WTC Collapses

i dont believe i said forensics expert. maybe i did, dont remember that though. I sat in on lectures given by experts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that is wrong. I said that i worked on a project lifting the top of a turbine that was the size of a small house of which there were three such turbines side by side. Using an apparatus involving an i-beam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam) the same type found in wtc construction. in the process the beam was forced and bent in such a way that it went flying approx 50 feet and could have been mistaken as an explosion. which was a response to the oft quoted misleading straw man - 'i hear explosions'.

all related to my work as a certified licensed ENGINEER.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and i never said manager...did i? this was one of the biggest plants in the world too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well are there any conclusions?

 

this entire post is a strawman.

i can diagnose illnesses too but that by no means says i'm a doctor.

 

No that is a peace of steel from the WTC center, from what part is unknown, and it appears to be a Hollow Box Beam, Litesteel, from the end holes that are readily visabe, now again look up the construction of the WTC towers, it was one of the largest if not the largest Litesteel construction in the world at that time.

Now just because it was a lite steel construction doesn't mean that there were not Heavy Red Steel materials used there is always a certian ammount of Heavy Iron in any building construction.

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?...lay_order=3&sub_display_order=2&mini_id=60026

And as in all litesteel constructions once the outer skin is compromised, the strength of the outer shell is gone, and the failure is certain, the loads bearing transfers to the floors under the damaged section, and as they collapse, it becomes progressive, till total catastrophic failure.

It is a remarkable point that the Towers lasted as long as they did, which allowed for the rescue of most of the people who were working and visiting them.

 

from my understanding there were few, if any, people "rescued" from WTC 1 and 2. all survivors evacuated under their own power.

 

From memory it was due to the time of Day. If it had occur 1/2 hour later there would of been larger numbers of people trying to escape.

 

a big al quaeda screw up if the intention was to maximise the number of deaths.

 

Rescue, escape what ever, it was remarkable the the Towers lasted long enough to allow all those people to make it out.

The fact is that in that type of construction, the Outer Walls need the Inner Columns for their structural integrity, and the Inner Columns need the Outer Walls to keep it's structural integrity.

Compromise either one and the system fails and you get a catastrophic collapse, and both outer wall and column in the WTCs were compromised, and the damage spread out from their like dominos causing more and more lose of structural integrity to the wall systems and inner columns, till total catastrophic collapse initiated.

 

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 2, Part 2

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 640 from this thread.

Have I ever disagreed with that assertion?

From what I've seen, the only evidence that fireproofing wasn't intact -before- the collapse (whereupon the explosives did a very good job of removing it and pulverizing the concrete to boot) is at the entrance to the building. Kevin Ryan has also described how the tests NIST did in order to ascertain that the fireproofing was removed from the planes was weak to put it mildly. FInally, from tests that Kevin Ryan describes, however, it seems apparent that even without fireproofing the buildings shouldn't have collapsed.

Much weaker steeler and it only reinforced the concrete frame. The twin towers, by contrast, had a 100% steel frame.

Do you have any evidence that (a) the fires could have caused even one floor to collapse and (b) that one floor collapsing would make any other floors collapse, let alone the whole building at near free fall speeds?

The concrete core was the strongest element. However, the top part of the steel reinforced concrete frame gradually collapsed. You seem to think that the weak link was the steel, when in fact it was the concrete. 9/11 Research makes that clear, but for some reason you seem to have missed it...

If by 'weakened' you mean 'sliced through by explosives', I couldn't agree with you more. The jet initiated office fires had no chance of doing it though.

That's what it seems like to me as well. And yet here we are disagreeing..

Actually, 9/11 Research is the one making it clear that the behaviour of the Madrid tower doesn't, in fact, support the official story. I've simply followed its train of logic and found it to be valid.

 

The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 2, Part 1

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 643 from this thread.

Alright, you've seen my source, let's see yours; perhaps others here can weigh in as well.

Perhaps Tony, Headspin or psikey can weigh in on that. All I know is that the article in question definitely does distinguish between the perimeter walls, interior core colums and core when it comes to gravity loads. Quoting:
"Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%."

I'm talking about the Madrid Tower's lightly steel reinforced concrete frame, which was susceptible to spalling when subjected to fires, vs. the Twin Towers strong 100% steel frame, which wasn't.

I haven't seen any evidence that steel can't resist fires quite well. And steel doesn't spall.

No, no no. I originally just quoted what I had just quoted above but then realized it was the same thing I'd quoted before. So I'll phrase it as an answer to your question this time.

The Windsor tower -frame- (as opposed to the core) was weak because it was primarily framed in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described here, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.

The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

To sum up- the Windsor Tower had a concrete frame that was only reinforced by a bit of relatively thin steel (for a building that size, that is). The twin towers' frames were 100% steel framed. Stronger, and no spalling possible.

 

the perimeter columns of the windsor tower were not a major structural component.

the ratio of steel to window space on the perimeter was massively lower than that for the twin towers. most of the structure was supported by the core. its bogus to conclude that fire will weaken to the point of collapse a steel structure.

the windsor tower did not collapse catastrophically, despite being fully involved in flame (which would have reduced conduction of the heat). the flimsy steel perimeter sections deformed and collapsed over a period of hours as you'd expect. the twin towers collapsed catastrophically in seconds.

 

I have seen no evidence that the core of the twin towers was concrete. the towers had to flex in the wind, i don't see how a concrete core could survive 50 years of flexing.

 

Amen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My source says the following on the subject:
Yamasaki's design for a torsion resistant core structure made from non flexible material, steel reinforced cast concrete, won a competition in strength with several others. All steel towers failed high winds because the steel perimeter columns could take the weight but were prone to flexing and the twisting.

 

there is a lot on that website that doesn't pass the bullshit test, for example what exactly is he communicating here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i have not been able to confirm scotts assertion that the box columns was surrounded by concrete. all construction videos i've seen of WTC 1 and 2 shows no such concrete.

 

I would agree.

 

Yes..there was no concrete surrounding the core columns.. just look at the picture i posted with the wtc under constuction. You only see steel beams...if concrete was used..You see the forms for the concrete.