[backseatchris]

Originally Posted by heathenbrewing

Some more food for thought:


No Previous Skyscrapers Collapse Due to Fires
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,� provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…
The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.� (Glover, 2002)

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion� or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated� steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official� 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
As you observed , WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling� of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper). The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official� theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings when due to random causes. L'Ambiance Plaza collapse (right) shows how pancaked concrete floor slabs are largely intact and clearly reveal stacking effects with minimal fine dust, as expected from random progressive collapse. By contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust -- as is common in controlled demolitions using explosives.

On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using cutter-charges/explosives is the complete and straight-down-symmetrical collapse of buildings. The reader may wish to review controlled-demolition examples at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm for examples of complete symmetrical collapses due to carefully pre-positioned explosives. (The videos of the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses are particularly instructive.)

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory�] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

That is precisely the point: further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

I can finally offer some serious cold hard facts here on this topic and not just speculation. I have 2 uncles (both whom are extremely reputable people) that were (and still are) construction workers when these buildings were being built. They themselves actually helped build these buildings. The conspiracy theories about why the buildings fell the way they did are bogus.

Every building that fell in NY fell exactly the way it was planned they would. These buildings (mostly because of their height), were designed to implode on themselves so as to minimize damage to the surrounding structures. There are ''notches'' in many of the steel reinforcement beams designated to be implode points and under extreme pressure & heat (such as the millions of tons of weight of the floors above them). Under these conditions, these beams break and give the appearance of cutter explosives...which provide the cleanest of cuts for these building materials and ensure the safest collapse possible. You see this every day on roadsigns as you go down the highway. The metal holding them up have these same notches in them to ensure a clean breakaway just in case a vehicle strikes it at high speeds. Take a close look next time you pull over on the side of the road. The outside frame of the WTC's were actually the supports of the building. The interior of the building had very few support beams to support this implosive fall. Even if the weight is unevenly distributed from thr scattered fires, the high tech building was still designed to compensate for such a disaster.

Everything thing i said is prety much condensed qouting from 2 men who helped build the fames of these great buildings.

[backseatchris]

btw, i have not watched any of the vids in this thread and i certainly do not consider michael moore my shepherd at all. The truth is the government is NOT telling the whole truth. This is the case with everything the gov has ever said. When im old and gray there may be a leak of info and a public apology, who knows. But from my info from my family (internal CIA,NSA, & pentagon) i will never completely accept what was shown to have happened on tv.

Heres some more food for thought from a pilot uncle of mine. There is an interstate highway right next to the crash site at the pentagon. I believe its i-95, but im not sure. .. but i have been on this road before many many many times. The highway sits 25ft above all the other surroundings. For a boieng 757 to have hit the pentagon on the level it did it would ahve to had cleared this highway...which is not hard for a skilled pilot, but the force produced by a large commercial jet passing at those speeds would have been enough to blown cars off the highway. And no one on the highway even saw a plane. Find that weird?

[yellow_sub]

Originally Posted by heathenbrewing

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it�
George Santayana

yep. the Reichstag fire , 9/11. similar motives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Originally Posted by backseatchris

Everything thing i said is prety much condensed qouting from 2 men who helped build the fames of these great buildings.

please do not take this as a disrespect to you or your uncles okay. but they then should also know that the building was designed to take the impact and fire of an airplane hitting it. here is a letter from kevin ryan from Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the steel for the twin towers. i believe you'll find this interesting.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

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. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

[backseatchris]

from my understanding the buildings were designed to accept impact from smaller cesna class aircraft...not the large 757 that struck the buildings. The planes also struck on lower floors than anyone thought a plane ever would of that size if at all. They hadnt planned for a deliberate attack, period. Had the planes struck higher on the towers they may have not collapsed the towers.

btw, no harm done, i have a fairly open mind to all thoughts on this matter. You didnt disrespect anyone

[yellow_sub]

okay still a couple of problems with that for me. they were desinged for large planes. it was either a 737 or 747. not too much difference from the 757 that hit it plus the planes had burned off much of their fuel on the flight to the buildings and nearly all the rest burned off during the inital impact. also explain how an intense fire on the 80th floor would weaken the steel on the 20th floor. there was baisically NOTHING left standing of that building. there was molten steel down in the basement of the wreckage!!!!!! that was 800ft away from the impact!!!! marble pannels were blown off IN THE LOBBY!!! there have been stronger wind forces place on that building than the impact the plane put on it. there HAD to explosions else where in the building.

[heathenbrewing]

Backseatchris, as with yellow sub, I do not want to imply any disrespect to you or your family, but if "notches" were built into the buildings frame, why do they not appear on any blueprints of the Towers? Additionally, why would the 9/11 'Ommision' Report not jump on that? After all, it would be a lot more plausable than there heated truss theory.
Not only hundreds of witnesses, testify to explosives in the buildings, but seismic records, chemical analysis as well as NASA thermal imaging all point to explosives in the buildings. The body of evidence is enormous and anyone who still believes that 19 magic arabs with boxcutters brought down those buildings using a couple of planes and the resultant fires, just has not looked at the evidence.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

okay still a couple of problems with that for me. they were desinged for large planes. it was either a 737 or 747. not too much difference.....

When the Towers were built, they were designed to withstand the impcat of a 707, which is very similar to todays 767's.

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

marble pannels were blown off IN THE LOBBY!!! there have been stronger wind forces place on that building than the impact the plane put on it. there HAD to explosions else where in the building.

Another odd fact regarding the fire-down-the-elevator-shaft theory; on a DVD by the Naudet brothers, which is a live camera crew filming a documentary on firefighters on 9/11, notice when they enter the lobby, there is absolutly NO evidence of fire or smoke in the lobby area. No clouds, no soot marks....nothing.

[yellow_sub]

Originally Posted by heathenbrewing

When the Towers were built, they were designed to withstand the impcat of a 707, which is very similar to todays 767's.
thanks for the correction. i couldn't remember the exact plane. too many numbers in my head about this subject. lol




Another odd fact regarding the fire-down-the-elevator-shaft theory; on a DVD by the Naudet brothers, which is a live camera crew filming a documentary on firefighters on 9/11, notice when they enter the lobby, there is absolutly NO evidence of fire or smoke in the lobby area. No clouds, no soot marks....nothing.

also the elevator shafts air virtually air tight making so that their would not be enough oxygen for the fire to even carry all the way down to the lobby.

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by yellow_sub

also the elevator shafts air virtually air tight making so that their would not be enough oxygen for the fire to even carry all the way down to the lobby.

Additionally, the jet fuel was allegedly already on fire by the time it got to the bottom of the shaft.

So where does the concussive force come from that blew out the lobby windows?

[heathenbrewing]

[yellow_sub]

Originally Posted by heathenbrewing

love this pic. have it up on mysapce. soooo people who say there were no explosives please explain the pic for me.

[heathenbrewing]

Interview with Mary Baldizzi, WTC 1 survivor who was located on the 104th floor of the building when it was hit by Flight 11.

But we are told that there were no survivors from above the aircraft impact level of WTC 1...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...tertrans.shtml

...but the following interview aired on 9/12/2001 proves this is untrue as it documents Mary Baldizzi's escalator descent from the 104th floor of the building.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...y.baldizzi.wmv

Their escape demonstrates there was little fire in the building after the initial impact of Flight 11.

[yellow_sub]

found this interesting too. forgot about this.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
especailly since the towers only burned for about an hour and an hour and a half.
what happened to everyone else heathen?

[backseatchris]

i just read every page of the following link and it offers a lot of great arguments.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by backseatchris

i just read every page of the following link and it offers a lot of great arguments.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Too bad that article has long since been debunked. Heres just one example, with every point being made in the PM article countered here:

http://www.911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

One must love how the PM article uses the word FACT, yet provides no evidence as to how the statement is fact.

From PM article:
"WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

All three steel-structure buildings collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition. WTC 7, however, did not collapse until about six hours after the Twin Towers came down, during which time only minor fires within the building were visible. Popular Mechanics quotes chief WTC 7 investigator Shyam Sunder: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7". Why not? Were firefighters ordered to stay out of the building?


The FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7, together with a critical commentary, may be found at The FEMA Report on World Trade Center 7 Collapse is a Total Joke. The commentary reveals that the report is full of holes. FEMA could only make vague guesses at why the building collapsed (but, of course, demolition was not one of their guesses).


Popular Mechanics says: "With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated." Since the building was totally destroyed (and the debris removed and shipped overseas to blast furnaces), what evidence is available to NIST that was not available to FEMA? Or does NIST really mean that it has now had time to fabricate the "evidence" that it needs? And note that NIST researchers do not say that "WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated", merely that this is a "working hypothesis" that they "support" (by means of their fabricated evidence?). That WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is obviously not a hypothesis, working or otherwise, that those who pay their salaries could "support".

"What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

Oh, really? So the architects of WTC 7 designed it like a house of cards. Goodness gracious! Did they never consider the possibility of "a vertical progression of collapse"? But how convenient for NIST.


The Mayor of New York on 9/11, Rudolph Giuliani, had created a "disaster control center" on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 (it was completed in 1997). Some say that this was the place from which the disaster of 9/11 was controlled. If so, all physical evidence relating to it was destroyed as a result of the collapse of the building. Giuliani was there on the morning of 9/11, but left after the South Tower collapsed.

[BOXlover11]

Alright.........fine........I give up!!!!!! I did it. I'm sorry everyoen, but I did it

[heathenbrewing]

Demolition squibs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZVY001Gcrs

[backseatchris]

^^could just be the force of the air rushing downwards. All of the flares appear right as the tower drops at least 1+ floors. I think its just the immense force of tons of air being pushed thru the tower

[heathenbrewing]

Originally Posted by backseatchris

^^could just be the force of the air rushing downwards. All of the flares appear right as the tower drops at least 1+ floors. I think its just the immense force of tons of air being pushed thru the tower

I am actually looking at the ejection of 'smoke' clouds, not so much the fires themselves.

But you are correct..some of them could possible be explained that way. That is the way Popular Mechanics tries to explain it. NIST takes a similar stand in their final report about the collapses:

"The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. "


There are several problems with this explanation.

1) The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.

2) The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.

3) The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.

4) The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.

5) The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.


.

[aaronle06]

i saw it from a friend of mine. it is something to think about. i really dont care about politics any much more now.