Technical question on WTC collapse

[fuzzylogix]

Hello Friends,
there is nothing unsuspecting or even surprising if a fueled up Plane hits the WTC Tower and cause its collapse.
The effect of the energy to wreck the structural integrity was not immediate visable but given some time to heat up the loadbearing members the collapse was exactly what anyone with the expertise of steel structures would expect.

No mystery at all.

Unlike other skyscraper this type had the main loadbearing columns on the exterior; the initial damage
did not cause the collapse but like a chair with one leg broken still standing.
But as the intense release of jetfuel and combustables heated up the other sofar unaffected columns the collapse of the affected floors was just amatter of time to elevate temperatures in the steel to the critical point of failure.
All steel strutures(columns) are encased in fireproofing(concrete, insulation) good to last for the safe evacuation of peoples and prevent total structural failure in case of ordinary fire.
But the huge impact and intense heat was no match and is not practical to design for. Unless you consider WWII Concrete Bunkers.
Remember all floors above are still supported by the structure in the damaged floors and acting like a
Millstone on someone drowning.
The collapse started with the impact and weight of the above floors loads crushing the damaged and weakend floors; the inertia caused by this huge mass almost free falling caused the next floor below to collapse, and so on.... but with increasing speed and destructive power. Just like a Domino setup but vertically.
I remember the topfloors just coming down in one piece and slanted for a while with the antenna still visible.

The first tower was hit higher up with less load above impact zone ;so it took much more time to weaken the structure to the point of failure. Not so for the second Tower.

Bin Laden by the way was trained in (structural?)engineering; he shure knew how to do it.

nelk

I fully agree that the planes COULD have caused the towers to fall, and the collapse could have been an easy collapse depending on the buildings construction.

BUT, it is amazingly LUCKY if both towers did indeed fall unaided in a vertical implosion into their bases having been hit unevenly creating irregular forces and not an evenly distributed force downwards onto the base. One would have expected the tops of the towers to tilt sideways as is actually seen on video and then eventually fall off sideways.

 

[Johnny Utah]

I fully agree that the planes COULD have caused the towers to fall, and the collapse could have been an easy collapse depending on the buildings construction.

BUT, it is amazingly LUCKY if both towers did indeed fall unaided in a vertical implosion into their bases having been hit unevenly creating irregular forces and not an evenly distributed force downwards onto the base. One would have expected the tops of the towers to tilt sideways as is actually seen on video and then eventually fall off sideways.

The Open design of the WTC Towers was ultimately it's downfall. The Fire had room inside to grown and feed off office furniture etc which lead to the exposed steel support columns inside to start losing it's integrity. If the WTC Towers were built like a regular building would they have collapsed? Who knows, what is known is when the Towers were being built there was a FDNY Fire Chief who was concerned the so-called Fire Protection on the Steel support collums were not safe enough and he was proven right..

 

[I think not]

slightly off-topic but interesting now that the towers are now known only by the order in which they were hit. I assume before they had named like a and b or east and west or something

The North Tower (first hit) was designated WTC1. The South Tower (second hit) was designated WTC2.

Both had these designations prior to 9/11. There were a total of 7 buildings designated WTC1 to WTC7 all destroyed.

Hermann

I thought they were One and Two.... but cannot be certain.....

Where is I Think Not when we need him? Our resident New Yorker.

At your service.

 

[I think not]

Puffs, he describes them as airs, it is just impossible he lost his credibility right there.

Of course he lost his credibilty, you're a renown scientitst the world over. Who the hell does he think he is spewing garbage like that? A chief engineer for the NIST? Sheesh, the audacity!

 

[Johnny Utah]

These photos were taken at Ground Zero, the World Trade Center site in New York, on September 13, 2001.

They were taken by someone named "Ed" who was allowed into the area by a member of the emergency response crew, at a time when all civilians -- including most journalists -- were forbidden to enter the area. As a result, these photos are just about the only close-ups ever taken of the World Trade Center site so soon after the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

These photos show how the WTC Towers came apart..

 

[CDNBear]

By the looks of things, the towers only came straight down for a bit before they sort of exploded outward near the end. So much for the controlled demo idea.

 

[Hotshot]

Hey poop for brains...are you really that stupid?......

And for the record, get your name calling "straight".."Yanks" are people who live in the section of this country called NEW ENGLAND...I have never even been to New England,let alone being from there...so please get it right before you spew your uneducated nonsense............

A aphorism attributed to E.B. White summarizes these distinctions:
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American. To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner. To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast

 

[Curiosity]

Hmmm but Hotshot

The difficulty here is to define what is "American"....today's denizen of the United States of America.

 

[Toro]

Of course he lost his credibilty, you're a renown scientitst the world over. Who the hell does he think he is spewing garbage like that? A chief engineer for the NIST? Sheesh, the audacity!

If only he were a philosophy professor, then he'd Foiler cred.

 

[blogbart]

Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
By Kevin Ryan (formerly of Underwriters Laboratories but fired for speaking out about 911)

March 28,2006

NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load.

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

 

[blogbart]

Very detailed description of WTC attacks incl pix, diagrams, charts

Even those official story believers will learn a lot about the WTC attacks from this web page.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm#1.2

 

[blogbart]

David Ray Griffin: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

The honest, venerable, logical, Christian theologian and philosopher, who had just retired from teaching, Dr. David Ray Griffin feels he has a moral imperative to alert others to the lies of omission and distortion of the Bush adminstration regarding 911.

Authorized Version (with references & notes)

In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.

But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.

In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.

I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1_toc.htmlhttp://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

 

[MattUK]

I am no steel expert. But, I do understand the particle physics side of it, i.e. what will happen when the steel heats up - in other words how it will react to heat etc.

I believe (actually, I can pretty much guarantee) that the building was designed to be "overstrong", they put more steel in there than they actually needed. This also covers them if a single beam was "faulty" on construction, others around it would support the weight etc.

From what I remember, at least one of the planes went in at quite an angle, therefore taking out steel over several floors (I think this is an important point), the planes also hit the far side of at least one tower, therefore causing damage to the front and back of the tower as well as floors and ceilings.

The particles in steel hold together very tightly, but like all things they have a breaking point where the particles can be torn apart. Heat dramatically affects this.

So, if we say that they planes took out 'some' of the steel supports, then the building could have been on, or very close to its "structual limit". Add into that a degree of heat, then you start having a problem.

The heat takes hold of the steel very quickly, the strength of the steel weakens quickly. From there, the incredible weight pushing down on the damaged floor(s) cripples more and more of the heated steel until it reaches "critical mass", from there there is no going back.

The heat transfer within the steel has probebly slightly weakened the steel going down (and up) several floors, so the speed and weight of the collapsing top half just crushes everything below. It becomes unstoppable.

The critical mass and gravity crush are easy to imagine. Get a pencil, and stand it on its nib. If you get it perfect, the pencil will balance vertically forever. This is critical mass (sort of), but if you get it slightly out, then the pencil will slowly start to tip, gaining speed and power as it falls. The top half of the WTC was this pencil, balanced on the critical mass of steel until the weight above casued it to bend, buckle or just tear apart some steel below it. Once the movement had started, nothing on Earth was going to stop it.

 

[hermanntrude]

possibly we should stop arguing and thrashing about trying to work out who to blame, but make some effort into preventing such things happening again and planning for when they do, in order to minimise fatalities.

 

[Curiosity]

Hermann

Exactly - well said!!

 

[blogbart]

Mike Berger/Matthew Rothschild Debate

Audio now available from links here: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060927230014133

Michael Berger, Media Coordinator for 911Truth.org, debated Matthew Rothschild, author of article "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already " and editor of The Progressive Magazine on Thursday, 9/28, from 11am to 1pm Mountain Time, on the Dino Costa show, www.dinocosta.com.

Read listeners comments on:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3277

 

[hermanntrude]

i found on the above linked website, the following words:

as for finding a forum that isn't full of retards, good luck with that try <censored>

I think we found one. Cancon is definately not FULL of retards, in fact pretty small retard count i'd say.

 

[Logic 7]

No offence fuzzy, but do you know anything about steel?

I reeeaaally hate to say this, it is against my character to toot my own horn, but I know what happens to steel sheets, rods, pipes, plates and girders, when you heat them, because I have extensive knowledge and experience in the matter.

There is NO DEFUSION AT ALL IF THE STEEL STRUCTURE IS SURROUNDED BY FIRE. There is only swift degredation in the integrady of the steel. period.

Besides, how much heat sinking do you think happens when heat is applied to steel. It doesn't run like water. The area closest to the heat source will parge and fail in a short period of time. It doesn't take much. What don't you understand about that?

Do I believe the US Government had explicit knowledge of what was to come? Yes. Do I believe they had a physical hand in it? No.

Are there a multitude of un-answered questions? Yes, and there always will be. Just as with JFK, the simplest explanation is never going to satisfy those that can not cope with the reality, that in this world there are groups that appose our way of life and they will do anything in their power to destroy it.

Where does it say, the steel structure was all sorrounded by fire on 9-11? How come there was black dark smoke suggesting they were oxygene starved?, how come NIST report that debris reached 400C at the most?



If Popular mechanics claims that at 1300F, the steel loose half of his strenght, then there must be an explanation for a time curve.


Your governement doesnt want to investigate on what really happened on 9-11, the fact that they invested more money in a blow job story with monica lewinsky than 9-11, shows a lot about their priority.


And if you think your way of life is attacking nation based on a lie, then yes i will do anything to destroyed it.

 

[I think not]

Where does it say, the steel structure was all sorrounded by fire on 9-11? ,how come NIST report that debris reached 400C at the most?

(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

How come there was black dark smoke suggesting they were oxygene starved?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

And there are many more answers to your conspiracy theory questions on the same site. Read it and weep.

 

[Logic 7]

The Maximum tempature of the hydrocarbon fire is 1517F, which is about 800C, not 1000C, Wtc fire were diffuse, which means way much lower than 800C, the Dark smoke support that claim, especially in the south tower.

[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]