges in the building years before as a sort of contingency self-destruct mechanism to protect top secret information. May seem far-fetched, but honestly I don't see how anybody can suggest that building collapsed because of fire!
shanekeane
Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: Why did WTC7 collapse?

Postby Pot Noodle » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:58 pm

brianobrien wrote:
PVC King wrote:No building yet has been hit by a 737 not deliberately at least!

The weapons used in 9/11 were 757 and or bigger Boeings; ironically I do remember a programme that was on discovery channel c August 2001 about a DC2 or DC3 wing that hit the Empire State building in the late 1940's causing localised damage but thankfully that building did survive in all its glory.

Please move to World forum or delete as I agree with Notjims sentiment as the thread lacks relevance at best and more like a lack of taste to my mind.

Lack of taste ? Are you kidding ? Its people like you that have buried their heads who have allowed the US Administration to get away with some of the most serious crimes in modern history ? Do you know at all what's going on here ? From an architectural/ engineering viewpoint its pretty clear even to the unqualified layman that the so called explanations and official reports are lies. If it was so called "terrorists" those guys were pretty clever because they've bent the laws of science and construction overnight !. Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50 a.m.;
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html ). Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
Geographic information for WTC given at http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen -- or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.

Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C -- hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements -- floor trusses and columns -- so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel -- though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).

I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline, must it ?

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html ).


Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space
BBC News Image (left) is misleading:
A "beam" is always horizontal, "columns" are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.
The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.
The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts



Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm )


The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.

This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).


According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge -- inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems -- all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time -- and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides -- else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

Images cached from PsyOpNews:
The Splitsecond Error

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg ).

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg ).

This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg ).

Whatever irregularities caused the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 250 ft high) falling a 1000 feet onto the buildings below.

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).

I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.

This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.

But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air -- as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.

Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.

Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks -- nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.

The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why ) or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why ). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.

The University of Sydney -- Department of Civil Engineering

And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm /thirdexplosion.jpg ).

What has happened here?

I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.

In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed.

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg ,
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcaerial.jpg ).

I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.

Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews ).

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog )

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building -- phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events -- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why )
In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case of perfect hindsight?

Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam )
Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.

I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm , then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal ).

But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:

Other buildings -- including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ).
(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg ).

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.

I believe in the President of the United States, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.

And I believe all Americans and those looking on in the outside world are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them. Would/nt they ????


:eek:
Pot Noodle
Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:35 pm


Return to World Architecture



cron