Questions on the collapse of 3 buildings...

[Kip Powick]

Mitch..

Give this a try...

Click...or...copy and paste into your IE

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...lic_comment.pdf

[inchman]

I'm very puzzled... EVERY time I click on that link from Inchman, I get the following message box: "Internet Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

I have heard that the conspirationists know who they have already convinced .... .... and they don't want them to have access to anything that might help sway you away from their version. To achieve this, they bought 51% of Microsoft and configured IE so it wouldn't display articles that have plausible explanations of what happened.

To wit, 51% of Microsoft is owned by conspirationists.

Prove that I'm wrong.

[Say Again, Over!]

In any case, I'm eager to see if it's the same I have read before... the trouble with their explanation is that the fire couldn't have been hot enough to have weakened the steel sufficiently for it to fail.... not without help anyway. All of that is available on the firefighters site... ... as well, there have been plenty of other similarly built building fires, at least one lasting longer than 24 hrs. None of them fell, so what was different about the fire in building 7? What explanation is there for that? ...and how can it be explained that it evidently failed in just the right way to come down within it's own footprint, as if it had been "imploded" by demolition experts? ...and why was Julliani told before-hand that the building was going to come down and he'd better leave?

Mitch,

The report covers exactly that question. Get it; you'll probably sleep better and start using fluoride toothpaste again!

Felix

[Mitch Cronin]

....IE still won't let me load the PDF... Perusing the site through Kip's suggestion I've seen their explanation though...thermal expansion eh?... And the engineers and architects hadn't had to consider such a thing in the even of a fire? They consider it in all manner of other ways, but not for building construction?

[J.O.]

There is a major difference from the norm in this fire scenario. Most building fires are attacked aggresively by firefighters soon after they begin. In the case of the WTC, the fires burned virtually untouched for hours. The effort was focussed on getting people out of the buildings, with little being done to fight fires. Once the collapses of the twin towers happened, the site was largely abandoned due to the risks involved.

[Guest rattler]

....IE still won't let me load the PDF... Perusing the site through Kip's suggestion I've seen their explanation though...thermal expansion eh?... And the engineers and architects hadn't had to consider such a thing in the even of a fire? They consider it in all manner of other ways, but not for building construction?

Mitch the site loads fine for me. If you want a copy PM me and I will attach it to an email. Cheers

[Moon The Loon]

High-rise fire-fighter's Mantra - Never Trust a Truss.

Both WTC towers were built using this system based upon the concrete core support.

[inchman]

One thing that always surprises me among people is their surprise that structural steel buildings fall down vertically, especially when there is structural damage lower down on tall buildings. Conspirationists use this perception to help build their cases.

Think of a stack of 50 "floors" of concrete pads being held up with toothpicks capable of holding twice the intended weight. Start breaking toothpicks on the 10th floor... start all in one corner if you want.

The stack is integral... basically a box, until broken. The floor above the one you are breaking toothpicks on is being held up by the floor above it, so it doesn't bend down or start to pull the floors above it down as they all support each other in both directions.

The only way the stack would tip is if more than half of the toothpicks on the initial floor were removed but by this point, the row of toothpicks on the edge of your demolition would be holding up half the building... maybe 20 or 30 times their design strength ... I think we can agree that some more toothpicks probably would have failed long before that and the more that fail, the more that fail.

So, at some point a toothpick on that floor fails on its own and the balance on that floor would fail almost immediately. Ceiling to floor collapse time is about 0.8 seconds for a 3 meter fall from static. Certainly too fast to start a tipping moment in such a large mass.

The floors above start descending and remain mostly intact, as they are in virtual free fall, except for the minor opposing force of collapsing toothpicks as they arrive at floors below, which fail immediately, without question. Eventually, all of the floors below the original failure are collapsed (from the top down), and the floors above the original floor start collapsing from the bottom up.

There is no lateral force to cause the building to tip or to collapse very far out of its own footprint.

Structural steel buildings fail vertically.

[Mitch Cronin]

Hmmmm .....so you're suggesting I (for instance) might be somewhat naive to believe that people pay demolition experts huge money to bring their buildings down vertically, when all they'd have to do is cut a few supports and watch it happen naturally?

I'm not a "conspirationist", I'm just an average Joe who's at least intelligent enough to know that much of what we see is far less than the whole picture, in ANY situation involving government, big money, terrorism, war, and probably lots of other arenas. Forgive me if I'm not immediately swallowing the more suspicious looking details of what we're told... I've had enough time to grow a little cynicism in me after what we've seen from our governments in this country. I'm pretty sure that with ten times as many people, the US is probably ten times as bad.

[Seeker]

I'm pretty sure that with ten times as many people, the US is probably ten times as bad.

There might be ten times as many evil people but there's also ten times as many good people - ratio's the same I'd bet.

[Airband]

Next week's installment of The Fifth Estate will run a piece on 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the US. Should make for interesting viewing.

Running tonight 2100ET - 'The Unofficial Story'

[inchman]

Hmmmm .....so you're suggesting I (for instance) might be somewhat naive to believe that people pay demolition experts huge money to bring their buildings down vertically, when all they'd have to do is cut a few supports and watch it happen naturally?

Essentially, yes. Demolition companies just need to blow the bottom out of buildings and they will fall straight down. Their biggest job is to make sure the building keeps moving down because, if it stops, that's when lateral motion is imparted and it will topple over like a tree or just stop collapsing. So, to make sure they don't stop moving down, they often add in some extra floors to increase velocity. And... they can't take a chance that the building will only come part way down, so they tend to overdo it. And if you're just cutting out supports, it's not safe to be the guy standing under the building when that last support is cut.

The biggest challenges are older buildings and concrete buildings which are overbuilt or where a section, maybe reinforced by concrete, might provide some extra support and cause a building to fall in a fashion less than vertically by waiting until well after the rest of the supports have failed. This would cause some horizontal motion. So that's when you see the delayed demolition of outside walls (when they're made of bricks or concrete)... to make sure the building falls toward the pile. There was no outside brick/concrete wall in WTC7 and it collapsed well above where there was any concrete foundation allowing gravity to take its course.

One of the reasons why smokestacks are often brought down like trees instead of vertically because it's not possible to get them moving vertically fast enough, soon enough, to guarantee that there is enough force to continue to break apart and overcome the opposition to a vertical fall. But if you take out an entire floor of a building, the floor above it is moving close to 20 mph by the time it gets to the floor below it. It's not changing direction, and it [is] going to collapse the floor below it.

Watch some of the YouTube stuff on demolitions. It's not the dynamite that is causing the buildings to come down vertically... it's gravity. The dynamite just gives them the room to start moving. The only reason why things tip over like felled trees is if they stop collapsing under their own weight.

Some of the other buildings that conspirationists refer to as examples of buildings that didn't fall with raging fires are buildings like One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia and the First Interstate building in LA. In both cases, there were no, or limited sprinklers, but both had active firefighting (overall cooler fire). The PHL fire was a 12 alarm response... what's that?... maybe 120 firefighters. They eventually pulled back, expecting the building to fall, and there were only about 12 floors above the fire floor, compared to 30-some-odd above the fire floor in WTC7. The LA fire was lower, but was actively fought and only burned for 4 hours. Nobody fought the WTC fire.

Also, the WTC7 report found that the structural failure of WTC7 was not directly attributable to the loss of strength due to heat, but the force placed on the vertical girders by horizontal forces due to thermal expansion of floor girders. Bottom line... it was designed differently.

Here'sa (pretty good) example of what happens when you take out a good hunk of structure near the bottom of a tall building. In my opinion, it is too elastic because the wood pieces do not crumple as would steel girders, so it gets a bit of horizontal motion and because there is so much structure relative to the height, it spreads out more than would a steel structure. And the wood pieces are too strong relative to the weight of the overall structure causing a slight horizontal moment. But you can see that the top of the building falls virtually vertical and is mostly intact until all gone as long as it keeps collapsing.

In the opposite vein,

a good example of what happens in a concrete building where you don't clear out enough space for the building to get enough vertical momentum to overcome the structure.

In fact, if you look here, you can see that the rubble pile is not, in fact all that neat, and even fell away from the WTC complex. If someone wanted to have a nice neat demolition with as little collateral damage as possible, don't you think they would at least have it aimed toward where they knewthere was already a smoking hole?

I'm not a "conspirationist", I'm just an average Joe who's at least intelligent enough to know that much of what we see is far less than the whole picture, in ANY situation involving government, big money,  terrorism, war, and probably lots of other arenas. Forgive me if I'm not immediately swallowing the more suspicious looking details of what we're told... I've had enough time to grow a little cynicism in me after what we've seen from our governments in this country. I'm pretty sure that with ten times as many people, the US is probably ten times as bad.

It's ok to question the official version of the truth. But if you really want the truth, you have to question not only the the official version, but also the version being presented by the other side. And, in my opinion, the other side's case is very weak and full of half truths, omitted facts and bad science/engineering. With respect to the concept that someone enhanced the felling of these three buildings, I think the only fault is continuing to look down what is obviously, at least to me, the wrong path.

While there may be some evil elements to high power, I think you give them too much credit. Had the government been involved with these acts, especially on such short notice, any errors would have been much more obvious. Being evil and powerful doesn't make them smart.

[Mitch Cronin]

I gotta hit the sack... I'll read your reply tomorrow Inchman...

So, what'd y'all think of the Fifth Estate show?

[inchman]

So, what'd y'all think of the Fifth Estate show?

I thought it was well balanced. Both sides got a chance to state their case...

... and the CT's looked like idiots, especially the UWO professor.

[Mitch Cronin]

Well, I don't know how balanced it was, but I agree they sure did include at least a couple who sounded somewhat idiotic. I think the guy who said the Pentagon had to have been blown up from within took the cake. I thought their choice of who to talk to in the building demolition business was interesting... There are others who say they're certain it couldn't happen like it did without being done intentionally.

...and I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to say all those architects are wrong. Sure wish I had that kind of confidence.

Regardless, like the Kennedy assassinations, we'll probably never hear the end of the questioning, and we'll probably never know the whole truth.

I'm getting a little worn out with being the only idiot here that's openly questioning it all though, so I'll happily shut up about it now.

[inchman]

...and I'm not sure what gives you the confidence to say all those architects are wrong. Sure wish I had that kind of confidence.

What gives me the confidence is that it's the guy who's making up the story about what happened is the same guy who says how many people he has on his side. He is already stretching the truth to the breaking point (IMO) so what's a factor of 4 on saying how many members you have, especially since he's not going to give out a list if anyone asks.

And even if he really did have 900 architects on his side, that is only 1% of all of the architects who are members of the American Institute of Architects (and I'm sure there are many more that are not necessarily members of that org) . How come the other 99% aren't speaking up if the situation is so obvious?

Anyway... I just had to defend my position of confidence and I'll let it die here too.

[Canus Chinookus]

Mitch, you're not an idiot. It's fine to question anything being told these days, especially these days, since there's so much BS floating around. Have you read the article(couple years old by now) that Popular Mechanics wrote, debunking 911 myths?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.html

[Moon The Loon]

For the millionth time, these buildings were not constructed of steel alone as was alluded to in the Fifth Estate interviews.

[DEFCON]

Inchman has explained the rational supporting his belief, the vertical collapse of the WTC buildings was adequately explained by the 911 Commission.

He also pointed out a couple of examples from the list of many long duration massive fires in steel buildings.

Although one very high building in the east lost the top few floors following, I think nineteen hours of intense fire, there have only been three fire / damage collapses of tall steel structure buildings. Ironically, all three were the WTC buildings?

“John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

The Seattle Times: Search Results (http://archives.seattletimes.nws ource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227)

Mitch

This weekend past I had the opportunity to view a video documentary titled ‘Loose Change II’.

There are a lot of outstanding questions that do need to be answered!

[inchman]

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Tell that to the people who were above the immediate area of the impact zone. Was he forgetting about the fire aspect?. See my copy of the quote below.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

I wonder what was in the "..." area of that statement. Was it the word "initially". On the surface, he was right... the building structure was still there after the impact. I'd like to see some context on that last statement.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

There is no record that I can find where there is a quote from an engineer that actually says it would survive "impact and fires" in this context. This is an implied interpretation, based on what might be a set of carefully chosen words on Skillings' part.

This is the guy who designed the building. What's he going to say? "I forgot about the potential that 70,000 lbs of fuel they would be carrying would have on the structure." In his mind he's saying "I'll never have to prove this anyway". This statement was made in 1993 after the van-bombing, not in retrospect to 9/11.

Note too, that another presumably excellent engineer didn't anticipate the speed of smoke incursion to the WTC following the van bombings. But it happened. Nor did the engineer who designed the tail of the A310 expect that it would shear off due to rudder input. Or the engineer who designed the pitot tubes on A340... Or the guy who designed the fuel pump on the 777... Or the guy who designed the Tacoma narrows bridge...

I'm not saying that these guys have to be perfect; engineers have given us some great products. But we shouldn't assume that they thought of everything in advance. Our job is much easier, after the fact, to say "You forgot this" once the damage is done, but we still have to acknowledge that they are not perfect.

From other sources:

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.

Note that this is the same as the quote that you put forward, except for the last line, which I highlighted. Basically, it was a guess.

And, it doesn't say anything about "collision and fire", only collision.

....

The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”

Funny how the CT's don't quote these documents at all.

[Moon The Loon]

These are old, re-hashed, asked & answered questions. Yes, they were designed to withstand impact; no, they were not designed to withstand being hit by a heavily fuelled airliner with extreme damage to the concrete building core and trusses bent out of shape by intense, Jet !-1 fuelled fire.

It wasn't the steel that collapsed the buildings. It was the collapsing core which fell on itself and accelerated the collapse of the lower concrete structure. That's why it fell on itself. The steel came down WITH it, not the other way around. The steel framework of the lower floors may have actually contained some of the collapsing core, adding to its seemingly vertical fall. That's also why the second hit tower came down first. The impact was at a lower floor. The concrete core above the impact weighed much, MUCH more than the comparable core above the first impact.

As far as building three goes, I haven't looked too closely at that. If it was built on common footings, I think the translated damage to the foundations would be enough to help it collapse the way it did.

As far as the "puffs" go giving evidence to charges, the puffs occur after the start of the collapse, not before.

The discussion is getting a little tiresome!

[J.O.]

Okay may be I'm being a smartass, but I heard a good one today about conspiracies and keeping secrets.

"Three people can keep a secret, just as long as two of them are dead."

[DEFCON]

Moon

What do you or I really know about these things?

"As far as the "puffs" go giving evidence to charges, the puffs occur after the start of the collapse, not before."

I watched several controlled detonation events on Youtube. It does appear that a 'controlled' detonation / collapse plan absolutely involves the setting of 'delayed detonations to purposely 'control' the collapse itself?

"The discussion is getting a little tiresome!"

So, you've relied on your information and made up your mind concluding that anyone not sharing your sentiment is a little misguided?

Inchman

What of the NYC Fire Chief that climbed to an affected floor in one of the buildings, evaluated the scene and reported by radio (recorded) that there were several 'small' fires burning and he had undertaken an action plan to get the fire under control?

Now I don't know, but I'll give the Fire Chief some benefit of doubt, he must have had at least some idea of what he was facing? BTW, his wasn’t the only such assessment at the scene.

In the end, you like all of us, are cherry-picking info from the plethora available.

The difference between;

You are apparently prepared to accept the ‘official’ conclusion and go on with your life.

I can only speak for myself, but I think the many legitimate outstanding questions deserve an appropriate degree of consideration. Until that’s actually complete, I for one can not blindly accept the word of a ‘Commission’ that was hastily convened and rushed to produce a conclusion on an obviously complex subject following what may have been the most egregious act to have ever been committed against the American people.

Hell, we put a lot more effort into the 'Dryden Commision'.

[inchman]

Ok... back to my original post in this thread.

What's a commission going to find that hasn't already been found. Is NIST going to go out and do another study contradicting the one they have already tabled created by over 100 experts?

Is some senior government or military official going to break down and cry on the stand and say "Ok, Ok, you got me, we did plan and execute:

• the false hijacking of 3 aircraft
• put all of the original passengers from those flights onto one aircraft and flew them into Pennsylvania while calling loved ones in voices that were recognizable and used terms of endearment that only those people would know,
• flew the original 3 aircraft into the ocean
• stood down the military
• brainwashed a number of actual witnesses to the Pentagon aircraft into saying a 757 was a cruise missile
• removed and replaced drywall in thousands of locations on 3 buildings and planted tons of charges there (which I've never seen done on any demolition show without lots and lots of wiring between the charges)... did they invent radio controlled demolition just for this job?
• got someone to fly 2 aircraft into the buildings and just happen to create enough collateral damage to give credence to the collapse of a third.
• arranged the demolition of three buildings and the murder of thousands of my fellow citizens including firemen and police officers
• got fire and police commanders to lead their troops into the face of KNOWN death
• ....

... then we paid off the news services to hide the truth at every opportunity, say exactly what we tell them ... except of course, those that raise questions... but even those ones give up because the story doesn't go anywhere.

... and not one word by anyone involved in the process leaked out."

You can have your unanswered questions, but you might as well look for the answer, rather than the question, because I can pretty well guarantee that they're not going to have another commission on this one.

Canadian commissions are pocket-lining, money-wasting, job creating meetings made to allow politicians say they did something about something tragic. At least the Americans stop when the answer is obvious.

[inchman]

AND..

... Every red blooded American that was approached to ask for their participation in this either agreed to do so or did not put out a peep of a warning (not one headline, even on TMZ or the National Enquirer.... "Government planning mass killing of Americans in New York" ...) and agreed to never say anything about it and has stood by that promise.

This, though it is not unheard of for terrorist cell members to put out warnings because of feelings of guilt at the carnage their leaders might cause.