Path of Least Resistance

[Bonobo]

I will keep it simple.

Buildings fall in the path of least resistance. It is obvious.

Asymmetrical damage will lead a building to fall asymmetrically.

In order to make a building fall straight into its own footprint, it is necessary that all supporting columns fail at the same time. Anything less would cause a tall, narrow structure to teeter and then fall to one side. Again, obvious. This is why building demolition is a difficult job requiring a great deal of precision and preparation. A random, violent strike does not lead to a building falling into its own footprint.

Yet this occurred 3 out of 3 times on 9/11. 3 giant buildings "fell" into their own footprints. One of them without even being hit by a plane. Fire has never before caused a building to fall, let alone fall directly into its own footprint at free-fall speeds, directly through the load-bearing path of MOST resistance.

3 out of 3. Wow, if I was a gambling man, I would say something smells fishy here.

Good thing that government commission reassured us that there is no cover-up going on.

Looking forward to all the snarky comments from those who feel threatened by the idea that the world is not as safe as they want to believe it is.

[AZCat]

1. No.

Your description of building collapse mechanisms is incorrect, your grasp of engineering and physics woefully inadequate, and your self-assured righteousness is nauseating. If pointing out these deficiencies is snarky, then so be it.

[Realityhack]

2. But AZCat... I tested it with Jinga blocks and everything!!!11!!!1!!

Seriously why do people keep posting this rubbish?

[Bonobo]

5. Pathetic response.

Truly pathetic.

Your addition of the letter 1 is as unoriginal as it is lame. The borrowing of internet slang to make a point mimics your borrowing of tired talking points to explain 9/11.

[Realityhack]

54. Your OP did not warrant better. And you missed the point about Jinga blocks. n/t

[Bonobo]

58. I got the Jinga blocks snark, but I think it fails to address the issue.

The Jinga blocks, absurd as they may seem when introduced in such a Snarky fashion, do point to an important issue that deserves to be addressed. The fact that you wish to avoid it speaks volumes.

[AZCat]

13. People like the author of the OP...

seem to think they can acquire sufficient knowledge of engineering using Google. They are sorely mistaken.

[Bonobo]

Ignorance doesn't explain away 3 building falling into their footprints. Sorry. Try again.

[AZCat]

20. Ignorance does explain your failure to learn the facts...

before making untrue statements.

[MrMickeysMom]

72. Jebus...

Talk about ignorance...

How can you corner what is truth and what are the facts? You have no corner on either!

[AZCat]

74. I never claimed to have exclusive access to the truth and the facts...

but I'm certainly not as ignorant of the facts of the collapse of the towers and building 7 as the OP. Is that a problem? No, not unless he wants to pretend his version of the "truth" is somehow superior. Then we have a problem.

[MrMickeysMom]

75. Yes you did...

Ignorance does explain your failure to learn the facts

You don't make a statement like that without assuming you somehow know "the facts"

What arrogance to presume that it's the other person is pretending! How absolutely stupid it is to treat "truth" here in hierarchal fashion!

No, it's not "we" who have a problem here.

[Realityhack]

82. Knowledge of the facts != exclusive knowledge of the facts. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

98. I don't believe I was addressing you...

... Whatever the fuck != means.... :eyes:

[SidDithers]

198. != means "does not equal"...nt

Sid

[Realityhack]

206. Silly me thinking this was a public forum... oh wait... never mind n/t

[AZCat]

101. The OP is wrong about obvious, simple things.

Either he's incapable or unable to find readily available information about the subject before starting a thread on that very subject which promotes a certain viewpoint dependent on that information. That means he's ignorant.

[MrMickeysMom]

106. Or...

He could by deduction be on to something that you find too hard to believe.

That makes you selectively ignorant.

[AZCat]

109. I'm not arguing about his deductions.

I'm arguing about what he is basing them on. His "facts" are incorrect. They are not complicated, nor are they difficult to verify. Refusal to do so before starting a thread in order to make a claim based on those facts is ignorant.

[bottomtheweaver]

134. Word to the wise: learn the facts before nagging about them.

At least the basic ones for pete's sake.

[AZCat]

141. You have the audacity to lecture me about inaccuracies in the OP?

I think you responded to the wrong person. Bonobo is the author of the OP, and the ignorance of basic facts is his.

[bottomtheweaver]

155. Hoo boy. Do I have to spell it out?

You, post #102: "They didn't consider fires from an aircraft impact... according to the structural engineers who designed the buildings."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=249618&mesg_id=249929

John Skilling, chief structural engineer, 1993: "'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,' he said. 'The building structure would still be there.'"

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

You got that simple fact completely wrong, so you're not exactly in a position to preach about facts. :hi:

[AZCat]

163. That's nice.

Do you have anything to say about the incorrect facts in the OP, or are you going to try to dodge that question?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Um...

Not the footprint. AE911Truth has even recognized this, to the point that they created a new category "explosive demolition" to describe what happened to the towers.



Also, not the footprint. WTC7 wasn't built on top of this four-lane road.

[Bonobo]

24. Fair enough, but

At some point it must be admitted that the "footprint" description can not possibly ever be the case (even in the case of obviously intended demolition.) Anything that large would by necessity fall outside of its footprint, I believe. The question is how far, no? So it is a semantic game.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Well, now we're at the point where we can put numbers on the problem

That's the way to avoid semantic games.

Bazant has put numbers to the problem. All attempts to dislodge Bazant's numbers have proven fruitless as anything but a cautionary tale. There is far and away too much force in the descending sections of the tower for the structure below to deal with. It doesn't matter how much mass is down there -- only the structural elements matter when trying to deal with the descending force. If the structure can't redistribute those forces, the structure fails and the mass continues down. In the case of the towers, what I showed you was the sides of the towers that had peeled out. The descending force tore the floor trusses off the perimeter columns and pushed the perimeter out like that.

Can you demonstrate with verifiable figures (calculating the force, calculating the ability of the structure below to redistribute force) that the descending sections had to be deflected?

[Bonobo]

32. I am still considering the issues so I appreciate the non-snark.

I am all about weighing evidence fairly. It is why I am still searching and have not yet come to a final conclusion.

I am not an engineer. I am a translator.

I do not appreciate the snark in this forum and it is why I avoid it generally.

I am searching. I am in inner conflict. I am open to discussion and evidence from any and all sources.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Realityhack]

53. Oh BS.

You clearly have made up your mind. Your OP didn't ask for help understanding it stated a positive position. You have done the same throughout this thread.
You are clearly not being honest when you say you are searching or open to discussion and evidence as you have demonstrated you have reached a conclusion and are unwilling to face contradictory evidence.

[Bonobo]

55. You are incorrect and I couldn't care less if you believe me.

[Realityhack]

56. It isn't a matter of what I believe.

You have demonstrated your position in a number of posts in this thread. You have no intention of listening to those who know what they are talking about.

[Bonobo]

57. You are wrong.

I am listening and weighing right now. I am searching. It sounds like you ain't and so you are projecting it onto me.

After these many years, how could I not have developed some opinions? But it doesn't mean my mind is closed.

[Realityhack]

59. I see no evidence of that.

Your OP made a positive assertion that is highly erroneous. And you have not recognized that despite ample opportunity.

For anyone with a passing understanding of engineering or physics your OP is just plain silly. It is the same BS that the 'truth' movement has been spewing since day one. It has a lot more to do with block buildings a three year old builds than actual sky scrapers.

[Bonobo]

60. And I was greeted with snark from you.

No attempt to respond reasonably at all to my OP. Just childish snark. But this is really getting boring bacuase I didn't come here to engage in this psycho-bullshit, but to discuss 9/11.

[MrMickeysMom]

73. Your OP and reply are appreciated...

But it would seem not by the 4 or so persons who will repeatedly refuse to engage in 9/11.

If Richard Nixon referred to the Kennedy assassination as the "greatest hoax" performed on the American people, what can be so difficult about buildings 1 and 2's footprint.

And what about building 7? Indeed...

[Realityhack]

80. No need to respond to that garbage.

The so called 'points' in your OP have been debunked many many times and even a high school physics student should understand why they are BS.

If you were looking more details you could use the search function or even read WS's post back to you which you completely dismissed.

[BeFree]

83. Good example, hack...

...of not tolerating discussion. Instead of acting like a high school physics student discussing the subject, you act like an elementary school student in the playground.

Thanks.

[Realityhack]

93. BeFree we have had this discussion a dozen times in the past.

The OP didn't bother to read up even a little on what has already been discussed. His post is downright goofy. And contrary to his claims he was not asking a question and he has not been open minded about discussion.

I and others here have discussed these issues in detail. But the OP showed in their first post that they clearly lack the understanding to even follow along with such a discussion.

[BeFree]

95. Heh

Great. No substance in your post just an 'attack the messenger' approach.

That was a good hack job.

Say, do you know why they carted away the steel before it was inspected?
Is that the usual MO after big fires?

[MrMickeysMom]

99. Never mind... he probably has that wrapped up, too

Meanwhile... This made it on the DU home page (for the time being)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x317837

[BeFree]

113. Thank you, MMM

That is a great thread. Looking forward to that hearing.

[AZCat]

105. Except that's not true.

Why don't you try verifying information before you parrot what you read on conspiracy websites? Then you might not seem quite so ignorant.

[MrMickeysMom]

107. I'd say everything we know to be "true" about free fall and these buildings...

is verifiable and can be intellectually challenged.

Unless you prefer to stay selectively in the dark.

Suit yourself. Stay that way. I'd rather have an objective commission that doesn't for the umpteenth time mimic the Warren Commmission, which was the biggest Goddamned lie perpetrated on the American public, according to Richard Nixon.

[AZCat]

108. I don't understand what you're saying here.

BeFree made a claim in post #95 that is untrue. I know that if he had tried to verify this claim, he would have found that it is untrue. Instead of doing his homework (by verifying his claim), he decided to parrot what someone else told him. Because I called him on it, you think I'm in the dark? That seems strange to me.

[MrMickeysMom]

123. Face it, the homework can't be done... cause the dog ate it

These claims of the OP you say are untrue have as little evidence to back them as yours do. The truth of what made these buildings fall into an improbable footprint has been carted off. The crime scene was fucked up, and the majority of us quit being round heeled about accepting the OCT long ago.

You seem to know a lot for someone doing their homework. You are as much or more in the dark as anyone on this forum. If that seems strange to you, then I suggest you seek guidance on alt.mywayorthehighway.com

[AZCat]

142. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you should either read up on the events of September 11th, 2001 a little more or maybe leave the discussion to those of us who already have. The OP is wrong, plain and simple. It should be obvious, but I guess not everybody feels the responsibility to learn the subject matter before spouting off.

[MrMickeysMom]

182. It's only obvious to YOU

That's what self-fulfilling prophets like to do, while they're not pointing out other peoples flaws.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Your claim about Richard Nixon and the Warren Commission is...

(surprise) utter bullshit and yet one more example of selective quoting by JFK assassination CT's.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm

[BeFree]

110. What's not true?

That wasn't a good hack job?

[AZCat]

111. No.

This is incorrect:

Say, do you know why they carted away the steel before it was inspected?

You would know that if you bothered to read something other than conspiracy websites.

[BeFree]

112. All the steel was inspected?

Really? You think the found the pieces where the planes hit and figured out how the plane damaged them?

And the found the pieces where the fires were and tested them for heat forced changes?

No, What they did was cart most of the steel of and shipped it to China before an investigation could take place. Highly unusual.

Heh, you surprised me with that attack. Calling me ignorant? How low will you go?

[MrMickeysMom]

125. Probably this is where his (and the other 3's) argument gets fatigued...

... cause, it's like, unless you're them, you'll read the conspiracy based nonsense websites and then you'll be "silly", and then you'll be directed to someone's quote or "study" from Popular Mechanics or subset of NIST.

Excuse me, I better get my sleep now... don't want to miss another ignorant dream cycle! :boring:

[AZCat]

144. Strange...

You seem to think the NIST reports aren't acceptable resources for information about the buildings, collapses and subsequent investigation. Why is that?

[BeFree]

153. Oh yeah, baby!!

Bow down to the NIST!!

They never lie and they are always right!!!

Just forget they were a year late getting started. Ignore that!!

And forget that the NIST also gave the green light to electronic voting machines. Yep, they looked at one or two of those damned vote stealing Diebold owned computer thingees and said: 'OK by us". Ignore that too!!

************
Fucking bunch of paid lackeys the NIST is. Government bureaucrats. Bushco infiltrated and compromised.

[AZCat]

143. You might want to read the NIST report.

It answers your questions. It has lots of pictures, in case you aren't a word person. Then maybe you won't make so many mistakes, like claiming the steel was shipped off to China before it was inspected. Of course, you don't have to do this. You could just stay ignorant. Some people are okay with that.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Why do you keep posting myths about 9/11?

Your claim that they "carted the steel away before it was inspected" is utter bullshit. Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?

Hint: Google things like "ASCE" and Fresh Kills Landfill and fucking READ about the extensive recovery effort, including (yes) the STEEL, Where in the fuck do you think NIST got pieces for its study???

[Subdivisions]

130. Hey! Do you see that that is somebody's mother your cussing at?

What the hell is wrong with you? Have some fucking respect!

[SDuderstadt]

139. when people keep propagating silly myths like...

''all the steel was carted off before it could be inspected'', i'd argue that no ''respect'' is warranted. then again, why should we expect that the truth actually matters to a ''truther'' when it interferes with their pet theories?

[BeFree]

162. I'm not the only one who thinks the steel was carted off.

Are you calling the Families ignorant and not worthy of respect? How low will you go? Is there a bottom to your agenda?



http://www.911independentcommission.org/giuliani31804.h...

1. A few short weeks after 9/11, tons of metal from the collapsed twin towers was sold to scrap yards in New Jersey. Thereafter, the steel was re-sold to other recyclers in the United States and overseas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the “scrap” has ended up in India, Japan, South Korea, China and Malaysia.

It is the FSC’s position that the thousands of pounds of debris was crime-scene evidence. It should have been examined, catalogued, and stored in a secure location.

Why were the steel beams sold and shipped overseas and not retained as evidence? Was the material examined before it was sent overseas? If examined, then by whom? Were any diagnostic studies/tests performed? If not, then why? Whose responsibility was this?

Former FBI Acting Director Thomas Pickard said that the FBI wanted to take over Ground Zero and make it a crime scene as was done at the Pentagon. If that had occurred all materials from the scene would have been protected until an investigation was complete. Pickard also stated that you, Mayor Giuliani, would not allow the FBI access to the pit area. Is this accurate? If so, then what was your reason for keeping the nation’s chief investigatory team—the FBI, out of Ground Zero?

[SDuderstadt]

168. Nice strawman...

This is about you and not the FSC. But the simple fact is that you could educate yourself as to what the recovery procedures were and what steel was needed for the investigation, rather than make silly claims like "all the steel was carted off", etc. Maybe you should call Gene Corley of ASCE and ask him why he testified before Congress that the agencies and bodies investigating the collapses had access to the steel they needed.

[BeFree]

176. Ha

I'd like to see you go in front of the Families and tell them you have all their answers!! Take your Corley with you.

What is that word you like to use so much? Oh yeah: ""Goofy""

[SDuderstadt]

177. I have never claimed to have all the answers...

it also does not make sense to expect family members of victims to have the same structural engineering background as Gene Corley. I'm sure he could defend his statement in front of the families easily, as could I. In fact, are you claiming that most or even many of the families believe that the WTC came down as a result of controlled demolition?

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

192. Fucking unbelievable...

As for strawman, you just built one, with the "families believe that the WTC came down as a result of controlled demolition".

This is just one more example of your absolute fucking dishonesty, BeFree. The ironic thing is you had to create a strawman to accuse me of creating a strawman. You dishonestly omitted my lead-in of
"In fact, are you claiming that most or even many of the" and then omitted the question mark at the end to make it appear that I made a statement when, in fact, I asked YOU a clarifying question, as follows:

In fact, are you claiming that most or even many of the families believe that the WTC came down as a result of controlled demolition?

This is far too blatant to be inadvertent or an accident, BeFree. I think at the very least, you owe me an admission that is not what I said and you should take it a step further and apologize to me for your incredible dishonesty, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Kalun D]

133. Forensics

Google things like "ASCE" and Fresh Kills Landfill and fucking READ about the extensive recovery effort, including (yes) the STEEL, Where in the fuck do you think NIST got pieces for its study???

A true extensive Forensics investigation would mean every single piece of the building being saved and examined.

Where is all this steel? Are they hiding it? It's got to be a HUGE storage building. Are there any pictures?

[AZCat]

147. Why would it mean that?

Why would they have to save every single piece of the building? That's a ridiculous amount of material and would take a huge storage space, for no good reason.

Check the NIST report - there are tons of pictures of the steel.

[Kalun D]

157. Cutter charges

"Why would they have to save every single piece of the building?"

It's a crime scene. Don't you save all parts of a crime scene until you've looked at EVERYTHING to see if there's any relevant evidence?

you don't if you don't really want to know what happened.

Thermite/thermate cutter charges could have been on ANY of the floors.

"Check the NIST report - there are tons of pictures of the steel."

can you test a picture for thermate/thermite residue?

[AZCat]

175. I wouldn't save all of THIS crime scene.

It would be like packing up the entire house for a homicide investigation.

Why would anyone (NIST or otherwise) test for thermite/thermate residue?

[Kalun D]

185. What IF

"It would be like packing up the entire house for a homicide investigation."

If there were 30 people inside a house and someone came along and somehow got the house to collapse killing everyone inside.

Until you knew exactly what happened and how it happened, would you just save a couple of boards or would you save the entire house?

"Why would anyone (NIST or otherwise) test for thermite/thermate residue?"

the house had about 1 percent damage, and some fire, then like has never been seen before it completely collapsed. Do you just assume without investigation that there was no other reason for the collapse?

I looked somewhat like a demolition. Don't they use thermate/thermite cutter charges in demolitions? Just out of curiosity, if you really wanted to know what happened wouldn't you just check, just to make sure someone didn't by chance place some cutter charges?

[BeFree]

138. Nist

Didn't start its study until a year later.

There was no proper fire investigation at the towers.

The Family Steering Committee asked the 9/11 Omission questions about why the steel was not inspected properly.

[AZCat]

148. Other agencies inspected the steel.

NIST built on their work.

[BeFree]

150. What other agencies?

At least you admit that the NIST was a year late.

Plus, did you know the NIST gave a blanket approval for electronic voting machines? They said 'ok' without even doing a study of what the machines could or could not do. And you want us to think the NIST is a high-above-the-fray some kind of higher authority figure we should all bow to and praise for it's all seeing wisdom? F that.

[AZCat]

167. A year LATE?!

You say this like you expected them to be involved from the beginning. They weren't involved until Congress authorized them to be.

Check the NIST report (NCSTAR 1-3B specifically) for a full accounting of the inspection of the steel. SEANY was involved, as were FEMA and ASCE.

[Kalun D]

159. Criminal case

If you are pursuing a criminal case in a court of law do you destroy the evidence before ALL of it is examined?

do you destroy the evidence even after you've examined it?

[Ghost in the Machine]

204. The ONLY steel that NIST tested was undamaged pieces from both towers..

it's the only steel they could positively identify because of its tube in a tube design. They couldn't unambiguously identify the rest of the steel as to which building it came from.

No steel was tested for explosive residue

No steel from WTC 7 was tested at all

The Fresh Kills Landfill Operations were mostly for recovering human remains and personal property. It wasn't for inspecting steel.

All of the rest of the steel was sold off to China and a couple of other countries.


Why do YOU keep posting myths about 9-11? Why do you keep shoving the NIST Report down people's throats like it was some kind of Gospel from on High?

[friend of bobobo]

47. Do you have Bazant's numbers?

I am interested in seeing the Bazant numbers that you refer to. Please send a link if possible.

[SidDithers]

52. They can all be accessed from his page at Northwestern...

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

Sid

[colombo]

199. Doncha think...?

Msg #22's photos are eerily reminiscent of the form of devastation seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Bolo Boffin]

200. Um, no.

The devestation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not confined to a couple of city blocks.

[colombo]

201. However,

The nukes were largescale at hiroshima & nagasaki.
And were released at high altitudes to encompass more land area.
And your point given these varibles?

[Bolo Boffin]

202. The nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not large scale at all.

They were highly inefficient nuclear weapons. They still leveled a mile of city.

Do you seriously think that nukes were used to take down these buildings?

[colombo]

203. What

do you consider inefficient nuclear weapons?:nuke:

[SDuderstadt]

30. if wtc 1&2 ''fell into their own footprints''

then explain how so many contiguous buildings were badly damaged by their collapses. that damage refutes the rather silly ''fell into their own footprints'' ''truther'' meme.

[BeFree]

3. Building collapse

Some buildings do indeed collapse because of fire. But what the OP refers to was no ordinary building. The towers were the strongest structures ever engineered. That goes, usually, without saying, but in this case had to be made clear to counter your feeble disagreement.

Your position seems to be that there shouldn't be any doubt as to why these structures collapsed. If it truly is your position that any questions are just 'self-assured righteousness' then indeed it can be taken as nothing more than snark.

[AZCat]

11. They were most definitively not the strongest structures ever engineered.

Such a statement only showcases your ignorance of engineering.

[BeFree]

16. Really?

Others designed to take a hit from a jet plane?

True, there may be a few structures designed stronger but at the time it was designed it surely was. Unless you have counter evidence, my position stands. Otherwise your words are just snark.

[AZCat]

19. A few structures?!

That's an understatement.

And now you're claiming that unless I have "counter evidence" your claim (which is unsupported) is valid? Wow. That's just impressively ignorant.

[BeFree]

43. Name one

Name a building that at the time was built to take a hit from an airliner.

[AZCat]

51. Moving the goalposts again, BeFree? n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. "taking a hit from a jet liner"

was incidental to the nessesary wind loading stiffining due to the surface area of the building. The idea was that if significant perimeter columns were taken out by say, and airliner, the loads would be transfered to the other columns. Remove enough however, due to the crash and then after several hours of fire, and no amount of engineering is going to prevent a collapse.

[Ghost in the Machine]

97. Do you think the engineers/designers who designed the building to withstand a jet impact

.. simply forgot that jets explode and catch fire when they crash, so they didn't consider fires in the equation?




Your reply was pure comedy gold, vincent, pure comedy gold....

:rofl:

[AZCat]

102. They didn't consider fires from an aircraft impact...

according to the structural engineers who designed the buildings.

[bottomtheweaver]

131. Wrong. John Skilling in 1993: "There would be a horrendous fire.

A lot of people would be killed. . . . The building structure would still be there."

Full quote, from "Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision"
By Eric Nalder, The Seattle Times, Saturday, February 27, 1993:

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

[vincent_vega_lives]

137. Not Quite

I think you are reading too much into his statement.

The structure did the job as advertised. It transfered the loads from the dammaged areas to the undamaged and remained standing.

I think if you asked him today he would agree that the fires doomed the towers once their fire protection measures were compromised and there was no way to extinguish the fire.

[AZCat]

146. There is some discrepancy between accounts.

Skilling claims they considered a fuel fire (although he doesn't say they tried to calculate the effect) while others (Robertson?) say otherwise. Regardless, at the time of the design of the towers fire science and modeling tools were not sophisticated enough to do the job. I would be surprised if the design team did any calculations at all regarding fire effect, since contemporary design teams typically don't do them.

[bottomtheweaver]

152. Wrong. You made a statement that is clearly not true.

At least have the decency to admit your own mistakes.

[AZCat]

164. Clearly not true?

Skilling's account does not jibe with the accounts of others (at least IIRC). I will look later for the other accounts.

[bottomtheweaver]

169. Skilling and Robertson both conducted studies in 1964 showing the towers would survive

large jetliner crashes, and by Frank Di Martini's account, multiple crashes. Neither study has been made publicly available. Skilling's was conducted in early 1964, and a three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, describes its findings:

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

Apparently the NIST was unable to "locate" either analysis, and Robertson changed his tune after 911, but both he and Skilling were already on record with the results of their studies. A summary of their pre-911 claims is here:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling#a022793skilling

[AZCat]

174. Did they conduct separate studies or are they describing the same study?

Too bad NIST couldn't find the study(ies), but I'm not surprised that an engineering firm would throw away an old analysis.

[bottomtheweaver]

179. Separate, and this was not a garage remodel.

Two separate studies of a prominent, significant engineering achievement weren't tossed out with the coffee grounds. Come on.

[BeFree]

181. I wonder

If in their study they even surmised that most of the fuel would explode on impact, creating the huge fireballs we saw.

[bottomtheweaver]

183. I do too.

They clearly considered the fuel, as Skilling said in 1993, but whether it blew up outside or burned inside, there's just not that much damage it could do. There's not that much damage a plane could do, either. Unlike most highrises, the WTC did not use "curtain wall" construction, and the exterior columns were quite robust and structurally redundant. In fact that's one of the reasons the towers were financial failures -- the windows were too small.

In any case, I think the fireballs were basically special effects, because I don't think airliners actually hit either tower.

[BeFree]

188. I have a hard time..

....wrapping my head around that. From everything I have seen planes hit the towers.

As for they fireballs being special effects.. that is possible.

But the point is that one way or another, most of the jet-fuel burned up outside the building.

[Ghost in the Machine]

195. Thanks for the quote & link, bottomtheweaver...

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

39. Please show me!

Any other steel framed high rise that's ever completely collapsed from fire.
You say, "Some buildings do indeed collapse because of fire. " Yes wood framed buildings do!

[BeFree]

42. Yes

That is what I meant. Some wood framed buildings do. They are buildings too. I just wanted to make clear that we were talking about superior, fire proof rated structures such as those towers.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. That have been struck by airliners

causing significant structural damage by removing load bearing perimeter columns and had their passive and active fire surpression systems (which is critical to any "fire proof rating") disrupted.

[wildbilln864]

69. The "significant structural damage"...

was only at the areas of impact.
The buildings below that area were undamaged structurally.
The NIST says the fire caused the collapse of #7. An expanded steel beam exposed to excessive heat. But we know that's bullshit! Well one of us does anyway.

[AZCat]

71. No, you THINK it is bullshit.

The rest of us think you don't know what you are talking about.

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. Obviously

You apparently think that once the collapse began at the point of failure (areas of impact) the building would not have collapsed.

You apparently know much more than NIST.

[BeFree]

76. Well

The buildings certainly were touted to be as I described. Looks like that was bullshit? They were badly designed? That the towers, despite the claims, could not stand an airliner hit? And the design was susceptible to failure from fire?

Ya know, there is a theory that your assertions do support. That theory says that the buildings were doomed to fail. And so they had to find a way to take the buildings down without too much cost.

You do realize that is basically what yall are arguing for?

Put on your critical thinkin' hats fellas, you are arguing the case for controlled demolition and I doubt you want to do THAT.

[vincent_vega_lives]

86. Touted?

Where and by whom were they "touted"?

No where does it say "badly designed" but a design compromise.

They stood an airliner hit. And ANY design is suseptible to a bad enough fire, especially one that involves a failure of fire surpression measures, failure of any fire fighting effort, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel. NONE of which the designers of the buildings anticipated.

You are completely off base with your assertion that this argument ammounts to the buildings being "doomed to fail."

[BeFree]

90. According to yall

The buildings failed to take a hit by an airliner.

They also failed the fire test.

If you guys think that, what makes you think the engineers didn't already know that the buildings were doomed? If you are right, that design compromises were a problem, then it reinforces the theory that they knew the buildings would have to come down one day. And of course in current day economics: The cheaper the better.

In fact the owners of the buildings didn't pay anything to have the buildings demolished. Fact is they made money.

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. Who is "yall"

The building both took the hit by an airliner and stood. They performed as designed.

What the designers didn't account for is a complete failure of the fire prevention measures due to the aircraft strikes.

[BeFree]

92. Well, TTT

There is an argument that the fires were not strong enough, or hot enough to cause collapse. A very good argument, and one that is hard to prove because the steel was carted off. Why did they cart it off? Does that surprise you? Have you ever heard of carting off the evidence before an investigation could be made?

And there is the firemens' report that the fires were going to be bought under control very easily. Are you calling them liars?

Oh, do you have a source for- "...designers didn't account for is a complete failure of the fire prevention measures due to the aircraft strikes." ?? Something besides the NIST??

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Carting off

"before investigation could be made?"

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#metal

And there is the firemens' report that the fires were going to be bought under control very easily. Are you calling them liars?

I know the NIST is the big bad cover-upper. :eyes:
Nope I am calling you confused.

[Kalun D]

115. Pics

The 5 pics you post look like way less than one percent of the total steel, and some of the pics even look like the same stuff from a different angle.

That's like saying you have a body for autopsy, but you really only have the end of one little finger.

[vincent_vega_lives]

135. Of COURSE

They needed to test ALL the steel right? Holy crap too bad you werent available to tell them that! I'm sure they would have appreciated your expert analysis! They only had the LITTLE FINGER! Darn it!

[BeFree]

114. Family questions

Seems I'm not the only one who knows about the steel being carted off.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/giuliani31804.html

1. A few short weeks after 9/11, tons of metal from the collapsed twin towers was sold to scrap yards in New Jersey. Thereafter, the steel was re-sold to other recyclers in the United States and overseas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the “scrap” has ended up in India, Japan, South Korea, China and Malaysia.

It is the FSC’s position that the thousands of pounds of debris was crime-scene evidence. It should have been examined, catalogued, and stored in a secure location.

Why were the steel beams sold and shipped overseas and not retained as evidence? Was the material examined before it was sent overseas? If examined, then by whom? Were any diagnostic studies/tests performed? If not, then why? Whose responsibility was this?

Former FBI Acting Director Thomas Pickard said that the FBI wanted to take over Ground Zero and make it a crime scene as was done at the Pentagon. If that had occurred all materials from the scene would have been protected until an investigation was complete. Pickard also stated that you, Mayor Giuliani, would not allow the FBI access to the pit area. Is this accurate? If so, then what was your reason for keeping the nation’s chief investigatory team—the FBI, out of Ground Zero?

[vincent_vega_lives]

136. There was some initial conflict regarding GZ

Crime investigation vs rescue and recovery operations. If you could THINK you would realize the conflict.

NIST Looked at ALL the steel in those scrap yards and marked the ones they wanted to keep for analysis.

[BeFree]

151. So

You are calling the FSC ignorant? Saying they don't know what they are talking about? I take their word over yours every day and any day.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. No and No

None of the WTC towers collapsed soley due to fire.

The towers were the strongest structures ever engineered.

What is the basis for that statement? Everything I have seen about their engineering mentions significant compromise in favor of increased space and light construction in order to reduce cost and increase revenue.

[Bonobo]

4. Not a refutation by any means.

Merely an obnoxious, childish personal attack (as I expected).

You seem to take it as a personal affront that anyone would be so "self-righteous" as to not accept the official story.

You are overly defensive by half. And it shows where your head is at, my friend. Indeed it shows much more than I suspect you wanted to.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. no supported assertions in the OP. ergo nothing to rebut

But if it's a flame war you wanted, hey, go wild.

[Bonobo]

7. I have to support the obvious?

That a building which is designed to bear loads will want to fall along the path of least resistance needs to be refuted? LOL!

Why not ask for supporting evidence for gravity while you are at it?

[jberryhill]

8. "Why not ask for supporting evidence for gravity while you are at it?"

My understanding is that gravity pulls straight down. But I gather what is "obvious" to you is that when the load bearing mechanism of a building fails, then by necessity the building takes some kind of detour.

[Bonobo]

9. No...

The "load bearing mechanism" is not a single thing, but rather multiple things. If it fails in one place, I would expect to see a collapse in that location (asymmetrical).

To put it simply, a building is a rectangular shaped, supported by a rectangular shaped core of load-bearing columns, correct? If one of those failed, it would cause the structure to begin to fall, yes, but the fall would be asymmetrical, and that asymmetry would tend to increase as fall progressed.

So a "detour"?, no. But in order to achieve the perfect symmetry, wouldn't all the load-bearing structures have to fail at the same time?

[jberryhill]

10. "in order to achieve the perfect symmetry" and "same time"

Ah... the "perfect symmetry".... of what?





People who actually study building failure, instead of asserting received truths like Aristotle, use the term "progressive collapse". Look into it.

[Bonobo]

14. I think the photos support my question.

Especially the 2nd one.

When the top of the 2nd tower begins to lean, it should be bringing an asymmetrical load down on top of the floors below it. It is the weight of the upper floors, you must recall, that is pointed to as the reason for the "pancaking" effect. But as you can see from the picture, it should not and cannot be bearing down symmetrically on the floors below it. So the question must become. why did it fall as it did?

[AZCat]

33. You have to be careful with the term "pancaking".

There are two different, distinct uses with respect to the collapse of the twin towers. One describes the original (now superceded) hypothesis of collapse initiation and the other describes a mechanism during collapse.

[Bonobo]

34. I am referring to the 'during' collapse mechanism.

The pancaking during the fall means that the floors above struck all four corners (an oversimplification) of the 3-dimensional rectangular structure that is the building. This caused a very (considering the tallness of the bldgs) symmetrical and precise collapse nearly perfectly downward, and at nearly free-fall speeds.

To me, this implies that each floor, with its own independent load bearing structure, offered very little resistance and failed to do what it was built to do = bear loads on top of it.

I just don't see how this same type of collapse could likely have occurred 3 times in such a similar manner given the fact that each building was hit in a different way and fell under different conditions. This type of collapse has not been seen in other tall buildings that burned, right? Why? What was different? I think that is an appropriate question and a fair one.

[achtung_circus]

37. Well

To me, this implies that each floor, with its own independent load bearing structure, offered very little resistance and failed to do what it was built to do = bear loads on top of it.

Check static versus dynamic loading.

[Bonobo]

38. I understand the principle that successive loads will behave differently than a single one.

Still doesn't explain why those 3 buildings behaved so much like each other despite the different conditions leading to the collapses, and:

why WT7 behaved so differently than other buildings. Was WT7 fire or not? Or was it fire AND structural damage to one side? Then why so symmetrical? Why so similar to 1 & 2?

[achtung_circus]

40. "successive loads will behave differently than a single one."

does not equal static versus dynamic. Try again.

"Still doesn't explain why those 3 buildings behaved so much like each other despite the different conditions leading to the collapses,"

How so? That they ended up as piles of rubble? While you are Googling "static versus dynamic" take the opportunity to check the phenomenon known as "gravity".

"why WT7 behaved so differently than other buildings."

But you said "those 3 buildings behaved so much like each other". I sense confusion.

"Was WT7 fire or not? Or was it fire AND structural damage to one side? Then why so symmetrical?"
What symmetry? That gravity thing again?

"Why so similar to 1 & 2?"

But you said "those 3 buildings behaved so much like each other". I sense confusion.
(not often I get to copy and paste, but it applies here)

[Bonobo]

41. I am not confused about what you imply.

I meant that 1, 2 and 7 behave like each other despite dissimilar conditions, but unlike other buildings that catch fire but do not collapse.

As for the tone of your post, I am beginning to get a whiff of the same kind of bullying/shaming tactics that I prefer to avoid further use of.

No need for snarkiness, pal. We're both humans and, unless your ego is really wrapped in this, I would prefer responses without it. Or none at all is also fine.

[achtung_circus]

44. But I am totally confused by what you mean...

i.e.

I meant that 1, 2 and 7 behave like each other despite dissimilar conditions, but unlike other buildings that catch fire... but do not collapse.

like
like in a pile?

dissimilar conditions
i.e. fire and initial structural damage?

other buildings that catch fire
but do not suffer initial structural impact damage?

burning buildings do not collapse.
....but do not collapse...

[Bonobo]

48. Your post is kind of cute. I like the nice simple-looking photo you used to make a point.

It reminded me of a lot of the media these days. Avoid complexities by reducing things to a truth that is easier on the brain than having to think. Cherry picking things to pick on so as to sidetrack a argument.

I am less interested in those things, so I will leave our conversation there. You have not addressed the core of my op.

[Kalun D]

78. Here's an Architect

that does address the core of your OP, Richard Gage,

and 700 architects and engineers along with him

POST

[SDuderstadt]

79. Nice try, dude...

But, if you'd bother to actually go through the list of "700 architects and engineers", you'll find that Gage is grossly misrepresenting the number.

[Kalun D]

126. LOLZ

"if you'd bother to actually go through the list of "700 architects and engineers", you'll find that Gage is grossly misrepresenting the number."

according to who? Someone who thinks building 7 was "engulfed in flames for much of the day"?

[SDuderstadt]

127. It's rather silly to claim that WTC 7 was not on fire for hours before it...

finally fell, but I wouldn't expect a "truther" to do otherwise.

As to Gage's claim about "700 architects and engineers", the information is right on his website. I challenge you to go there and confirm Gage's claim. What you'll find is his claim of 700 falls far short and that's even if you count "engineers" that are not remotely in a relevant engineering field (like, for example, structural or civil engineering, as opposed to software engineers, etc.). Similarly, the architect claim is equally erroneous, as among that total are counted landscape architects, etc. If you physically go down the list and count those who can be legitimately counted as either an architect or engineer, you'll find the number is way below 700 and, if I remember correctly, is not even 400. Happy counting.

[Kalun D]

129. Claims

It's rather silly to claim that WTC 7 was not on fire for hours before it finally fell

Never said that. What I said was it was not "engulfed in flames for much of the day" as you claimed.

It was never engulfed in flames for even one second.

en·gulf

To swallow up or overwhelm by or as if by overflowing and enclosing

engulf
Verb
1. to immerse, plunge, or swallow up: engulfed by flames

If you were intellectually honest SDuderstadt you would admit you were engaging in hyperbole, exaggerating, because otherwise the sudden collapse of building 7 doesn't seem plausible just because of 1% damage and spot fires on 10 floors.

If you physically go down the list and count those who can be legitimately counted as either an architect or engineer, you'll find the number is way below 700 and, if I remember correctly, is not even 400.

I don't see where he claims he has architects/engineers all in relevant fields. I think the point is of a level of awareness and intelligence.

So please show us your list of architects and engineers names that believe the WTC collapses were just as the gov says.

[SDuderstadt]

145. why don't you take it up with fdny and see if...

they buy your ''spot fires on ten floors'' bullshit. i provided the photographic evidence. you just don't like it and simply try to dismiss it, which is why you aren't taken seriously here.

as far as your rather silly challenge, first of all, even if you give gage the benefit of the doubt and count those with no license numbers listed, as well as those with completely extraneous backgrounds (such as software engineers), gage isn't anywhere near 700. it isn't even 600. it isn't even 500. it isn't even 400. it isn't even 300 (i went back and checked since my previous posting).

by contrast, asce alone has 140,000 + members. do i know where each one of them stands? no, i don't claim to. but, where is the huge outcry from their membership regarding the wtc bpat performed by asce? if gage was able to attract only 1 percent of asce's membership, that would be twice as many as his claimed ''700 architects and engineers'' (which, in reality, isn't even 300). why aren't members of asce joining gage in droves?

more importantly, did you bother to fact-check gage's claim of 700 or did you just uncritically buy his bullshit because it ''supports'' your bullshit? the list comprising the ''700'' is right on his website. do the math yourself and be prepared to be profoundly disappointed in your ''hero''.

[Kalun D]

160. Where is your list of names

Of architects/ engineers that support the OCT?

[SDuderstadt]

170. What a stupid fucking question....n/t

[Kalun D]

161. Show us where

"why don't you take it up with fdny and see if they buy your ''spot fires on ten floors'' bullshit. "

show us where the FDNY says building 7 was "engulfed in flames for much of the day"

do you have some kind of problem with the definition of "engulfed"?

maybe you would like to throw your definition out there, contact dictionary dot com and see if you can get it changed

"i provided the photographic evidence."

You provided photo evidence of fires on part of one floor. Would you like me to re-post the photos?

[SDuderstadt]

171. Yeah, why don't you "re-post the photos"....

Make sure you include the ones showing smoke billowing from every floor, then try to make the case that WTC 7 was not engulfed in flames. This is getting dumber by the moment.

[Kalun D]

189. Engulfed in Smoke

Some of your photos showed that sides of the building were engulfed in smoke.

The building itself was never even engulfed in smoke. Much less fire.

Unless you're going to change the definition of "engulf"

LOLZ, First you deny the definition of "engulf"

Now you're going to say smoke is fire.

[SDuderstadt]

173. You're such a glutton for punishment

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

" The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak
"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.


First responder accounts

Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.


1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank . He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49


12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it.

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. " There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook

(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.

He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.

Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.

Q: Would that be towards West Street?

A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe

28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: " The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)

30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html

31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm


Well. so much for your bullshit claim that there were just "spot fires". I don't know why you insist on embarrassing yourself over and over. I have a great idea. Why don't you go toe-to-toe with FDNY (which lost over 300 members on 9/11" and tell them they are lying about WTC being fully engulfed in fire and that there were really just "spot fires". Let me know how that goes.

[Kalun D]

190. Nice cut and paste

"in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors"

" Photographer Steve Spak...All forty-seven stories were on fire."

So which is it SDuderstadt? 16 floors or 47 floors?

sounds like just more exaggeration to me, just like the twisting of the definition of "engulf"

So how come none of the photos of building 7 show what these guys are saying?

Were they all on the side that was engulfed in smoke? Maybe they did think it was all flames because it was all smoke?

How come NONE of the photos show FLAMES from every floor?

Here's one guy that was obviously mistaken.

""25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor.""

So Sduderstadt, would you agree that the whole south side of Seven had been hit? Or just one corner? Didn't you post a photo of just one corner being hit?

Where's the photo of the entire south side damaged? That happened early on and all the news crews in New York state were nearby, how come no photos of the entire south side damaged and fire from every floor?

So this FDNY was mistaken? An honest mistake no doubt, with all the trauma of the day.

So others couldn't have been mistaken as well about all floors on fire, because one whole side was hidden by smoke?

[SDuderstadt]

193. "Nice cut and paste"

What did you expect me to do? Retype all the FDNY comments about the WTC 7 fires? Duh.

"in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors"

" Photographer Steve Spak...All forty-seven stories were on fire."

So which is it SDuderstadt? 16 floors or 47 floors?

Nice false dilemma. I can see how the phrase "at least" could throw you off. You do understand the meaning of "at least", right? Are you claiming that the two statements contradict each other? They don't even conflict, unless you take "at least" to mean "no more than", but that wouldn't surprise me.

So how come none of the photos of building 7 show what these guys are saying?

Were they all on the side that was engulfed in smoke? Maybe they did think it was all flames because it was all smoke?

How come NONE of the photos show FLAMES from every floor?

Oh, I don't know...how about with the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, no one was paying that much attention to WTC 7 and, in fact, many people did not learn of WTC 7 until much later.

Here's one guy that was obviously mistaken.

""25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor.""

So Sduderstadt, would you agree that the whole south side of Seven had been hit? Or just one corner? Didn't you post a photo of just one corner being hit?

No, dude...I posted a picture that showed extensive damage to the SW corner. How you get from that to that it excludes other parts of the building from being hit is beyond me. If you're trying to infer from the picture that the south side wasn't hit, I think you need a basic class in something, because the picture doesn't show the south side of the building. It shows the west side of the building. Now, think real hard. If the photo of the damage to the SW corner shows that corner on the right hand side of the picture, the corner to the left would have to be the NW corner, so you're looking at the west side and the south side is not visible save for the corner.

Hmmm, that was also the side that was billowing smoke from every floor, so does it surprise you that there don't appear to be a lot of photos of damage to the south side? Even funnier is your claim that the building is merely "engulfed in smoke". Where is that smoke coming from if not from fires? How in the world would that much smoke come from "spot fires"?

[Kalun D]

196. A picture is worth a thousand words

Since you're so intent on there being damage to one whole side of the building and the building "consumed in flames"

PLEASE SHOW US THE PICTURES

damage to the whole south side of seven

the building engulfed in FLAMES, not smoke. FLAMES

put up or shut up

[SDuderstadt]

197. Dude...if the south side is engulfed in smoke...

how is there supposed to be a picture of the underlying damage?


Where is the smoke coming from, Kalun? Did someone set off a smoke bomb on every floor? Did someone sneak into a burning building and install a smoke machine?

Will you ever quit moving the goalposts? Earlier, you challenged me to provide evidence of FDNY saying that WTC 7 was engulfed in flames. I did exactly that and your fallback position was something to the effect, "well, they're all mistaken".

Now, where is YOUR evidence that there were only "spot fires"? Otherwise, I think reasonable people will take the FDNY's word over yours. Just a guess on my part.

[Kalun D]

207. PHOTOGRAPHY

how is there supposed to be a picture of the underlying damage?

Here's 2 good pics of it. It looks like lots of windows gone, but much of the cladding is intact. No open flames and not much smoke blackening. There is a lot of smoke but un-accelerated fires generally have a lot more smoke than fire.

Where is the smoke coming from?

un-accelerated fires? It's common knowledge that un-accelerated fires produce more smoke than fire. If the wind was blowing right the smoke in most of these pictures could have come from just a couple of floors burning at one time, like the other windward north side of the building burned.

Here's 2 shots of the south side of the building engulfed in smoke. Note the west side of the building only has smoke damage in just a couple of spots and the rest of the windows are intact indicating no fires in those locations.






Here's 2 shots of the other sides, it's basically just spot fires on these other sides.




Here's a shot right as the collapse starts, so here we have 2 sides that are relatively untouched by fire, hardly any smoke blackening, most of the windows are intact.

Earlier, you challenged me to provide evidence of FDNY saying that WTC 7 was engulfed in flames. I did exactly that and your fallback position was something to the effect, "well, they're all mistaken".

I asked for "engulfed in flames for much of the day" Yes there are several FDNY, especially the higher ups who say "engulfed in flames" or "fully engulfed" But none of the pics available bear this out especially the one right before collapse which shows 2 whole sides relatively unburned. Maybe most of these FDNY were in shock and working the rubble of WTC 1 and 2, and looking over they saw the south face of WTC 7, saw it engulfed in smoke and assumed it was engulfed in flame.

Now, where is YOUR evidence that there were only "spot fires"?

that's what all the pictures show, spot fires and one side engulfed in smoke which easily could have been a few floors with the prevailing wind making the smoke go up that side of the building. Certainly there's no pics of even one side engulfed in flames. You'd think there would be if it had happened. Every news camera in the state of New York was probably in town by the time WTC 7 fell.

The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

LOLZ!!! I guess PHOTOGRAPHER Steve Spak didn't bring his camera that day? And for sure he didn't walk completely around the building cuz then he would have seen the 2 sides that had very little fire damage and mostly intact windows.

Just for PHOTOGRAPHER Steve Spak's reference and anybody else out there that's curious, here's a couple of pics of buildings actually "fully engulfed in flames". Just so they understand what it looks like and what the definition of "fully" and "engulfed" mean. Curious that neither of these buildings that actually were fully engulfed in flames, one of which was built weaker than WTC 7, actually fell.

[SDuderstadt]

178. You can do the math yourself, dude...

download the list of petition signers into Excel, then eliminate the signers who are not, in fact, licensed engineers and architects. You'll find the actual number is less than 300.

[Kalun D]

191. He never claimed

all 700 were licensed Architects and engineers

try to keep up

[SDuderstadt]

194. "He never claimed all 700 were licensed Architects and engineers"

Then what is he claiming? Do you understand how the architectural and engineering professions even work? What is an "unlicensed" architect or engineer? If someone gets a degree in architecture, does that make them an architect? No, it makes them an "architecture graduate". Oh, sure, they can draw plans but they can't do any work that requires licensure nor can they represent themselves to the public as an architect. Now, it's possible that a former engineer or architect could retire and not renew their license and still refer to themselves as such, but only in an emeritus sense.

Now, I would bow to the knowledge of someone here with more experience than me (which isn't you, Kalun), but I don't think I am wrong. In any event, why does Gage then go to the trouble of creating a separate category for those he calls "architectural and engineering professionals" if they can, in fact, actually be referred to as architects or engineers? Why does he have a separate category that he refers to as "unverified architects and engineers"? What does he have to do to verify them? Hint: he verifies that they are licensed.

[AZCat]

103. Richard Gage is an idiot.

Why should I care what an architect thinks about the collapses? Do I ask my doctor what he thinks of national energy policy?

[Kalun D]

124. Architects

Why should I care what an architect thinks about the collapses?

Because he has to design buildings that don't collapse? Therefore he has some idea what it takes to collapse a building?

Because he works hand and hand with engineers? Aren't some architects also engineers?

Do you think Minoru Yamasaki had no concept of what it took to keep the WTC standing?

[Kalun D]

132. Architectural Degree

Everyone who has completed an accredited Architectural program has studied physics, properties of materials, and statics as minimum conditions of receiving a bachelors degree.

[AZCat]

140. That does not mean they are qualified to assess the structure of a building.

I'm not saying there aren't knowledgeable architects out there. I've worked with a few good ones. But their training and experience is not comparable to that of a licensed structural engineer. There's a reason why architects can't stamp structural drawings for buildings of this size.

[Kalun D]

158. Did you read some of the bios?

Did you read some of the bios of all the architects/engineers signed on to Gage's site?

There are some qualified engineers there.

[AZCat]

166. I read through them a year or two ago.

I haven't gone through them in a while, though. I actually work with a member of AE911Truth. Nice guy, pretty good engineer. Doesn't change the fact that Gage is an idiot and unqualified.

[Kalun D]

184. But some qualified people

Believe in what he's saying, that we need to take a closer look because the official story is lacking.

[AZCat]

61. Your question is very appropriate.

But in order to understand the analysis and eventual answers (or reasons that some questions can't be answered), one must have a decent grasp of the basics. It doesn't appear you have what is required. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it wouldn't be very smart to expect to have an informative discussion about engineering if you don't understand the terminology or the concepts.

[Bonobo]

62. Not insulted, but I find your post unnecessarily dismissive.

I am intelligent enough to have learned many things in life. One of them is to speak and read fluent Japanese.
I know I am intelligent, so I am not offended. But I am disappointed that you will take the time to hurl insults and snark, but not to try to seriously offer information.

[AZCat]

63. You seem to think I've been insulting.

I think I've only been pointing out the obvious. Perhaps you should reread your OP before you start accusing others of being insulting and snarky? And why must I now be responsible for your education? If you weren't capable of obtaining and digesting easily accessible information prior to your posting the OP, why should I think you'll have any more success absorbing information from my posts?

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. It would seem to me

you are FAR more concerned with not feeling insulted than any attempt to understand what occured.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. The asymmetric failure of enough perimeter

columns due to the impact and subsequent fire caused the tilt. The tilt compromised ALL the core columns and ALL the remaining perimeter columns all at once...SIMULTANEOUSLY causing the upper floors to fall on the lower floors all at once.

The building was designed to bear STATIC loads on top of it. Once in motion that load is increased exponentially.

Buildings 1 and 2 fell pretty much the same way and for the same reasons. Building 7 fell a COMPLETELY different way and for COMPLETELY different reasons.

[Fainter]

154. Did The Tower Core Act As A Fulcrum For The Tilting Upper Block? n/t.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. how a building will want to fall?

Jeepers.

[Bonobo]

27. "want".

Your problem is my use of the word "want"?

fig⋅ur⋅a⋅tive   Show IPA
–adjective
1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression.
2. metaphorically so called: His remark was a figurative boomerang.
3. abounding in or fond of figures of speech: Elizabethan poetry is highly figurative.
4. representing by means of a figure or likeness, as in drawing or sculpture.
5. representing by a figure or emblem; emblematic.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. IMO the last thing we need here is more metaphors

I'll leave you to it.

[Bonobo]

36. I thought it was obvious that building do not have volition. Sorry to confuse you. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. indeed it is

I'm not confused. As I said, I think the last thing we need here is more metaphors.

I concede that I've formed views about the motivations of someone who would cite "those who feel threatened by the idea that the world is not as safe as they want to believe it is" and then complain about all the snark in the forum -- but I do update my views.

[AZCat]

12. You are incorrect.

That is not what I find obnoxious about your post, but I don't expect you to understand my point(s). You are already wedded to your conclusions.

[Bonobo]

15. As are you.

It is called cognitive dissonance and I understand it very well. It is a difficult thing to stare into the face of what is so horrible to consider. The mind seeks refuge.

[AZCat]

21. That's pathetic.

Not only are you refusing to see what is plainly evident (that you haven't a fucking clue) but now you're claiming that I'm blind?

I think you need to mind your own problems before diagnosing mine.

[Bonobo]

25. I am done talking to you, Trash Mouth.

[AZCat]

26. You wouldn't have to worry about it if you didn't bring your bullshit in here. n/t

[Bonobo]

28. Wow, discussing 9/11 in the 9/11 forum! How dare I!!!!?

[AZCat]

29. I am more than willing to discuss 9/11-related topics.

I am not willing to let the pile of crap that passes for the OP slide without comment.

[William Seger]

17. If one side of a building fails....

... and the other side doesn't, then yes, it will fall to the side. You're forgetting that second necessary condition. Both towers did indeed start to tip, because one side failed first. But that led to complete horizontal progressive failure. It wasn't "simultaneous." Figure out how long each tower was tipping before it started falling straight down, and you've got the precise time that the horizontal progressive failure took.

"Path of least resistance" applies to electricity, not falling objects. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If there's more resistance than downward force, then things don't fall. You've gotten this "path of least resistance" nonsense from people who don't know what they're talking about.

[Bonobo]

18. Hmm.

Thank you for the post. I will consider the matter again (for the 1,000 time) in light of your post.

[Kalun D]

77. How the buildings fell is not the only issue

Although it's fun to play some conjecture.

First you have to understand some basics.

Buildings like this have something called "design redundancy". In other words they are built multiple times stronger than necessary to remain standing under all possible foreseen conditions.

Some of these foreseen conditions are earthquakes, hurricane force winds, and plane strikes.

I'm guessing it's around an 8.0 earthquake, 150 mph winds, and a fully fueled 707 airplane strike.

Once you've established the strength to withstand these forces, then they add more strength just for good measure to account for things such as material deterioration, imperfect assembly, potential design flaws etc. I believe this is at least double the initial strength to withstand the foreseen forces. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So here we have a building that's about 5 or more times as strong as something that is necessary just to stand there just resisting gravity alone.

Now this building is a very well known piece of construction from an architectural/engineering standpoint, the fully detailed as-built plans are of course still in existence.

And technology today is far beyond what it was when these buildings were built. IOW they can take the as-built WTC plans and build a virtual solid model of the towers on computer. They can then take that virtual model and crash a virtual model of the planes into the buildings at the known speed and angle of impact. All this stuff is very well known down to the one pound, the 1 degree angle, and the 1 mph. This is called FEA, or Finite Element Analysis.

And once you have estimated what damage the planes have done you can go on and establish an estimate of what kind of damage the fires would have done based on the extensive video footage of the volume of the fires. It's all pretty cut and dried scientific fact as to the temps of these types of fires and the strength of these documented types of steel under those temps.

What you will most likely find out is that it was impossible for any of these buildings to fall based on plane strikes and fires alone. And that's what some experts have said from day one just looking at the video footage, it's just too improbable from a seat of the pants engineering perspective.

I'm sure some of those on here will say this FEA has already been done. If it has it's never been made public. There have been some minor little diagrams and simulation video grabs, but the actual computer models have not been made available. Nor have the as-built plans of the building, so someone independent could build the computer models and do the same FEA.

So this leads to how did they fall if not from plane strikes and fire? Well we might now if ALL the evidence had been forensically examined. If every single piece of all the buildings and planes had been taken to a field and painstakingly reconstructed and examined for evidence of things like thermite cutter charges etc. Sort of like when they recovered almost every single piece of TWA flight 800, and that was over water. Of course it can be done. The fact they didn't do this at all is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against them.

They carted off all the evidence as fast as possible to the dump and to steel recycle places in China. Because they didn't want anyone to know what really happened.

but how the buildings fell is not the only issue

Another good question is who?

How did they ID the 19?

How did they establish they boarded the planes?

How did they establish they were in the cockpits?

[Realityhack]

81. LOL

Built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake, and FEA on the entire collision and collapse initiation is easy huh.

"What you will most likely find out is that it was impossible for any of these buildings to fall based on plane strikes and fires alone. And that's what some experts have said from day one just looking at the video footage, it's just too improbable from a seat of the pants engineering perspective."
No they haven't.

[Kalun D]

116. So post the exact correct number then

Otherwise you're just making noise.

The points of the post won't come out any different.

"LOL, Built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake"

note that I said, "guessing it's around an 8.0 earthquake"

The one in China was 7.9 and no skyscrapers fell.

"and FEA on the entire collision and collapse initiation is easy huh"

never said it was easy, just possible to come up with some numbers. Something that the gov has never done.

""And that's what some experts have said from day one just looking at the video footage, it's just too improbable from a seat of the pants engineering perspective.""

"No they haven't."

Just 700 architects and engineers.

[Realityhack]

209. Read the NIST report for the correct numbers. n/t

[Theobald]

84. The information is out there; you just have to take off your blinders to see....

Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses

Forensic Engineering (2003) http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0303235
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to analyze the damage to the structure of each of the WTC Twin Towers due to the high speed impacts of the Boeing 767 airplanes and subsequent fires in order to understand why the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did, and why they ultimately collapsed. The Boeing 767 airplane attacks on WTC 1 and WTC 2 caused immediate and significant structural damage to the towers: In each case, exterior columns were severed and the floor system at the point of impact was damaged. The airplanes broke up during the impact and the resulting projectiles and fragments proceeded to inflict further damage to the cores. Much of the impact damage to the exterior walls of the towers was evident. However, damage to the interiors was not visible and cannot be quantified on the basis of the physical evidence. Dynamic nonlinear explicit finite element FLEX simulations coupled with independently validated airplane crash models were leveraged to understand and assess the structural states of damage to the tower interiors that could not be observed; this includes the degradation or loss of the load carrying capacity of columns and floor assemblies as well as the stripping of fireproofing from structural members. The impact damage to the structures was substantial but so were their reserve capacity and redundancy. Iterative analyses of the load redistribution in the impact damaged towers clearly indicate that the outer tube structures were very effective in developing Vierendeel action around the severed exterior columns and that the outrigger hat trusses provided a substantial redundant load path away from the damaged core columns, thus delaying the eventual collapses of the towers. These analyses also indicate that the damage to the corner of the core in WTC 2 left it in a state more vulnerable to subsequent thermal loads compared to WTC 1. This eccentric damage, more than the height of the airplane impact, resulted in a shorter time to collapse for WTC 2, considering that the estimated fire environments in both towers were not meaningfully different.

[Kalun D]

117. That is called "text"

I'm looking for a solid model. Does ASCE sell that? Or do we just take their word that they built a complete accurate solid model?

It's just like I said, it's claimed to have been done, but it's not available to the public.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Why don't you read the fucking ASCE report...

instead of asking stupid questions?

[Theobald]

205. Move the goals posts much?

You make statements, I prove you are wrong, and you make new inacurrate statements. This is looking rather pathetic for you.

You claimed that the FEA wasn't made available to the public and I showed you that it was available to the public. Now you are saying you want a solid model, but I've already showed you where a solid model is available, but you are too ignorant to understand that, so my job is impossilbe.

You are saying it isn't available to the public, but I showed you where it is available, or are you suggesting that the Washington Post not available to the public because they charge 75 cents an issue.

[Theobald]

85. Knowledge is power

Kalun D "I'm guessing it's around an 8.0 earthquake, 150 mph winds, and a fully fueled 707 airplane strike."

Why are you guessing the information is out there for all to see:

2006 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE / SEI 7-05 http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0500267

[Realityhack]

94. FWIW the towers were not built in 2006 so they would not meet those codes. n/t

[Theobald]

100. Technically you are correct

But in reality in doesn't matter because since the towers were built in 1966 building codes have gotten stricter. Therefor the minimum design loads would have been less than they are now but still not equal to the shit he pulled out of his ass.

[AZCat]

104. The NIST report compared various code requirements...

including contemporary building codes. It's quite an interesting read.

[Realityhack]

208. You are quite right.

I didn't mean to argue against your point. Only point out for those who don't have the reasoning skills that you were pulling codes that are much more recent that the ones it was actually built to.

[Kalun D]

118. Yeah

I'll purchase that right away.

Wait, it's meaningless without access to the as-built WTC plans.

and besides I thought the WTC was built before 2006?

I made perfectly clear I was using rough estimates, if you have something more accurate, why don't you post it instead of just making noise about something that has to be purchased and is way off on the date.

[Theobald]

88. Being published in a peer reviewed journal and being available for sale on the web, constitutes.....

...never being made public?

Kalun "I'm sure some of those on here will say this FEA has already been done. If it has it's never been made public"

You are either ignorant or a liar. You either know tat the finite element analysis has been published and you are lying about that knowledge or you will now have to admit you are wrong because the FEA has been published and it has been peer reviewed.

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires

by A. S. Usmani, (Sr. Lect., School of Engrg. and Electronics, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, UK)

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 131, No. 6, June 2005, pp. 654-657, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:6(654))

Download fulltext
Purchase Subscription
Permissions for Reuse
View Issue Table of Contents

Document type: Technical Note
Abstract: This technical note presents the results from a nonlinear finite element analysis of a very simple two dimensional model of the World Trade Center Twin-Towers structural frame subjected to fire. The analysis was carried out for a large range of fire scenarios and was reported in detail in a recently published paper. The paper further investigates the results of this analysis to obtain the details of the collapse mechanism found. An interesting series of events leading progressively to overall collapse are discovered and described in detail. The main reason for the failure is found to be the low membrane capacity in compression of the composite steel truss and concrete deck slab floor system.

The results of 9/11 also have led to more studies into how fire interacts with buildings; including the following peer reviewed papers:

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building

by Qing Zhou, (Prof., State Key Lab. of Automotive Safety and Energy, Dept. of Automotive Engrg., Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, 100084, China. E-mail: [e-mail]) and T. X. Yu, (Head and Prof., Dept. of Mech. Engrg., Hong Kong Univ. of Sci. and Technol., Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: [e-mail])

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 130, No. 10, October 2004, pp. 1177-1187, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:10(1177))

Download fulltext
Purchase Subscription
Permissions for Reuse
View Issue Table of Contents

Document type: Journal Paper
Abstract: The World Trade Center collapse has brought attention to progressive collapse of tall buildings and the study of possible countermeasures. From the viewpoint of energy transfer, this analysis explains why the collapse could not stop by itself once began. By introducing a design parameter called collapse stability index that controls design against progressive collapse, it is found that conventional design of a tall building usually leads to an inherently unstable structure in the event of a progressive collapse. In a subsequent feasibility study in this paper, a heavy-duty metal-based honeycomb energy absorbing structure is proposed. Using a finite element analysis, it is demonstrated that the structure is capable of absorbing potential energy released in a tall building collapse. The added energy absorbing devices will only occupy a small percentage of the total floor space. By properly designing and installing such devices, a progressive collapse, should it happen in a tall building, may be arrested within a few floors, and hence, the building is inherently stable to the progressive collapse. The theory is also elaborated with the example of the World Trade Center collapse.



Fire and Concrete Structures

by David N. Bilow and Mahmoud E. Kamara

pp. 1-10, (doi 10.1061/41016(314)299)

Download fulltext
Purchase Subscription
Permissions for Reuse

Document type: Conference Proceeding Paper
Part of: Crossing Borders
Abstract: After the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center, interest in the design of structures for fire greatly increased. Some engineers have promoted the use of advanced analytical models to determine fire growth within a compartment and have used finite element models of structural components to determine temperatures within a component by heat transfer analysis. Following the calculation of temperatures, the mechanical properties at various times during the period of the fire must be determined. This paper provides structural engineers with a summary of the complex behavior of structures in fire and the simplified techniques which have been used successfully for many years to design concrete structures to resist the effects of severe fires.

[Kalun D]

120. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Document type: Technical Note
Abstract: This technical note presents the results from a nonlinear finite element analysis of a very simple two dimensional model of the World Trade Center Twin-Towers structural frame subjected to fire.

NEWS FLASH!!!! Accurate affordable 3-D solid modeling has been available since about the mid 90's.

A "very simple two dimensional model" is an ABSOLUTE JOKE if you're doing any kind of even rudimentary FEA with today's technology.

2D plans won't even load into most FEA modelers that are out there. What did they do go to a history museum for their technology?

Only "subjected to fire"? No mention of the planes?

You'd think a big official study would have done a full build of an exact 3D solid model, after all the plans and technology are readily available. Why a "very simple 2-D model"? Unless you don't really want to know what happened?

this analysis explains why the collapse could not stop by itself once began.

But no mention of how it began.

LOL, no-ones denying it's not going to stop once it starts.

Thanks, you just posted the evidence that this "analysis" is not at all extensive, and saved me the trouble of digging up these details. I'd heard that this "study" was weak, but I didn't know it was this bad, and now I've seen the evidence that shows it is.

Fire and Concrete Structures

LOLZ, are you sure you cut and pasted the right article there Theobald?

I thought the WTC was a steel building?

[Kalun D]

128. FEA Solids Modeling

you are wrong because the FEA has been published and it has been peer reviewed....

Document type: Technical Note
Abstract: This technical note presents the results from a nonlinear finite element analysis of a very simple two dimensional model of the World Trade Center Twin-Towers structural frame subjected to fire. The analysis was carried out for a large range of fire scenarios and was reported in detail in a recently published paper. The paper further investigates the results of this analysis to obtain the details of the collapse mechanism found. An interesting series of events leading progressively to overall collapse are discovered and described in detail. The main reason for the failure is found to be the low membrane capacity in compression of the composite steel truss and concrete deck slab floor system.

The results of 9/11 also have led to more studies into how fire interacts with buildings; including the following peer reviewed papers:

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building....

Uhh according to what you just posted it doesn't say the FEA has been peer reviewed, that's the articles that follow which are studies of what to do in the future.

I actually have 2 different packages of 3D solids software, one of them includes an FEA package.

The WTC is a relatively simple construction compared to some things in the mechanical realm like airplanes.

I challenge you to go on an architectural/engineering forum somewhere and tell them you are going to do FEA on a "very simple two dimensional model" and see how fast you get laughed out of the place. Modern FEA is 3D solids only.

Honestly Theobald, did you not even read what you cut and pasted? Or did you somehow think that I wasn't going to read it?

[AZCat]

149. I work for an architectural/engineering firm.

They do FEA on very simple two dimensional models. I have done very simple two dimensional FEA simulations (not structural though - thermal, which is a pain in the ass). A complex 3D model isn't always required. Does this mean they don't do them? No, but why put all the work into the model when it's just window dressing?

[Kalun D]

156. What is more accurate?

What is more accurate?

FEA on a very simple 2D model?

FEA on an exact 3D model?

If FEA on exact 3D models is commonly done. Why is it not relevant to know in the most accurate way available how the towers came down?

Or do you just want a simple, outdated, less than full accuracy way of telling what happened? Well I guess you would if you didn't really want to know what happened.

"They do FEA on very simple two dimensional models."

What FEA software package does structural simulations on 2D? (LOL!)

Tell Boeing, who's done their last 2 jets entirely on THREE DIMENSIONAL computer programs, that all their THREE DIMENSIONAL FEA is "just window dressing"!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

[AZCat]

165. That's not a very good question to ask.

The right question is "what is more appropriate?" Detailed 3D models take time and sometimes the answer doesn't require that high of fidelity, especially if you have to make a lot of assumptions when creating the model. In fact, I recommend against using 3D modeling for certain types of problems (highly nonlinear problems, for example). Just because you get a nice picture/animation doesn't mean the result is accurate. Boeing knows this, which is why they actually test their designs before going into production.

Not all FEA is commercial - I've written my own stuff and so has the structural department.

[Kalun D]

186. So answer the question.

What is more appropriate to model the impact damage, the fires, and the collapse of the WTC?

An FEA of an exact fully detailed 3D model of the WTC?

or

An FEA of "a very simple two dimensional model"

"Just because you get a nice picture/animation doesn't mean the result is accurate. Boeing knows this, which is why they actually test their designs before going into production."

So before Boeing breaks off the wings, do they do a 2D FEA on "a very simple two dimensional model"?

or

A 3D FEA on a fully detailed exact model of the plane?

ROTFLMAO!!

Boeing does real world testing after FEA because it's always done, regardless of the type of FEA.

"Detailed 3D models take time and sometimes the answer doesn't require that high of fidelity"

The worst attack ever and we don't have the time? How long did it take the whitewash commission to release their report?

The worst attack ever and you don't want high fidelity analysis?

What do you want then LOW FIDELITY? Well of course you do if it serves to hide the truth.

[Kalun D]

187. Questions?

"That's not a very good question to ask."

So questions that you can't answer are not good ones to ask?

What about your claim that the highly accurate FEA of a "very simple two dimensional model" was peer reviewed?

According to what you posted it's not peer reviewed?

How valid is an FEA of a "very simple two dimensional model" if it's not peer reviewed?

[Fainter]

172. Do You Have Any Video Evidence Which...

shows the sequential horizontal failure of the uppermost floor in the lower block beginning at the damaged area and spreading outwards to encompass the whole of the floor BEFORE the onset of global simultaneous vertical collapse of the stories below? You seem to be arguing that there was no measure of vertical failure until the complete failure (albeit progressive and horizontal) of the uppermost floor was achieved. I say you don't have any video evidence of this mechanism or we would have seen it by now. I say the clouds of pulverized debris totally obscure the crux of failure and that this notion of progressive horizontal failure leading to immediate global and simultaneous vertical collapse is a mere assumption in service of your computer model for which you can adduce no supporting visual evidence akin to the visible "kink" in 7's roofline.

[friend of bobobo]

46. I must partially correct you Bonobo

The THREE buildings did indeed fall symmetrically at free-fall acceleration through what should have been the path of greatest resistance.
WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT fall "into their footprint".
In fact, enormous steel columns were thrust out as far as 600 ft away from the footprint of the buildings with enough energy to embed themselves in nearby buildings in many cases.
A gravity driven collapse cannot account for such massive columns being thrown that far out.
Like most engineering/scientific topics, www.ae911truth.org has the best analysis/data on this topic, and I would welcome comments from anyone who can dispute their findings/hypotheses with real data or sound engineering arguments.

[achtung_circus]

49. friend of bobobo

Hi.

[AZCat]

50. Not really.

AE911Truth has not distiguished itself particularly in any engineering topics, much less 9/11-specific discussions.

[wildbilln864]

70. Very good points to remember friend of bobobo...

and welcome to the DUngeon, BTW. :hi:

[ryan_cats]

89. If all three fell into their own footprints...

If all three fell into their own footprints, then why is there damage to several buildings in the complex? Building 7 got hit by something so I would say, based on those minor details, you are wrong.

None of them fell at free fall speeds. There's the famous photo of the WTC crushing the Mariott hotel yet the rest of the top part of the building is still falling and the core lasted a couple of seconds longer than the rest of the building.
When calculating building 7, you need to start at the penthouse collapse, not when the kink in the building occurs.