super thermite found in 9/11 dust from WTC towers: Part 2

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
No Yards No Yards's picture

Not that I support the theory that it was a "controlled" demolition, but consider this.

First, there seems to be some kind of disconnect in how many floors it would take to "contolled demolish" in order to take down the towers. First, assuming the official story is correct, then obviously it doesn't take more than one floor being demolished to cause the "pancake" of the tower since that is what happened ... one floor gave way and the rest of them collapsed on top of it and that brought down the tower ... whether the collapse of one floor was caused by thermite, or a jet crash, the results should be the same ... so there is no need to have a theory where many many floors are rigged with thermite or C4 or whatever, all it takes is one (the strangest thing is that both truthers and ant-truthers seem to accept as fact that the whole building, or a good portion of it, would have to be rigged to demolish ... obviously that is not a correct "fact" as in reality the pancake effect disproves this theory .)

Now, we have to find a way for someone to get the necessary thermite onto one of these floors and rig the setup without being noticed and found out ... that would be quite a trick, except that according to the floor plans (released, if I recall correctly in the NIST report) in both towers, in among the floors that were hit by the jets, were large computer rooms ... the perfect place to set up some demolition equipment without drawing any undo attention.

 

Now, as I said, I'm not trying to suggest that the truthers have it right .. this is just "wild speculation on my part based on some known details of the 9/11 incident ... the computer rooms, which usually have large batteries for UPS purposes, shorting out and melting, could also be what was seen flowing down the side of the building and mistaken for thermite ...or maybe not ... but I think there at least are some unanswered questions that need answering.

Fidel

But there was still molten steel at the site three weeks afterward. And no plane crashed into WTC-7. It seems that only buildings in NYC collapse in free-fall fashion without the aid of Boeing 757's flown into buildings by amateur pilots, and of which the collapse was  announced 23 minutes early by CBS and BBC reporters. Emergency workers described "popping" sounds as if explosions occurred in planned sequence, and debris blown out of windows as if a professional demolition was taking place.

Webgear

 

Does anyone know if chemical/explosive detectors were deployed at the WTC buildings?

No Yards, how did they gave access to these rooms? I would speculate that these rooms would have been under a great deal of surveillance.

No Yards No Yards's picture

As I recall (and this is from reading about this during the time of the original release of the report, so it's been a while so I'm just going by memory, which is faulty at the best of times) one of them was in the process of being upgraded with new UPS equipment (big boxes being shipped in, some temporary workers coming and out) and I can't give any easy explanation for the other computer room ... but being controlled access areas once someone did gain access they had relatively uninterrupted and hidden ability to do whatever they wanted, and computer rooms usually have raised floors, which are perfect places to rig something that had a good chance of going undetected for long periods of time, and computer rooms are areas where big boxes being moved into them would not be considered unusual activity ... yes, unlikely, but then again how likely was it that on the same day four planes could be hijacked with box cutters, and how likely is it that the only three sky scrapers in history to collapse from fire all fell on the same day?

Before 9/11 if someone asked what was more likely to happen? Four  planes being hijacked with box cutters and flown into skyscrapers to bring them down, or someone sneaking a pile of explosives into two secured computer rooms disguised as UPS equipment, rigged them under the raised floor and used them to bring down two skyscrapers ... which one would you have considered as a "reasonable scenario"?

 

Personally, before 9/11 I would have said both are rediclious, but I might consider the computer room scenerio at least good enough to make it into a decent B-movie, while  four planes being hijacked with box cutters (especially after being part of the generation where planes being hijacked to Cuba under gun point was rather common but finally remedied with some basic security measures) would have seemed impossible.

jas

I thought I read at some point that some floors were closed off for construction days before the event. Cannot find any reputable links on that currently.

Here's a good source I just rediscovered: 9-11 Research: Top Anomalies that goes into some detail into various collapse theories, including controlled demo.

 

 

 

jas
jas
Fidel

Webgear wrote:
No Yards, how did they gave access to these rooms? I would speculate that these rooms would have been under a great deal of surveillance.

 
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.htm]lSecrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]
Another drawback to neocon/neoliberal ideology
 


Quote:
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

Unionist

You know, reading these interesting links is leading me to believe that there may have been a conspiracy to cover up the truth about September 11 and the attack on the WTC.

Comments?

 

jas
jas

Unionist wrote:

You know, reading these interesting links is leading me to believe that there may have been a conspiracy to cover up the truth about September 11 and the attack on the WTC.

Comments?

A 9-11 convert ?!? Really!? Wowww....

jas

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.htm]Secrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]

This link doesn't work Fidel, nor do any links on that particular aspect work from any other sources I've checked. They've all got the 404 message.

Webgear

Fidel, do you have any comments about post 50?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

Webgear

Fidel, do you have any comments about post 50?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

Fidel

Fidel wrote:

Webgear wrote:
No Yards, how did they gave access to these rooms? I would speculate that these rooms would have been under a great deal of surveillance.

 
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html]lSecrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]
Another drawback to neocon/neoliberal ideology
 


Quote:
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

Six hours and not even a leaning tower.

Fidel

Webgear wrote:

Fidel, do you have any comments about post 50?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

As I've said, I'm the wrong guy to be asking about things that should be addressed by professional people. The nine researchers have put this out there as a challenge to other experts on the matter.  However, [url=http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=nanothermite_tv2new]Niels Harrit said:[/url] 

Quote:
We are not saying only nano-thermite was used.
Thermite itself dates back to 1893.
It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat.
The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 °C.
This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.
Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed.
When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly.
Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive.
It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

And, Jas, I fixed that link

Unionist

jas wrote:

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.htm]Secrecy surrounds WTC private security outfit[/url]

This link doesn't work Fidel, nor do any links on that particular aspect work from any other sources I've checked. They've all got the 404 message.

At one time, I would have just said, "bad link". Today, I'm seeing things differently. "Secrecy surrounds..." - of course. The 404 message. Yes.

 

jas

It's still a 404. But I think the reference you are trying to link to is found on this page:

Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother's role in 9/11 security, SmirkingChimp.com, 1/20/03 [cached]

jas

Aw, Unionist. I was just getting your 'Truther' t-shirt ready for you.

But I may still have an I Found Bin Laden! puzzle game for you.

 

Unionist

jas wrote:

Aw, Unionist. I was just getting your 'Truther' t-shirt ready for you.

But I may still have an I Found Bin Laden! puzzle game for you.

 

OMG, I tried googling that puzzle game cuz it sounds great, and I ended up [url=HERE[/url]">http://shibumi.org/eoti.htm]HERE[/url].

What the heck do I do now?

I feel as if I've entered a realm from which there is no return.

Show me the way - The Truth - please.

 

Fidel

jas wrote:

It's still a 404. But I think the reference you are trying to link to is found on this page:

Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother's role in 9/11 security, SmirkingChimp.com, 1/20/03 [cached]

It's close enough. I meant to link to [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html]this page[/url] It's fixed in the original post

but not the link copied in your reply to me. I cant edit that one.

Unionist

From Fidel's Code 404 link:

Quote:
An article in New York Newsday documented the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just five days before the attack.

I read somewhere that the dogs left on their own, after receiving some kind of message from Mossad.

I'll post the link as soon as I locate it...

 

jas

Unionist, you're very funny tonight. But your sarcasm suggests that you haven't actually looked at any of those links, nor that you want to.

Fidel

Unionist, what do you make of the crazy claim that their Islamic terrorist friends turned on them in "blowback" fashion just in time for 9/11?

Because if what warmongering hawks(and even some warmongering Liberal Democrats) claim is true, then that would make their Islamic gladios a legit replacement enemy for the former Soviets and "red menace" You honestly didnt fall for any of that cold war baloney, did you?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Unionist, what do you make of the crazy claim that their Islamic terrorist friends turned on them in "blowback" fashion just in time for 9/11?

Couldn't be. You're right. The U.S. and its agents never have a falling out. That Noriega thing was just a false flag op. The U.S. always has complete control over everything. Why, I don't even believe there's a war going on in Afghanistan. U.S. vs. Taliban? Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee? Ha! Score one for you, Fidel.

Quote:
Because if what warmongering hawks(and even some warmongering Liberal Democrats) claim is true, then that would make their Islamic gladios a legit replacement enemy for the former Soviets and "red menace".

Not sure I follow the logic, but I'll give you 1/2 point for that.

Quote:
You honestly didnt fall for any of that cold war baloney, did you?

Whoa, Watson, where ya goin with that? A little Dijon mustard and rye bread, and I fall for it every single time. You're back to zero.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Unionist, what do you make of the crazy claim that their Islamic terrorist friends turned on them in "blowback" fashion just in time for 9/11?

Couldn't be. You're right. The U.S. and its agents never have a falling out. That Noriega thing was just a false flag op. The U.S. always has complete control over everything.

But Noriega was stuffed so far away in a US gulag that they have to pump air to him. And he's just a little guy who should have been able to hide behind any of several banana trees in Latin America or anywhere really. Allende didnt escape their wrath, and neither did Patrice, or Che, or a string of other famous lefties who couldnt evade Murder Inc.

OBL, otoh,  is a 6'5" Saudi with a wonky kidney needing regular medical attention. Thousands of CIA agents in every major city in the world  cant spot him? Well, they did run into him at least once since blowing back at, or off,  his former employers , but he got away. Same thing with the "al-Qaida" hijacker specialist arrested by the RCMP in Vancouver just months before 9/11 and released on the FBI's instruction.

Quote:
Why, I don't even believe there's a war going on in Afghanistan. U.S. vs. Taliban? Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee? Ha! Score one for you, Fidel.

And Iraq? OBL offered to raise a civilian army of Afghan jihadis and Saudi nationals to help remove the infidel in Baghdad. "No", said their friends in Washington. We can use you and your CIA-ISI database of expendible jihadis to invade Iraq and attack the real Iraqi  insurgents for us after we finish up operation shock and appall. [Zbiggy, Blackwell etc and OBL likely sealed it with a spit 'n handshake, we can be sure]

You wrote:
Me wrote:
Because if what warmongering hawks(and even some warmongering Liberal Democrats) claim is true, then that would make their Islamic gladios a legit replacement enemy for the former Soviets and "red menace".

Not sure I follow the logic, but I'll give you 1/2 point for that.

"al Qa'eda"! Theyre the neo-fake cold war menace on the block. CIA and OBL, Hekmatyar etc were bosom-bestest of friends when they waged holy ol' jihad on Afghan army and Sovietsky soldiers in the Stan, man. 

 

Unbiased

I didn't want to do it,. but I have to .

 

For the record, I'm with Fidel on this one as this thread moves inexorably to its close.

Unlike many others who only began to wonder what really happened years later and perhaps after watching Loose Change; I can remember standing in my living room on that day and thinking "My God ! I just watched a demolition". Like Fidel, I am not a scientest. Four or five years earlier I had watched a thirty or so story building being demolished and it just seemed obvious to me at the time. Since then the explanation from the in NIST has just never made any sense to me.

Its a very murky internet world out there with many contradictory theories and also many websites purporting to be truther sites that are clearly there only to discredit any real inquiries.

I have no answers..

BUT I sure have a lot of questions !

Cueball Cueball's picture

ElizaQ wrote:

One fairly in depth analysis of the Jones report.

 Instead of just combing through the report and posting potential other explanation as rebuttals to some comments here I decided to just post the whole thing.

None of it completely discounts the conclusion that 'thermite' was found in the dust outright but it does elaborate on potential issues with that conclusion and how with a real through going over of this reports findings don't necessarily lead to ONLY that explanation for what the Danish team found.

But we are not discussing Jones's earlier 2006 piece, but the report issued last week by a Danish scientist Niels H. Harrit, apparently with Jones as part of his research team.

The new report is here: The Open Chemical Physics Journal 

Quote:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

The questions asked by your article probably bear as much on this as the previous one, but there it is. Perhaps the new report answers some of those questions.

Here is an interview on Danish TV with Dr. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen: April 9th, 2009

Unbiased

thanks cueball. I just watched it.

I watched a very skeptical interviewer speak with the scientist. I still don't know what to make of it.

The scientest is obviously very attached to his opinions .. I don't know how to evaluate his science.

I do remember seeing photos of some of the steel columns ( before they were carted away for scrap) cut by heat (obvious because of the slag remnants) lying in a portside disposal area. They were cut on a 40 ? degree angle. If one were to wish a structure to implode within an orderly footprint it would seem that diagonal cuts forcing columns to slide inwards would be the way to accomplish that.

Caissa

21

HeywoodFloyd

Unbiased wrote:
I do remember seeing photos of some of the steel columns ( before they were carted away for scrap) cut by heat (obvious because of the slag remnants) lying in a portside disposal area. They were cut on a 40 ? degree angle. If one were to wish a structure to implode within an orderly footprint it would seem that diagonal cuts forcing columns to slide inwards would be the way to accomplish that.

Could these beams have been cut by the cleanup crew as a part of the process of carting them away?

 

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Snert Snert's picture

Or... were they made by a special "cleanup crew" in an attempt to obscure nano-thermite marks that would otherwise be blatantly obvious to any truth-seeking amateur metallurgist? Hmm, "Heywood Floyd", if that's even your real name...

(Okay, I hate to admit it, but it IS kinda fun to throw off the shackles of common sense, throw my dignity to the wind, and just conjecture wildly! It's like streaking at the Library!)

jas

* The World Trade Center steel was systematically destroyed:
o Controlled Demolition Inc's plan for recycling steel was submitted 11 days after the attack, and approved.
o Most of the steel was shipped to Asia for recycling.
o Investigators were barred from the crime scene, and saw little of the steel.
* Scores of videos from around Pentagon were confiscated and never released.
* The NTSB was not allowed to investigate crashes.

9-11 Research: Top Anomalies

jas

Thanks for the video link, Cueball.

Actually, I found the interview to be rather accommodating. I think some tougher questions certainly could have been asked. Notice also the interviewer starts his piece off reporting, if we can trust the translation: "Apparently, the  two airplane impacts did not cause  the towers to collapse..." which is a statement suggesting fact rather than supposition. That's probably not the most accurate way they could have reported that.

As to the question, "Why has no one discovered earlier that there was nano-thermite in the buildings?" The obvious answer I was expecting was "Because no one was looking for it! No investigation was done!!"

 

thorin_bane

I also thought it strange the day it happened. That is what got my attention to start with. Why did the one tower not lean a little or the top topple instead of the whole thing flatening? The fact that they already blew up the bottom corner of the trade center(van bomb) and the towers didn't fall makes one wonder how come a plane just a few stories from the top having less weight above it than ohhh you know the bottom of the building with 110 stories above it result in seemingly contrary results. Or how about Ok City bombing? That building was hollowed and and still didn't collapse?

HeywoodFloyd

Have a look at the photo on the first page of my link. You can see the top of the tower toppling to one side.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/

 

As to why the bomb did not cause the tower to collapse? It is because the parkade didn't collapse as a result. The loads in the destroyed columns were redistributed to the other columns.

 

This happened with the 9\11 events as well. The loads were redistributed to the intact columns. However, the fires weakened the floors causing them to sag and pull the exterior walls in. This caused the eventual collapse when the floors let go.

 

Why did one floor collapsing cause the whole tower to fall? Momentum. The building was not designed to withstand the imact of all the floors above the impact point smashing into the floors below.

 

I have found the site I linked to be very useful in understanding the events surrounding the collapse of all three buildings.

 

 

 

HeywoodFloyd

Why do you keep discussing things that are not related to these threads?

Fidel

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Have a look at the photo on the first page of my link. You can see the top of the tower toppling to one side.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/    

It's interesting to note that they point to the same web site, cooperativeresearch.org,   as does Peter Chamberlin wrt Osama bin Laden. Except that Chamberlin and others describe a much more intimate relationship between the US government and military, and their Islamic gladios bin Laden, Yousef, Hekmatyar wrt their first attack on WTC in 1993. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7787]Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida[/url]

 

Quote:

The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan.   

"Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden."  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7746  

Researcher Kurt Nimmo writes:

"The database of Islamic fighters that was collected by the program was labeled n Arabic, 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat', which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word 'Al Qaida" which is the Arabic word for 'base.'"  http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3569   

And "debunking911.com" makes no mention whatsoever of cold war hawk [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-major-r-owens/charlie-wilson-vs-osama-... Wilson[/url]

 

Quote:

After brief moments of culture at the Kennedy Center he works out sexually in his well placed Washington apartment. We cheer for Charlie and hope that he'll stay sober and score big.

Meanwhile, between his chosen projects of passion, Charlie masters the earmarking game, pinpoints a devastating Soviet military weakness, and launches a "Stinger Missile" manufacturing, distribution, training and deployment movement that turns the tide of the war.

Instead of building a huge embassy in Kabul and digging in, the Soviets pull out. Trained by Charlie's well financed Pakistan Intelligence Service, the Taliban march in. They are fundamentalist idealists who don't cut throats and use bayonets on women. For dressing improperly they stone their women to death.

As a postscript to the obligatory happy ending the movie infers this latter part of the scenario above by shocking the smug audience with a phrase including that FCC forbidden four letter word: "And then we fucked it up."

 

Ya, Charlie, cold war hawks "fucked up", and we can be sure it was accidentally on purpose, too.

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

This happened with the 9\11 events as well. The loads were redistributed to the intact columns. However, the fires weakened the floors causing them to sag and pull the exterior walls in. This caused the eventual collapse when the floors let go.

Quote:
Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument.

Actual Conditions

Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions.
FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower's perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower's broken.
The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure.
Structural Damage

The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage.

    * People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.
    * The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.
    * The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.

Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall.

Column Failure Theory

Heywood Floyd wrote:
Why did one floor collapsing cause the whole tower to fall? Momentum. The building was not designed to withstand the imact of all the floors above the impact point smashing into the floors below.

Quote:

The experts gave us the cool-sounding progressive collapse to help sell the collapse theories, whether they emphasize falling floors or buckling columns. But does it apply to steel structures? Some structures do fall apart under their own weight if sufficiently weakened or disturbed, such as burned wood-frame houses, or earthquake-fractured masonry buildings. Steel structures are not known to, outside of rare cases, but perhaps they could be designed to. Getting a steel structure to crumble from the top down -- as in the alleged progressive collapse phenomenon -- is an even greater challenge.

Not only is top-down progressive collapse completely unknown in other steel structures, we know of no documented case of it using any materials...

collapse theories

 

HeywoodFloyd

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Quote:

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

[\quote]

Fidel

You were way off topic a number of times above. And so were a number of babblers.

Meanwhile I'm debunking hell out of your source link, "debunking"911.com. "Debunkers" are forced to address the historical links between US government and Islamic jihadis of the 1970s and 80's first and foremost, because it's absolutely necessary in perpetuating the myth of "al Qa'eda" Like mother hens scrambling after the chicks.

HeywoodFloyd

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplified analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating computer simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.

4. The combination of six effects

a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower.
(Bazant, Verdure, 2006)

HeywoodFloyd

Fidel wrote:
"Debunkers" are forced to address the historical links between US government and Islamic jihadis of the 1970s and 80's first and foremost, because it's absolutely necessary in perpetuating the myth of "al Qa'eda" Like mother hens scrambling after the chicks.

Can you start a new thread to deal with these issues so that these threads can stay at least somewhat on topic?

Fidel

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html]Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's[/url]

 

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/aircraftcomparison.g...

 

Quote:

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

How could a team of engineers be 100% wrong not once but twice on that day for false flag gladio like no other? Cutter charges? A new 9/11 investigation is needed. Clearly.

HeywoodFloyd

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html]Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's[/url]

Quote:

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

 

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Quote:

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."

[\quote]

Fidel

 [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html]Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered[/url]

Quote:
  7

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut.   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8  

Quote:
...

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. 3  

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

 

 

 

Webgear

A bit of a thread drift:
Fidel, Hekmatyar was educated by the Soviets as were a large number of Afghan warlords.
(sorry)

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC.

Heh. No kidding.

de-flunking wrote:
In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.

 

9-11 research wrote:
The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the
column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.

Fanciful Theory Doesn't Begin to Explain Total Collapse

"de-flunking wrote:
not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.

?? The South Tower's core was barely hit. Moreover, how does an over-engineered steel highrise core get levelled?

"de-flunking wrote:
For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.

 

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Fidel

Webgear wrote:
A bit of a thread drift:

Fidel, Hekmatyar was educated by the Soviets as were a large number of Afghan warlords.
(sorry)

Source?
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/bombing93/globalresearch_sch404A.h... Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? - 1993[/url]

Quote:

All the while that the U.S. has sounded the alarm about "Muslim Fundamentalist terror," it has funded the Islamic Fundamentalist group in Afghanistan led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who has received to date $3.3 billion in official U.S. aid administered by the CIA. Many of the figures in the Muslim movement in the U.S., including those accused of involvement in the World Trade Center bombing, were among those who organized the sending of CIA arms and funds to Hekmatyar. (See "Late For Work," Prevailing Winds #1.)

The U.S. rulers are terrorizing the American people with operations of their own authorship, deployed as a rationale for "maintaining vast military budgets for devastating assaults upon Iraq, Somalia and targets now on the Pentagon drawing board.

 

Hekmatyar is proven to be a particularly vicious warlord. The CIA, Saudis and ISI thought to fund the most dangerous of warlords in order that after 1992, they would fight a Darwinian battle to the finish amongst themselves. Afghans and Pakistanis would have to deal with the end result.

Caissa

0

Pages

Topic locked