WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Still on page 20...

So am I

[scott3x]

The demolition characteristics of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers

This post is in response to the 1st part of TW Scott's post 396 in this thread.

The arguments on his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site aren't based upon how many firemen were able to put out the WTC 7 fires. Here are the points made for WTC 7 (generally similar to the twin tower collapses, but they do differ a bit):
********************************
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

Rapid? The building was burning for most of the day before it collapsed.

Burning and collapsing are entirely different things. The relatively small fires may have burned for hours, but the actual -collapse- occured within seconds. 9/11 Research puts it quite well in its article The Windsor Building Fire. In this article, it compares the Windsor tower, which suffered a partial and gradual collapse due to fires over time, vs. the WTC buildings:
***********
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down


These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
***********

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 393 from this thread.

The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 1



I agree. So does 911review.org, even including a diagram of this belief and stating that it is mistaken. It states the reverse; that the core columns reinforced the concrete core.

.. and I am saying that is not correct. The information I have regarding the towers states that the floors were concrete but it was the steel box columns providing the support in the core. There was no support provided by any concrete walls.

To be sure. You are aware that the 9/11 research article in question was referring to the frames of the buildings, not the cores, right?

The framing of the building does not exclude the cores.

And that a steel frame is much stronger and more resistant to fire than a (lightly) steel reinforced frame?

What are you talking about? The Madrid Tower had steel-reinforced concrete while the WTC had steel with fireproofing. The concrete, which is extremely fire resistant, is the reason the Madrid Tower stayed up.

Ok, the 911review.org article in question is stating that the inner core, which bore 20% of the load, was surrounded by the interior steel core columns, which bore 30% of the load. The remaining 50% of the load was borne by the perimeter columns. If you disagree with any of this, then I can certainly attempt to seek more confirmation as at present, the only source I have for those precise distributions is the above linked article from 911review.org (not to be confused with 911review.com, an official story supporter).

9/11 Research elaborates:
******************
"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... In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 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 below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."
******************
Only the Windsor Tower's relatively weak perimeter collapsed; the core remained intact.

Weak because it was steel? While the core was concrete?

Can you quote the part where it discusses the mistake(s?) NIST made? Don't want to have to read through the whole thing :-p.

It’s the second paragraph.

“

As will be seen, it appears likely that NIST got the load distributions wrong in favor of
survival of the structure. A simple explanation is that the core supported all floor loads
within the core plus approximately half of the floor loads outside the core. Further, the
DCR for the core is found to be roughly in agreement with Banovic, Foecke, and Luecke
[2007] who state “The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads
and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”.

“

Yes. Apparently they believe that the core bore more of the load then the article in 911review.org believed. Still, the difference isn't -that- large. They believe it was 63% and they seem to make no distinction between the core and the steel core columns surrounding it

From what I have read Scott there is no distinction to be made. The steel columns were providing all the support for the core.

(combined the 911review.org article believe they supported 50% of the load). Since they believe that the core supported 63% of the load, naturally the 100% steel framed perimeter could have only supported the remaining 37%. I would be very interested in finding out why there is a discrepancy between these 2 articles and will try to find why this is but I find it comforting that the discrepancy isn't -that- large.




I have certainly not seen any evidence of this. Could you please point out where my 'own site' (9/11 research? or 911review.org?) said so?

“
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. 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.
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 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 below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.
“

The framing they are referring to includes the box columns which made up the core.

Except for the one I brought up from 911review.org. I can certainly agree that the whole matter could use further investigation and am very interested in seeing where you believe my 'own site' says that the concrete core wasn't reinforced by steel columns.

Your Madrid Tower article makes no mention of a concrete core at all.

[psikeyhackr]

This is suppose to pass for logic?

Logic is based on physics not words. Words are just symbols that are supposed to have something to do with reality but often they do not. Like that nonsense of Europe being a continent when there is no water separating it from Asia.

It is obvious from the videos that WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed in a different manner than WTC 7. But we have all these morons not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years earlier so this ain't rocket science. THE LOGIC IS OBVIOUS except to people not capable of it.

How do you compute the conservation of momentum of a supposed gravitational collapse from the top without knowing the distribution of mass through the structure? I know, YOU JUST BELIEVE, and then you don't need data to do anything. The LOGIC of not thinking.

psik

[scott3x]

Logic is based on physics not words. Words are just symbols that are supposed to have something to do with reality but often they do not. Like that nonsense of Europe being a continent when there is no water separating it from Asia.

It is obvious from the videos that WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed in a different manner than WTC 7. But we have all these morons not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years earlier so this ain't rocket science. THE LOGIC IS OBVIOUS except to people not capable of it.

How do you compute the conservation of momentum of a supposed gravitational collapse from the top without knowing the distribution of mass through the structure? I know, YOU JUST BELIEVE, and then you don't need data to do anything. The LOGIC of not thinking.

psik

I admit that at times I get frustrated with official story believers and at times it may show a little. However, as you may know, I think we should refrain from using base insults (such as 'moron') because, in my view, it just lowers the level of discussion.

Anyway, I think that when it comes to 9/11 a lot of people will certainly get creative in not accepting certain facts. It reminds me of what what a certain PhD in psychology said, but both his name and what he said exactly eludes me at the moment (I believe John99 mentioned him recently). Anyway, I'm sure this same logic is used against the truth movement. Perhaps they've even got a PhD in psychology or 2 themselves :-p.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of TW Scott's post 396 in this thread.

The arguments on his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site aren't based upon how many firemen were able to put out the WTC 7 fires. Here are the points made for WTC 7 (generally similar to the twin tower collapses, but they do differ a bit):
********************************
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

...2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

Those were cracks. Not explosions. Not to mention if it was explosions you would have seen dust and windows being blown out.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Actually, in large building like WTC1&2 and 7 and symmetrical collapse is the path of least resistance. These building are designed to allow gravity to keep them stable in high winds. the building falling sideway would be working against gravity for half the building. Meaning an asymmetrical collapse would need massive amounts of energy acting on the outside of the building to counteract that surpass the weight of the building.

Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims?

4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

Actually that is not too hard to believe given we have NEVER seen such a large building collapse in any other fashion. We implode building becuase it is the easiet thing to do, not to help with cleanup.

We've never seen such large buildings collapse, period. However, other then in demolitions, buildings have -never- collapsed in the way that the WTC buildings did. In post 3 in this thread, I put up some pictures of a few buildings that collapsed due to earthquakes- the difference is rather obvious.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

the dust clouds were actually pretty insignificant and were not burning all that much more than a normal office fire.

I'm truly curious- do you simply make up these points as you go along? Let's take a look at your 'insignificant dust clouds':
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...cs/hudson5.jpg

6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).

Which would coincide with a day long fight with the office fire.

I haven't ever heard of an office fire resulting in tons of molten metal. I guess in your world, however, this is just a typical office fire ?

A controlled demolition would not have had molten metals.

Uh-huh. Let's see what Steven Jones, in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, had to say on the matter:
********
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
********

Headspin addressed your objection to point 7, on to 8:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

Probably from the rust pockets that coincidently form Thermite.

This is more Headspin's area, perhaps he can answer it.

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

Funny, how they don't have as many really big building they have delat with as American Demolitions experts.

I think the point you should be watching for is that he wasn't american and thus not subject to the political tides of the place.

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

Doesn't take a genius to know that a rapidly burning building might come down. Especially when you have had no luck fighting the fire.

Quoting from another forum:
**********
Some unique features of each collapse

1) WTC2 = south tower struck 2nd, collapses first. Note that collapse initiates after smoke appears to lessen -- and RIGHT after 2 fire chiefs radio "2 localized fires. need 2 lines to knock it down" from 74th floor (see FDNY transcripts)
**********

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

This would be if you had a brick building fire. Wood places go up quick and paoper filled steel offices go just as damned quick.[/quote]

Quick? Steel framed buildings have never even -allegedly- collapsed due to fire on any other day but 9/11/2001.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

And what if you have an almost even even level of damage right to left and are working with a building type that is designed to collapse exactly one way.

What are you trying to say here? That the WTC buildings were designed to collapse straight down?

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Excuse me but a few hundred degrees is all that is needed to soften steels. Or worse make it expand an pop rivets.

As Kevin Ryan wrote to NIST's Frank Gayle, "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. It can take a long time to persuade some die hard official story believers.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

You have not proved that any other building had larger fires, when in some reports half the interior of the building was engulfed.

What reports might these be? Some choice tweaked out NIST simulations?

You have not had hotter as we don't tend to measure fire temeprature while fighting. And you don't have longer as there was little supression systems in WTC7 thanks to it being close to being abandoned anyways. Fires that were fought for longer had to contend with active fire supression so were not nearly as intense.

The windsor tower didn't have a sprinkler system at all. The building was weaker and the fires burned for many hours and yet it only suffered a gradual, partial collapse. You may wish to see a comparison between that building and the WTC buildings at this page.

[scott3x]

Steven Jones, Round 3


This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.

Irrelevant.

It’s not his field of expertise. There are those more experienced and qualified to speak on the matter than he is. Just accept it and stop arguing the point.

I'm not going to accept what I don't agree with. I certainly believe that there are those who are more experienced with things such as thermite. However, as Kevin Ryan has demonstrated in his article "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites", they look to be accomplices in the inside job. Because -they- are misleading the public, we must rely on brave individuals such as Steven Jones to tell us the truth.

Not initially, no. He has since became an expert on it, however.

Your idea of an expert is anyone who does a bit of reading.

A -bit- of reading? I've done a fair amount of reading on 911, but my knowledge concerning the WTC collapses pales in comparison to the likes of Steven Jones.

He is now an expert in more then just muon catalyzed fusion.

.

Hey he might be a start trek expert as well but his field of expertise is cold fusion, not structural engineering or the chemistry of building materials. Just agree and move on.

He may not have a -degree- in structural engineering, but I contend that his knowledge on the WTC collapses is up there with the best of them.

I'm not pretending anything.

I’ll move on. It gets tiresome playing your games.

Perhaps it's tiresome for you when your conjectures are shown for what they are.

...and then ask me “why do you think Jones is a bad scientist”, expecting me to summarize the whole thing over again. I’m not going to summarise everything over again every time you are trying to dodge an issue.

Just link to where you've countered my argument as I have in the past when you or someone else have repeated a claim I've already countered.

What argument? You were asking me to summarize why I thought Jones was not following a strict methodology.

Yes, your argument that Jones was not following a strict methodology. Your constant dodge is that you're not going to do it 'again'. You're apparently too lazy to even link to your supposed previous refutation. Convenient but hardly persuasive.

With Headspin's help, I now see why I was confused. I believe what you wanted to say is if he determined if his claims were falsifiable.

No what I said was correct scott.

Not sure how that ended with Headspin. Regardless, I believe I know what you mean now at any rate.

My own claim still stands- regardless of what he did or did not do in order to ascertain if his claims were falsifiable, there is a whole -army- of official story proponents who have tried to ascertain that his claims were unmerited and they have not yet been able to do it.

His claims have been taken apart, debunked and ridiculed but the conspiracy theorists move on refusing to see any problems.

You can continue to claim such things but until you actually show some evidence in the here and now, instead of saying that you've done so before at some point in time, I'll continue to dismiss your claim.

My point is that Steven Jones isn't the only person who can determine whether or not thermite was used; it's been done in investigations in the past where thermite arson is suspected. I'd advise you take a look at the clip I linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudM...eature=related

So no he can’t demonstrate that the spheres aren’t part of the clean up or the construction…

In regards to the cleanup, Arabesque, in his article "“Thermite Hypothesis” versus “Controlled Demolition Hypothesis”: a response to “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” ", pointed out these points:

1. Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”
2. They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.
3. Steven Jones has answered this question repeatedly in his
presentations. It appears that the authors have ignored this fact.18

… and the answer is?

They wouldn't have used thermite in the cleanup because:
1. Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”
2. They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.

Couldn't find one in my brief search. Will keep my eyes open. However, you may have noticed that no official body is denying that thermite arson is possible.

You said “and thermite arson is not unheard of.” . Find me a case. By ‘not unheard of’ do you mean that you heard a conspiracy theorist mention it once?

What you should be checking out is a certain national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921. Firefighters for 9/11 truth quote the relevant section on their home page (search for 'exotic accelerants'). Here's a little something to read, from Kevin Ryan's The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan:
**************
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
**************

NIST lamely tried to defend its non compliance with NFPA 921. Their lame argument and its counter can all be seen in Robert Moore's article "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1".

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

Steven Jones debunks some official story claims



Indeed I must first apologize for something- I was referring to Steven Jones debunking one of the aforementioned peer reviewed documents as well as some information from NIST, not debunking Abstaneh specifically.

With that in mind, here's an excerpt from the above linked paper:
****************************
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1..2..3..etc..

11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Leslie Robertson

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The
767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than
the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the
energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the
velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. [Sic;
actually triple velocity means nine times the kinetic energy.]
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in
the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the
fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully, fully fuelled airplane compared
to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two. [19]"

Correct — jet collisions did not cause collapses — we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).

We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800C.

But, as demonstrated, office materials can.

But we continue:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed.

Describing it as all the columns bucking at the same time can give the impression of something unnatural happening. It doesn't quite work like that. There was clear weakening of the support columns leading up to the collapse. Floors were sagging and pulling on the perimeter columns. This is evidence that the conspiracy theorists are unable to account for. When the supports were sufficiently weakened so that a collapse started the remaining ones were not able to hold the extra load so they fail as well. So they didn't fail at exactly the same time.

There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).


The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total. Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect explosives.

Well that’s compelling.

Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC

Not according to the office tests performed by NIST.

as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity.

Oh right but secretly loading up buildings with invisible explosives on every level of a building which is going to be hit by planes, and blowing up a building which isn’t going to be hit by planes for the sake of getting support for a war, yeah that doesn’t strain credibility. What a watertight conspiracy!

Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

Oh god the panels again. Does the whole truth movement rely on taking evidence out of context and misrepresenting it? NIST made it clear that very few of those samples were from the impact floors. That is not the only evidence of the temperatures reached and to try and present it as so is disingenuous. But this is what I have come to expect.

As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate “addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:

Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true.” (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)

… and… ?

And that was just point 11; he's got 15, a conclusion and an afterword as well.

So this is the master debunking the qualified structural engineers? Your conspiracy is in a pitiful state scott.

I think we have touched on most of the claims in that post. Some of them several times. Do you remember this Scott? Or are you going to tell me that you don't?

[shaman_]

Freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.



There is always the paper that he and some other 9/11 truth notables published,

Wow all these years and all he can get is a little known journal which apparently required nothing more than a fee for publication. Isn’t that a bit strange.

So back to the point, why can’t he get these things published in a respected journal? Are you suggesting that all the structural engineers are dishonest?

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction in The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Unsubstantiated rumours abound...

No I substantiated mine. You did not.

[shaman_]

John Skilling's 'missing' analysis and the Journal for 9/11 studies site

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.



The answer to that is below. It's the answer to your question.

No it doesn’t. Do you have a comprehension problem?

The -real- question is, how did these documents become 'missing'?

Perhaps they never existed. Perhaps they were flawed and he threw them out. My speculation here is as worthless as yours. You have no evidence to back the claim up.

Perhaps we'll never know for sure, but surely you recognize that the U.S. government has a history of 'dissapearing' inconvenient truths/.

I recognise conspiracy theorists who, when confronted with the usual total lack of evidence, actually take that as evidence as well! Evidence of a conspiracy! Lol.

Some people have since done an analysis that backs the official story. Of the documents that I have seen, however, sites such as the peer reviewed "The Journal for 9/11 studies" and others have handily debunked their arguments.

The articles at journalof911studies are 'peer reviewed' by unqualified people like David Ray Griffin, Ryan and Jones. They can’t get structural engineers to support their work.

[shaman_]

The cruise speeds of the 707 vs. the 767 and what many experts say about the idea of jet initiated fires taking down the WTC buildings.

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.



You're right. However, back in post 324, you -did- say this:
"[The twin towers] were designed to withstand impact from the fastest plane at that time which was slower than the 767s."

The truth of the matter, however, is that the cruising speed of the 707 is 77 mph faster then that of a 707, as I made clear in post 331.
.

.. and I did not contest that and I thought we had moved on. Are you that desperate for argument points that need bring up where I was wrong five pages ago? It’s not a critical point at all. I fully expect you to bring it up in another ten pages when you are struggling.

You're right, missed the fog bit.

I’ll bring that up again in five pages if I run out of things to say.

No one has said that it was impossible to bring down the WTC buildings. However, many experts disagree that the WTC buildings could have been brought down by plane crash initiated fires.

Experts? The people who are experts in relevant fields like structural engineering overwhelmingly support the official story.

[scott3x]

Bombs in the buildings, Round 3, part 1

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.

I don't mean in the final seconds before they fell down- i mean -way- before they fell down.

So do I.

Surely you're not going to say the jet fuel managed to do all this?

Jet fuel, elevators and other debris falling, transformers or other electrical gear exploding, the other tower being struck etc. Did you expect it to be silent?

Let's have a little look at the types of sounds being emitted before and during the collapses, shall we?

****
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]:
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
****

The official story people had ofcourse gotten to him, but his 'lower then the fire' bit is telling.

****
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]:
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
****


There's that 'lower' bit again. You can once again tell that the 'official story' people had gotten to him (we originally thought, implying that he now thinks that the jet fuel or what not did it).


****
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
****

Ground level.

This one is beautiful- exactly what happens during controlled demolitions; explosions, a slight delay, collapse:
****
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]:
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times
****

The following one is perhaps the best one I've seen, wherein the captain sites a multitude of seen explosions, with mention of flashes and popping sounds, also typical of demolitions:
****
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.):
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
****

If you'd like to see many more, feel free to visit 9/11 research's link on the subject, Explosions.

[John99]

Ten years ago (when i was a professional engineer) we were working with one single large steel beam. What we were doing was trying to make this beam do what it didnt want to do, big heavy beam like you would find in sky scrapers and when this beam let go it was like an explosion. Broke chains and the force was incredible. Buy yeah it sounded like an explosion.

Does BOOM sound like an explosion? How about i say KABOOOOM if we are going to fixate on descriptive words.

After all take a look at this quote you posted:

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

*Actually that was a few years before i had the title of Engineer but we were working under the supervision of an engineer an were working on turbines the size of a small house.

[psikeyhackr]

I admit that at times I get frustrated with official story believers and at times it may show a little. However, as you may know, I think we should refrain from using base insults (such as 'moron') because, in my view, it just lowers the level of discussion.

I understand your point and I did not call any specific person a moron.

I said a lot of "m-word" were not demanding to know about the steel and concrete.

So that must include a lot of people with advanced degrees from engineering schools that should know better.

psik

[scott3x]

I understand your point and I did not call any specific person a moron.

I said a lot of "m-word" were not demanding to know about the steel and concrete.

So that must include a lot of people with advanced degrees from engineering schools that should know better.

psik

You may be underestimating the power of emotions on this issue. Consider John99's stance for a while- he was amenable to the idea that WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, so long as it was done in order to minimize the loss of life (this was my take at any rate). It seems what he simply can't accept is the idea that the government would actually murder innocent civilians in order to feed the military industrial complex with more wars. I would content that it's the same reason that many can't believe that the Roosevelt would want Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so that he could enter World War II with the majority of the populace backing his decision.

[scott3x]

Ten years ago (when i was a professional engineer) we were working with one single large steel beam. What we were doing was trying to make this beam do what it didnt want to do, big heavy beam like you would find in sky scrapers and when this beam let go it was like an explosion. Broke chains and the force was incredible. Buy yeah it sounded like an explosion.

Does BOOM sound like an explosion? How about i say KABOOOOM if we are going to fixate on descriptive words.

After all take a look at this quote you posted:

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

*Actually that was a few years before i had the title of Engineer but we were working under the supervision of an engineer an were working on turbines the size of a small house.

Alright, fine. Can you explain why it was a ground level explosion? If they're running to the door, the building clearly hadn't gotten down that far.

[scott3x]

Bombs in the buildings, Round 3, part 2

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.

Please. Has anyone -ever- doubted that the titanic was sunk by anything other then an iceburg?

It was stupid baseless speculation. As was yours regarding thermite at the Madrid Tower.

Why must you use terms such as 'stupid'? Yes, you're technically attacking my argument, but I think what you're trying to imply is clear. Thermite arson is a real if exotic way to set fire to a building, as I made clear at the bottom of this post. I don't see why it couldn't be possible that the windsor towers may have had a bit of it to get the fire going. In terms of the WTC buildings, no iceburgs careened into the twin towers and WTC 7 didn't even get hit by a plane.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that an iceburg couldn't have sunk the titanic. As to the Windsor tower in madrid, there does seem to be some who believe that arson may have been involved. If so, it's possible that thermite may have been part of that arson. No one to my knowledge has claimed this and certainly no one has claimed that thermate was involved, but I don't like ruling out possibilities without an adequate investigation.

Your unsubstantiated speculation is worthless.

The thing about speculations is that they frequently can be put to the test. As even you yourself have noted, Gregory Ulrich, who is a fence sitter in regards to some of the issues on 9/11, would like more investigation into certain matters concerning the WTC collapses. Do you agree that this should be done as well?

Which is why I believe that questioning whether the Windsor tower was analyzed for arson and even thermite arson are valid questions.

Until you are to demonstrate that thermite was involved, or really that anyone has ever used thermite for arson, you are pretty much in a land of make believe there.

In regards to demonstrating that thermite was or was not involved in the windsor tower building, sorry, but I simply don't have the knowledge or the tools to do so. In regards to thermite arson in general, you aren't seriously arguing that the National Fire Protection Association is requiring that testing be done for fictitious fire accelerants?

But let's not ignore the other parallel there. You are claiming that one of the designers claimed the tower would not collapse after an impact from a plane. Perhaps he did, that doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy if it happens. The titanic was supposed to be unsinkable. It sank.

On this we can agree. Nevertheless, I, atleast, am curious as to how John Skilling's analysis that the towers could withstand jet crashes went 'missing'. Who was in charge of that analysis? At present, the only people who apparently even knew that the analysis had gone missing is NIST.

The only towers that I know that have suffered even partial collapse are the windsor tower and the WTC towers. The WTC towers were 100% steel framed, which would suggest that fires shouldn't have made them collapse at all if a jet and the ensuing relatively low level isolated fires were supposedly the only problem for each tower, and yet they collapsed completely.

Riddled with mistakes and you know it.

You saying so doesn't actually make it so.

As was demonstrated with the Madrid tower, the steel supports were part of the problem with the WTC.

The steel frame actually makes it even less likely that the building would have collapsed due to fire.

Had it the concrete framing the Madrid tower had it may have stayed up.

9/11 Research makes quick work of that claim in its article The Windsor Building Fire:

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. 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 call them relatively low level isolated fires is absurd. The floors were sagging from the heat!

No, it's not. I recommend you take a look at whatreallyhappened.com's article, World Trade Center 2:
There Was No Inferno

Even if the floors were sagging (and that's in contention, as Jim Hoffman made clear in his article Building a Better Mirage), an isolated sagging floor or 2 does not a 110 story collapse make.

Watch some footage of the event. No, don’t select corners of photographs!

I've watched plenty. If you want to direct my attention to a particular clip, be my guest.

[John99]

In response to post #655: Is that some kind of a joke? That is your crutch. Its what you rely on when you have nothing else to say.

[John99]

Alright, fine. Can you explain why it was a ground level explosion? If they're running to the door, the building clearly hadn't gotten down that far.

You are beginning to sound like an ambulance chaser. I know a great deal about witness testimony during stressful events. Unless there is other evidence such as devices being found those sounds can be so many things. Could be something heavy hitting the ground from 90-100 stories up.

Why dont you get a real education and come back here.

[scott3x]

In response to post #655: Is that some kind of a joke? That is your crutch. Its what you rely on when you have nothing else to say.

I have lots of other things to say. It's not a joke. If you find fault in it, by all means share your point of view.