Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse

Maybe you should read my last thread (prior to this one). Really, if your going to jump to conclusion at least read to whole thread.

I believe I am correct in stating that only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. All three of these buildings collapsed on 11th September 2001; WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7.

If anyoneone has any evidence of any other fire induced collapse of steel framed buildings, please post.

In addition, the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11.

If the fires inside the towers were hot enogh to melt steel then what explanation can be given for this photo?

Also, what explanation can be given for the 'squib effects' evident on a number of still/video images?

an interesting read;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

If he wanted to know why WTC7 collapsed, just ask the Lease holder Larry Silverstein, who confirmed that the building was brought down by controlled demolition when, on national TV he said 'with the terrible loss of life we decided to pull it. So WE PULLED IT and we watched he building come down'

It's admitted folks.

a ht,

Here is another version of that article, with comments added, disputing some of the original analysis....... Link here

The author of the original article, Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT, Thomas Eagar, was nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security.

Point of information re Silversteing quote - he lead you to believe that the building was pulled by the fire department. However, the problem with this interpretation (which *on the face of it* sounds plausible - as does the jet crash causing the 1 & 2 collapse) fire departments don't "pull buildings". They may leave them to burn, but controlled demolitions take between 1 week and one month to set up.

Automatically people then use this point to dismiss the destruction of WTC 1&2 as demolition because no one could have that kind of access to the building to pre-plant the explosives.

Only, later you learn about the firm whose contract to manage the security for the complex (Securacom - or that's what they were called a few years ago). I leave you to find out who they were for yourselves - because again, I am departing from the physics - which no one has disproved. Referring to Nova documentaries is fine -we had a similar show over here in the UK. They tended to show "proof by computer animation", but again I return to all the previous points I made - if you are happy they explain all the facts then why are you reading this? (I'm not happy, that's why I'm typing this).

Your basic physic does not need to be disprooved because it prooves nothing.

There you have it. I have tried to explain it to you in so many ways I will no longer repeat myself.

a ht,

I took a look at the official NIST report into instances of collapses of structures as a result of fire events, which was produced in December 2002.

The report can be accessed at:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf

Reading the report, it lists 6 examples of ‘fire-induced collapse events’ involving steel framed buildings. 4 of these occurred on 11th September 2001 (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-6 & WTC-7). Of these 4 cases, 3 cases (WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7)were of full and catastrophic collapse (i.e. complete collapse of the structures to ground level).

WTC-6 was later demolished due to the fire damage it had sustained. The other 2 recorded cases of steel-framed building collapses were only partial collapses of sections of flooring (i.e. not fully collapsed to the ground AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE ALONE)

Reading the NIST Report, we can see the two remaining cases , the Alexis Nihon Plaza fire in Montreal, Canada on October 26, 1986, caused only the partial collapse of a section of one floor, and that was after the fire burned for 5 hours! The report notes that the partial collapse resulted from fire damage to the smaller ‘clip angles’ at the end of the floor girders, where they connect to the vertical columns. It was noted that the steel girders and beams of the collapsed floor section were virtually straight and un-deformed,

The building stood. This is a minor failure in comparison and should not be described as a full building collapse.

The other example cited is the fire at One New York Plaza on August 5, 1970. Here the form of construction was a mixed steel/reinforced concrete. The fire burned for approximately 5 hours and again there was some localized failure of end connection bolts, leading to a partial collapse of sections of the 33rd and 34th floors. The building did not collapse.

So the point remains:

FIRE HAS NEVER COLLAPSED ANY STEEL FRAMED BUILDING PRIOR TO 11th SEPTEMBER 2001.

On that date, 3 collapsed. One of the WTC Towers was on fire for 56 minutes prior to collapse and another (WTC-7) was never hit by any aircraft.

I think you missunderstood me Andrew. I know it takes months to arrange a perfect demolition like the one which occured.

Larrys admission confirms that explosives must have been there for some weeks. Confirming that the oficial stroy is untrue and also casting hugh doubt over the collapse of the other 2 towers.

There are a number of anomolies with the whole 9/11 official story.

It seems that anyone expressing any doubt is labelled a conspiracy theorist. To me, the biggest conspiracy is that the events were orchestrated soley by 19 arab terrorists, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden.

Anyone who wishes to spend time researching the whole subject can be baffled by the information AND disinformation present on the www .

For anyone who is serious and wishes to commence looking into the issues, I would reccomend starting here, and then checking out here. The second site takes a while to load) as it contains lots of pics/links /articles etcto

An excellent study into the whole 9/11 event is David Ray Griffin's book 'THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, of which there is a free online copy at http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php.

____________________________________
Mum, This is Mark Bingham......... Flight 93 telephone call

Larry - Sorry that I misunderstood you there - I suppose for those who saw the PBS documentary with Silverstein's comments, it adds another element of confusion. There is a clear discrepancy in what the FEMA report said about WTC7 and what Silverstein said. You would think that if Silverstein was the owner (which he was), the FEMA report would question his story - or the other way round. Another part of the official story which makes little sense when you look at the facts.

Hi sinclair, necessarely there must be an answer for your question otherwise no one would believe the official story. And of course, there is. The reason no other building has ever collapsed from fire is because no other building suffered an impact that removed the insulation surrounding the steel beams. So, previously, the fire figthers always had time to stop the fire. Removal of insulation by impact is confirmed by computer models and suggested by debris recovered from ground zero. Therefore, it shows that an explosion is not required to explain that particular conjecture.

a_ht,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, WTC 1 & 2 were the only buildings to have impacts - you are quite right.

However, as we have mentioned,

1) WTC 7 was not impacted
2) Firemen reported fires were mostly out
3) Well over half the building was not burning, therefore should not have been weakened.

Finally, in 1945 a B25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State building. It did not collapse:

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

Of course, a B25 bomber is not the same as a modern jetliner etc, but neither is the construction of the Empire State building compared to the more modern structure of the WTC towers. You may not think it is a fair comparison - that is fine. Even if it isn't a fair comparison, there are still points 1-3 above.

It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events.

I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal.

In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner.

That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements.

Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer.

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower?

a_ht, what caused that?

Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct?

Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball?

What was it?

Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,

explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?

Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation".

One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY.

Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever.

Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here?

a_ht, Mr. Jackson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate.

I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent.

Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions.

I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked.

Yet.....

Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911.

Obviously.

I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.