A Kinder, more Professional Thread on the WTC

[Marek]

Since the previous thread go closed due to bickering and abstract speculation, I was thinking we could start this discussion over with a new thread.

I propose that this thread focus on the controversial collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. (I left WTC 7 out because of the lack of evidence due to the focus by experts on the collapse of the two larger towers. If you want to dicuss WTC 7, start a new thread.)

I also propose that each post either cites a legitimate source, that is, the arguements of experts such as engineers, physicists, or demolition experts, or presents a critique of one of these legitimate arguements.

I'm hoping this goes over better than the previous thread. Any takers?

 

[Daniel19]

As many here are likely familiar with, BYU professor Steven Jones has publicly declared his scrutiny of the official story of 9/11, particularly the collapses of the towers. His slideshow presentation can be viewed here.

The evidence I am presenting here is in no way a conclusive representation of the encyclopedic ammout of information on this subject. I encourage everyone to investigate Jones' claims and come up with their own opinions.

Jones has stated in the past that the extremely hot burning thermite could be a possible culprit in the weakening or the actual "cutting" of key infastructure elements (this may explain the extreme heat that was present in the debris pile weeks after the attacks). New evidence has surfaced to support this claim, but lets look at some other things first.

The official story, as we all know, claims that the weakening of key columns and steel elements within the WTC towers caused the collapse. However, the National Institue of Standards and Technology's (NIST) own report on the collapse contradicts this claim.

Steel is known to lose about half its strength at approx. 650 degrees C. The NIST "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" (which can be viewed here) states that: "Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC" (Page 140 of 298)

In regards to the thermite, take a look at this video here which shows a molten substance pouring out of the WTC moments before it collapses.

Now, watch an experiment done with thermite here, and note the striking similarity between this and the first clip. While this is not 100% conclusive evidence of thermite being used, it is something that absolutely must be investigated.

 

[Daniel19]

I should add that Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories wrote a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (which can be read here) regarding their report on the WTC collapse.

Ryan worked for the company that "certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings", and conducted studies indicating that "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."

 

[Alarum]

The official story, as we all know, claims that the weakening of key columns and steel elements within the WTC towers caused the collapse. However, the National Institue of Standards and Technology's (NIST) own report on the collapse contradicts this claim.

Steel is known to lose about half its strength at approx. 650 degrees C. The NIST "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" (which can be viewed here) states that: "Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC" (Page 140 of 298)

In regards to the thermite, take a look at this video here which shows a molten substance pouring out of the WTC moments before it collapses.

Now, watch an experiment done with thermite here, and note the striking similarity between this and the first clip. While this is not 100% conclusive evidence of thermite being used, it is something that absolutely must be investigated.

Page 140 appears to be a simulation of the floor temperatures. It has several trusses reaching 800 degrees centigrade according to the helpful little measurement they have on the side.

For simulations of temperature on a truss, you want to be looking at page 30 (as usual, the useful information is earlier in the report, and the additional analysis is near the end). On page 30 you can see that while the insulated columns and trusses would stay a nice, comfortable 200 degrees, the uninsulated trusses would peak at 800 degrees centigrade! The core columns rose above 600 degrees without their insulation. Combined with the severe structural damage to the outside supports (which resulted in a 27% increased load on the supports damaged by the plane) is it any surprised that the entire wall of supports gave out?


Edit: Seriously, this was written by engineers. Blah. Wish more decent engineers were english majors.

Edit2: The useful summary is all on page 175. Anyone who is interested, check it out. The holes in that explaination are pretty much non-existant (or as small as you're going to get when your evidence has had a skyscraper dropped on it).

 

[Prophetable]

Steel is known to lose about half its strength at approx. 650 degrees C. The NIST "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" (which can be viewed here) states that: "Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC" (Page 140 of 298)

.

Good point - Especially considering the fact that the molecules within the steel aren't necessarily going to reach the temperature of the fire.

 

[Alarum]

Good point - Especially considering the fact that the molecules within the steel aren't necessarily going to reach the temperature of the fire.

Really? Steel's thermal conductivity is about 50 W/m*K. What exactly is going to stop it from reaching exactly the temperature of the fire? The insulation (why the heck do you think it was insulated in the first place)?

 

[Vylo]

Good point - Especially considering the fact that the molecules within the steel aren't necessarily going to reach the temperature of the fire.

Actually, there is a very good chance it would. I burn things for a living (boiler operation). Steel is used for all boiler piping. The exterior surface of the piping reaches a temperature extremely close to that of the steam inside it.

If steam or waterflow stops in a boiler, especially one with a superheater, the piping will heat up to the temperature of the flame (which can vary, but often around 1500 F), and will melt the piping, rupturing the tubes. This is why it is crucial to always keep flow through superheaters.

Anywho, steel will come very very close to the temperature of fire touching it, or underneath it (heat rises).

 

[Daniel19]

We probably all remember the Windsor building burning in Madrid, Spain. This building had nowhere near the structural integrity of the WTC towers, yet it burned top to bottom for two days with white hot flames reaching 800C (1,472 F) at their peak without the whole thing coming down.

I remember hearing commentators on TV saying that they were waiting for it to collapse like the WTC, but the collapse never came. The building actually had to be demolished to bring the still standing structure down.

Another strange observation of my own is the fact that when WTC tower 1 (I believe it was tower 1) begins to collapse, the top portion above the hole where the plane impacted appears to be toppling over, and looks like it should follow the laws of inertia and fall into the street, leaving the rest of the building standing.

I was reminded by a friend about the Empire state building in NY being hit by a B25 bomber in 1945. Colonel William Smith was piloting the plane through dense fog when he suddenly found himself in the middle of manhattan, and eventually in the Empire state building.

Read the story here

"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."

One eyewitness account says,

"The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it."

 

[Daniel19]

Another point I want to bring up again is that Kevin Ryan (who i cited previously), who worked with the company which certified the steel used in the construction of the WTC stated that "...the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." Ryan also stated that "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."

Not only this, but Frank A. Demartini, construction manager for the WTC (Who was tragically killed in the trade center after attempting to save his friends) stated in an interview prior to 9/11 that,

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

 

[Alarum]

Another point I want to bring up again is that Kevin Ryan (who i cited previously), who worked with the company which certified the steel used in the construction of the WTC stated that "...the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." Ryan also stated that "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."

The girders were not operating under ASTM E119 test specifications. The ASTM E119 test is, and I quote: [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc."
http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html

ASTM E119 tested the steel girders WITH their fire-resistant insulation. The same insulation that was destroyed and smashed off the girders by the kinetic energy of a plane impact.

Now why do I keep correcting these silly misconceptions? Why don't people research this stuff if they're actually interested in finding out the truth instead of supporting their theory with whatever evidence is at hand?
[/FONT]

Not only this, but Frank A. Demartini, construction manager for the WTC (Who was tragically killed in the trade center after attempting to save his friends) stated in an interview prior to 9/11 that,

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

With all due respect to the engineer, how were they designed to take plane impact? The simple fact of the matter is that we didn't exactly have spare skyscrapers to smack planes into to see what reinforcements would be necessary, structurally, to survive them. He made his best guess that his design would make them plane resistant. He was wrong.

 

[LsforLove]

Since the previous thread go closed due to bickering and abstract speculation, I was thinking we could start this discussion over with a new thread.

I propose that this thread focus on the controversial collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. (I left WTC 7 out because of the lack of evidence due to the focus by experts on the collapse of the two larger towers. If you want to dicuss WTC 7, start a new thread.)

I also propose that each post either cites a legitimate source, that is, the arguements of experts such as engineers, physicists, or demolition experts, or presents a critique of one of these legitimate arguements.

I'm hoping this goes over better than the previous thread. Any takers?

Sure,
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame).

911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html

While it seems that it is quite possible for this to happen it is not likely due to the huge variance in burning temp and melting point. There are two logical explanations, there was something else at work that day, or the steel used in WTC 1 and 2 was not up to code and of lesser quality then needed to even build the building in the first place.
Either way a clear cut case of government deception and corruption that ended in the loss of lives that could have other wise been avoided.

 

[Prophetable]

Really? Steel's thermal conductivity is about 50 W/m*K. What exactly is going to stop it from reaching exactly the temperature of the fire? The insulation (why the heck do you think it was insulated in the first place)?

The conduction of heat within steel adds support to my argument. The interconnected steel columns would have drawn the heat away from the columns closest to the fire, thus lowering their temperature.

 

[LsforLove]

The conduction of heat within steel adds support to my argument. The interconnected steel columns would have drawn the heat away from the columns closest to the fire, thus lowering their temperature.

And besides in an enclosed environment like a building or the WTC (not you don’t see many if any flames escaping the tower) the fire burns at a cooler temperature because of the lack of O2.

 

[Alarum]

The conduction of heat within steel adds support to my argument. The interconnected steel columns would have drawn the heat away from the columns closest to the fire, thus lowering their temperature.

No. Not really. With thermal conductivity like that, and a specific heat of about 0.5 J/cm*K (compare that to water's 4.17, for instance), it heats up VERY quickly. There's a very good reason that they stick insulation on the steel supports, and that's because they hit the temperature of the fire almost immediately.

Seriously, stop drawing silly conclusions. The entire body of the steel would quickly hit the heat of the fire. It would not 'draw heat away' because it cannot store heat effectively, and the air would not be helping.

Read the story here

"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."

One eyewitness account says,

"The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it."

A ten ton B-25 and an 80-100 ton 767 have very, very different impacts on a building.

 

[trunks2k]

We probably all remember the Windsor building burning in Madrid, Spain. This building had nowhere near the structural integrity of the WTC towers, yet it burned top to bottom for two days with white hot flames reaching 800C (1,472 F) at their peak without the whole thing coming down.

Except for two things:

1. It wasn't just a fire that brought down WTC1 and 2, it was the structural damage sustained in the impact combined with the fire.

2. The Windsor building was of a VERY different type of construction than the WTC1 and 2. The two are not comparable (never mind that sections of the Windsor building did collapse). The WTC towers had two primary support systems, the internal core in the very center of the building and the outer skin (with the floors acting as a stabalizing force to keep the building from twisting around the center core). There is very little in terms of structural support between the outer wall and the central core. This design allows for A LOT of open space compared to more traditionally designed buildings. When the planes hit the side of the building, the outer wall lost a lot of it's support, so the support got transfered to the center core. The load won't get very evenly spread out. Add into the fact that the several floors were extremely weakend/entirely destroyed, the outer walls lost even more of it's support. So that meant even more weight is transfered to the center core. Sure, the construction as a whole can support a lot of weight and give a lot of open space inside the building. But that comes at the cost of redundency.

Compare this to the type of construction seen in the Windsor building. This was a traditional steel frame building. The load is much more evenly spread out. So if certain areas are weakened, the resulting load that needs to be shifted is more evenly spread out.

 

[Alarum]

Except for two things:

1. It wasn't just a fire that brought down WTC1 and 2, it was the structural damage sustained in the impact combined with the fire.

2. The Windsor building was of a VERY different type of construction than the WTC1 and 2. The two are not comparable (never mind that sections of the Windsor building did collapse). The WTC towers had two primary support systems, the internal core in the very center of the building and the outer skin (with the floors acting as a stabalizing force to keep the building from twisting around the center core). There is very little in terms of structural support between the outer wall and the central core. This design allows for A LOT of open space compared to more traditionally designed buildings. When the planes hit the side of the building, the outer wall lost a lot of it's support, so the support got transfered to the center core. The load won't get very evenly spread out. Add into the fact that the several floors were extremely weakend/entirely destroyed, the outer walls lost even more of it's support. So that meant even more weight is transfered to the center core. Sure, the construction as a whole can support a lot of weight and give a lot of open space inside the building. But that comes at the cost of redundency.

Compare this to the type of construction seen in the Windsor building. This was a traditional steel frame building. The load is much more evenly spread out. So if certain areas are weakened, the resulting load that needs to be shifted is more evenly spread out.

Actually we wish that the load got transfered to the central core. Then the buildings would be standing. But when the supports were damaged, the building started to tilt. It increased the load on the damaged wall. By over 20%, in fact. Look at the video again. Note how the building noticably tilts sideways suddenly, then comes down. That tilt is the entire wall worth of supports giving out. The rest of the building couldn't support itself without that wall (and with additional fire and plane damage).

 

[arnegrim]

Another strange observation of my own is the fact that when WTC tower 1 (I believe it was tower 1) begins to collapse, the top portion above the hole where the plane impacted appears to be toppling over, and looks like it should follow the laws of inertia and fall into the street, leaving the rest of the building standing.

You're not taking into account HOW the towers were built.

The outside 'skin' of the building was the main support... once that was compromised, the remaining support simply had to move laterally enough to allow downward movement... which would not be far because of the compromised structural integrity.

I was reminded by a friend about the Empire state building in NY being hit by a B25 bomber in 1945. Colonel William Smith was piloting the plane through dense fog when he suddenly found himself in the middle of manhattan, and eventually in the Empire state building.

Read the story here

"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."

One eyewitness account says,

"The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it."

Again... the towers were not built AT ALL like the Empire State Building.

 

[Vylo]

Keep in mind that you do not have to melt metal in order to compromise it's strength. A sufficient amount of heat will weaken metal to where it can be more easily bent or broken.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

All this talk of engineering speak(I'm an idiot on the matter), however what about all the shops and subway underneath the WTC? Honestly, if the government was going to blow the WTC, wouldn't they have to worry not about the people on ground level but the one's below?

 

[AmariJah]

All this talk of engineering speak(I'm an idiot on the matter), however what about all the shops and subway underneath the WTC? Honestly, if the government was going to blow the WTC, wouldn't they have to worry not about the people on ground level but the one's below?

Do you honestly think that the highly compromised and corrupt Federal Govt. which thinks nothing of sacrificing roughly 2500 of it's own best and brightest and up to 100,000 of Iraqi's and Afghani's cares even slightly for a little more collateral damage?? And all this in the name of "fighting terror" and spearding "freedom" and "democracy". I may be an idiot when it comes to some things- I may even be ignorant- BUT I AM CERTIANLY NOT THAT STUPID! And hopefully a many more Americans will ake up to this master deception and manipulation of perception!