See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 36534
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 416.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
This is from ImplosionWorld, experts in building demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ************* http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever. The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack. DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE? Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE? To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” ***********
Photos of FDNY in Action Before & After WTC Buildings Collapsed
WTC Fire Covering Several Floors, Heating Metal Red-Hot
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning. According to NIST/FEMA around 4500 gals were avalable, and in less than 10 minutes all the jet fuel was gone, and also according to NIST, the towers were an oxygen and fuel poor environment. Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist? I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on. Your LIHOP, bungling government theory won't hold up here.
Flames are now red instead of orange? On the highest level of the fire, the picture is clearly showing a dull red glow, which is not of any jet fuel, which would be orange flames. Something in the interior is being heated red-hot from the flames. Posting a photo is "commenting on fire or structural issues?" It would have to come from somebody with enough brains to know what color flames are, and the difference between posting a photo and a comment. That rules you out.
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps. This would line up perfectly with the steel temps of 480-600. According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes. The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all. The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree. NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved. NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600. For structural steel to "glow red", you are talking temps of physical steel reaching 1700 and higher and then staying at those temps. Like at the Madrid fire. NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire. The photo is taken right after impact and the fuel dump involved. There is no way steel reached that temp that fast. It takes time. Its impossible, plus there is no scientific evidence of this. NIST doesn't claim this. If you have some inside knowledge of the temps, that NIST doesn't, I think you should notify them with this breaking news!! Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later. You know why that photo isn't shown? Because it would show that the fire and flames were out and gone. Like I said, deceptive and misleading. Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away. I won't waste much time on you, so don't get your panties in a bunch.
I'm curious, Mark. What created such high temperatures in the Windsor (Madrid) tower? There was no jet fuel ... no fuel of any kind. It was an ordinary office building. Yet temperatures of over 1400 F were MEASURED. Can you explain that for us? In your *expert* opinion must every side of the tower have been engulfed in fire to initiate a collapse? Many other experts with degrees and experience in structural engineering, fire and steel don't seem to agree that's required. In fact, I haven't seen a single name of someone with credentials in those areas that says what you apparently believe is a requirement for collapse. Why is that? Again, no recognized, named experts in structural engineering, fire or steel seem to agree with you. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it's that just because conspiracy websites claim something is true, doesn't make it so? Here, listen to what a real expert says ... New York Times, December 3, 2003 " ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires." Here are pictures of the south tower in the minutes before the collapse. I sure see fire. And notice the sagging floors well before the collapse occurred. Did bombs cause those sagging floors? Hydrocode calculations show this is the corner where remnants of the plane ended up and this was the fire it was experiencing just minutes before the collapse. And note that NIST fire code calculations show that the temperature in that corner of the tower at that time would likely have been over 1000 C before the collapse (see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf figures 6-33, 6-34 and 6-46). Do you have any experts in structures or fires who say those calculations are wrong? And what about the North Tower. This image shows fires visible on several floors of the North Tower more than an hour after the jetliner impact (and long after the jet fuel was gone). They do not appear to be "oxygen-depleted. Also, I take it that you don't believe what the state of the art fire codes are telling experts in fire. They indicate that the fires in the towers reached upwards of 2000 F for periods that would be enough to severally weaken any steel that had lost its fire protection coatings. So it just seems to me your claims are at odds with the facts. This is a complete distortion of the truth. First, NIST and FEMA engineers did not test steel from the impact/fire zones for impact. They performed hydrocode analyses that show the impact of the planes would have severed many structural members and severely compromised any fire protection coatings. And investigators found plenty of hard physical evidence that the impact severed and deformed dozens of structural members. Furthermore, as I already showed, using statements from the designer himself, the towers were NOT designed for impacts at "any" speed. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact. The difference in energy between the design impact and the actual impact was nearly an order of magnitude. Furthermore, Les Robertson, the head designer, also stated that fire following an impact was NOT considered in the design. I would be curious to know where you are getting your "facts", Mark. This is not true. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Like I said, Mark, explain how the Madrid fire in an office with no fuel produced temperatures of over 1400 F (measured)? Here's what real experts say, readers. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html " The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure. At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower." http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf “It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit. The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.”
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive. 1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees. The localized steel section that failed had slab concrete floors on top of the steel girders. Concrete isn't like steel, concrete is like a charcoal briquet, it holds and radiates heat. This MAY have contributed to the failure also. Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written. If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out. If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems. All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out. Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results. Molten liquid aluminum from the skin of an aircraft? This metal shown in photos, glows bright in the daylight. Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature. There is no scientific proof of this phenomenon. When these claims can be reproduced in scientifically controlled experiment, get back to me. If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse. In your ccp post, there is alot of "maybe" and "probably" and could of. "My claims" are not mine, they are FEMA/NIST. NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime. NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire. Totally unscientific and based on nothing. FEMA/NIST had engineers from Berkley look at the steel from the impact zones. The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts. The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers. Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow. DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts. MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors. You need to READ more, not just ccp stuff you find. Right in and included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority. The airliners size were comparable in size, weight and length. The 707 was a faster jet. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects. Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report. NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off, yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees. NIST can't have it both ways, either there was still plenty of fireproofing left in the impact zones, or all of it was "blown" off. The real NIST tests bare out that the steel only reached around 480. By the time the fires had move out of an area, which NIST concludes it had 20 mins of office fuel, it moved on. It took about a hour for the fire to work its way around WTC 1. By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones. How does cool structural steel fail? NIST has diagrams showing what it believes how the temps rose and fell. There is no proof of these temps. Its all speculation. I use their models to show how preposterous their claims are. All I'm doing is pointing out all the deceptive, misleading conclusions in the reports. These are not my claims, but the actual reports and designers involved.
And your proof for this is what? Again, what is your source for this? Here's what actually happened in the Madrid fire, folks: http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html The color of the smoke doesn't prove a fire is oxygen starved. This source discusses that fact at length: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html Notice in that link all the photos of fires that clearly aren't oxygen starved which are still putting out dark grey or black smoke. And, for the record, NIST has not said that the WTC fire was oxygen starved ... everywhere. The face where the collapse was observed to start was clearly burning quite fiercely prior to the collapse. Something molten was even seen dripping from one corner of that face. And keep in mind that a wind was blowing into the building from that direction, providing a good source of oxygen. Finally, the fire was also no more fuel starved than the one in the Madrid tower. Both were office buildings filled with what office buildings are filled with. Is this dying out? The photos I posted aren't scientific proof? ROTFLOL! And they weren't hanging loose. They were sagging. Pulling on each end. Plus, the support they had provided to the outer face along the lengthwise dimension was gone. All NIST tested were floor systems with fireproofing intact. But the experts and their codes indicate that the fireproofing materials would have been damaged by the impact of the plane. Do you know what a boundary condition is? Really? This is picture of molten aluminum: So is this: And this: And this: And this: Well, here is an image of burning aluminum from a very credible source ( http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm): It didn't. The top clearly tilted as the collapse began. Well where are all the experts in fire and fire codes who agree with you? They seem to have no problem with the notion that temperatures in the WTC reached 1800 F. Care to prove this? Here are the reports you need: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulationofFiresinWTC1&2.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulatingtheCoupledFire.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5ReconstructionofFires.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StructFireResp&Collapse2.pdf http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf But not from the locations where the fire were most intense in the models. ROTFLOL! Readers ... see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf First, Skilling was not the main designer. This is false. The chief structural engineer of record ... onsite in New York where the design was done ... was Leslie Robertson. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling. In fact, according to http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer or aware of all design details in New York. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Demartini was a construction manager. Do you know what that means? He was NOT a structural engineer. There is a difference. In education. In expertise. In that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. It was NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. In fact, do you know what Demartini's degree actually was? ARCHITECTURE. Also, Demartini was not the construction manager during the construction of the towers. He was 14 when construction began. So I doubt he was all that familiar with their design. On the other hand, Leslie Robertson was. Leslie E. Robertson – " The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) By all means, provide your source for this claim. Besides this white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” Third, Robertson is on record stating that reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design are flat out WRONG. According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance." By all means. Provide your evidence that he has been caught lying. Not relevant. The impact of the planes dislodged much of that fireproofing. And that is in the NIST report too. No, they did not claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off. As I've already pointed out, with sourced material from NIST, the samples tested were NOT from the locations where NIST fire models showed the peak temperatures. Furthermore, the methodology used by NIST to test samples preselected out any exposed to high temperatures because it required the paint still be basically intact. NIST said the method was limited to temperatures around 250 C. There are photos of some people in the impact hole on the face of the structure opposite from where the collapse clearly began. It proves nothing. The steel on the face of the building opposite the impact hole was not cool.
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter." It is posting this type of nonsense that identifies you as an agenda driven "ends justifies the means" co-conspirator after the fact. Your dishonesty concerning this topic is repugnant.
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white. But you don't want to take my word for this; after all I am not a structural engineer. You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
What leads you to believe that any of the images I posted were shot in the dark? This one, for instance: That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum. You have any quotes from some that disagree? Here what NIST's FAQ said on this matter: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. " Seem's reasonable to me. Here's what the material streaming from the towers looked like: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 The video, by the way, shows several other things of interest. For example, at 33 seconds into it, it pans across the structure and you can see intense fires burning midway across the tower ... amazing, given that the conspiracists claim the fire was brief and localized (only a few small fires, according to the firemen, they say). And you can also clearly see that it fairly windy. Wind would have the tendency to drive oxygen into the structure helping feed the fires. But maybe it wasn't aluminum. Maybe it was steel as Dr Greening suggested.
Really? That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001. But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway? It appears that these structural engineers that said this don't know or care about the facts here. So why take their word for anything if they would lie so easily?
Oh ... so now the requirement is broad daylight? And what if the aluminum were to have other material entrained in it? Well then, name and quote some metallurgists who say that the material pouring out of the tower had to be steel. Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
The siding was an aluminum alloy; as pure aluminum wouldn't survive the corrosion of weather. Different critter, entirely. As to its melting - imagine somebody pulling the siding into the building, where it could be melted down, so as to run out of the building. DUMB! More BAC bullshit! (Why is anyone feeding this Mossadic troll, called BAC; anyway?) "BeOcho was no man Get BAC, Get BAC!"
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events? High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure. If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures. The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Esso
Just curious. What do you think caused the bowing seen in the WTC towers before collapse? http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html It was never anticipated that any given floor would be impacted by a large commercial jet traveling at such a velocity that the energy of impact would be over 7 times that of the design impact. It was never anticipated that the impact would spread jet fuel that would instantenously engulf huge sections of the tower in fires that would then un-fought because they were so high up and because they didn't anticipate the plane impact would cut the water lines to the sprinkler system. They never anticipated that 20+ stories of tower would suddenly drop onto the next floor and the next and the next and the next. The reality is that no steel skyscraper on earth could withstand such extreme loads. It's unlikely that a reinforced concrete one could survive having the top 20+ floors dropped on the floor below, either. But it is the deformations that caused the problem. Not shattering. That's not true. The steel portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid did just that.
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
ROTFLOL! The photo above shows the side of the tower OPPOSITE the side the jet hit.
That makes it even more implausible. NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes, but the "bowing" occurs on the opposite south face of WTC 1, where there was little damage or any evidence of "widely dislodged" fireproofing, and where the fires had only around 40 minutes to "sag" the trusses and "pull inward" the outer columns.
FALSE. Why do you find it necessary to lie about what NIST states? New York Times, December 3, 2003 " ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires."
You are reduced to calling me a liar because your handler 911 debunking sites
either don't have all the information, or they are hoping that no one reveals
all the contradictions in the report. One more time, you must READ not
ccp. All information isn't on the internet. Books and papers can be bought or
sent for in the mail also. There are no lies or falsehoods. When I quote
the NIST report, its the final draft release in the late summer of 2005 not a
2003 NYT article. NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was
directly in the impact area. The problem with the NIST report is that it is
full of contradictions that have no real scientific forensic proof. NIST
states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2
seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns. The NIST
final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east
face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors
before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference
between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe. NIST concluded that while
the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct
impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of
upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft. Why don't you
ccp and discuss NISTs shotgun experiment on how SFRM can be widely dislodged?
Or how it was quickly inserted at the very end in a 12 page add on. Just a
layman looking at that experiment would be questioning how that would
translate to the impacts. NIST treated this investigation like a research
project. All physical evidence and experimentation was disgarded for computer
modeling. Computer simulations are not proof or evidence of anything. The
NIST report is a cross between voodoo/witch doctor science and the
Roadrunner/Wiley Coyote cartoons.
I apologize. In keeping with my new approach to dealing with you folks, I shouldn't express an opinion that you deliberately posted false information. I must give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just didn't read the NIST reports but read what you posted at some conspiracy website. Perhaps a pretty girl caught your eye at a critical moment while you were reading it. But regardless, what you posted was not true. But the impact area extends through the building to the other side. You wished to give folks the impression it is only where the entrance hole was located. Actually, it doesn't say that. I says that the structural elements shredded the plane ... and at the same time, the plane did great damage to the structural elements ... indeed, severing many columns in the core area well away from the entrance hole. I challenge you to post a photo that shows sagging floors right after impact. I bet you can't do it. You are again stating misinformation. By all means, post the exact statements and URL the reports where you get this claim. Here's what it says in the final report: "aircraft debris resulted in substantial damage to the nonstructural building contents (partitions and workstations) and also in dislodging of fireproofing." "The extent of dislodged fireproofing was estimated by considering fireproofing damage only to structural components in the direct pat of debris." I suggest you take a closer look at the results of Project 2 of NCSTAR1-6: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf You will find it says this: "insulation damage estimates were limited to areas subject to direct debris impact. Other sources of floor and insulation damage from the aircraft impact and fires (e.g., insulation damage due to shock and subsequent vibrations as a result of aircraft impact or concrete slab cracking and spalling as a result of thermal effects) were not included in the floor models." That doesn't say what you claimed they said about vibrations. And neither does this, from the same final report: "since NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement, insulation dislodged by inertial effects other than that dislodged by direct debris impact was ignored and not included in the analyses." And neither does this: "The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading fro about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)." So it looks like you are completely wrong in claiming that NIST said " vibration played no role in shaking off" insulation. Did you just fail to see the comments above? Did you get your claim from some other source? I wouldn't want to think you deliberately lied to us, Mark. Really, I wouldn't want to think that.
Ha, ha! Again, attacks, name calling, etc.. I thought you were not going to dissect posts word by word, or line by line or paragraph by paragraph. You love playing with word and sentence semantics. Old, tired tricks are hard to break. 4UM is my home field. Its my rules, my ball, my game. If you don't like it, don't reply. You will get nothing as far as sources. Zero. If you think I'm going to help point you in any direction you are mistaken. In the NIST, there are so many sections, chapters, add ons, project reports, appendixes and supplementary documents, it a giant jigsaw mess. The search engine dosen't even work well. The longer you carry this out, the more exposure the NIST gets as nothing more than a computer simulated research project. Out of all that you ccp'ed, all one needs to read is this "NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement". Which means there was no proof that vibration "widely dislodged" the SFRM. In its severe computer simulations, NIST removes all the SFRM from the impact hole through the debris path. Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path. No proof, no evidence, the hypothesis doesn't exist. NIST tried to prove that shearing from debris may remove the SFRM. The shotgun/ wooden box test NIST ran proves nothing and actually proves how adhesive and tough the spray on fireproofing was. Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out. Aircraft impact areas and debris path are totally different. NIST could only see around 3 meters into the towers. Any computer modeling of a debris path is complete speculation. NIST had problems with the computer simulations from the very start. No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path. That means ALL cases were incorrect. This also means the modeling of the workstations and the inner area of the towers were wrong, and the impact simulation were also incorrect. NIST still chose to go with the most severe case because the others, even though no more or less correct, resulted in collapse, while the others did not. Another take I have on the NIST is that, just in case, the real truth about 911 is revealed, NIST has its back covered. There is enough truth in the report, but the pre determined conclusions were politically influenced. So, all NIST would have to claim is, we had the data, but we couldn't "connect the dots". Sounds familiar. The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
Here ... just so readers understand the logic used by NIST ... excerpts from http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf (the final NIST report on this subject): *********** 5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection for Structural Steel The aircraft impact simulation models included not only the structural components of the towers and aircraft, but also representations of the partition walls and building contents and furnishings (modular office workstations). The results of the analyses included damage to the partition walls, workstations, and structural elememts. Such damage estimates were crucial for the estimation of areas with dislodged insulation as explained in this section. Estimates of the post-impact condition of the fire protection was based on criteria that considered damage to structural components, building partitions, and furnishings along with the debris field as calculated from the aircraft impact analyses. Estimates for the extent of dislodged insulation considered insulation damage to structural components only in the direct path of debris, as follows: - Core columns had sprayed fire-resistance material (SFRM), gypsum wallboard enclosures, or a combination of both. Insulation was assumed to be dislodged from the columns if they were subject to direct debris impact that could fail wall partitions in the immediate vicinity. The representative bending strength of building partitions in the impact simulations was 500 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-2), while the representative adhesion and cohesive strength of SFRM measured in the laboratory by NIST was generally less than 12 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). Gypsum column enclosures were also assumed to have a lesser representative strength than wall columns. To consider that insulation on core columns was damaged, the predicted debris impact had to be sufficient to fail building partitions immediately in front of the columns. If the wall partitions remained intact in the core area after interactions with the debris field, then the insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to remain intact. If wall partitions were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height. - To consider that insulation on exterior columns was damaged, the debris impact had to damage or destroy office furnishings (modular office workstations) adjacent to the columns. If the office furnishings remained intact after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns behind these furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns in the vicinity was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height. The other three faces of the exterior columns were protected by windows and/or aluminum cladding and were assumed to have no insulation damage. - To consider that SFRM on floor trusses was damaged, the debris impact had to be sufficient to damage or destroy room furnishings (modular office furniture) in the same area of the affected floor. If the room furnishings remained intact, then the insulation on the steel trusses above the furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses above these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged. The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored damage and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact (BAC - the rest of this paragraph was quoted earlier but basically it indicates that photographic evidence shows that vibrations were sufficient to dislodge insulation from structural elements not impacted by debris.) **************** Anyone interested can read NCSTAR 1-6 and will find figures showing the damage zones in the aircraft impact model and figures showing the areas where fireproofing was assumed removed in subsequent the temperature/structural models. I know you will all rush out to read the report for yourself. Oh, so it is your *expert* opinion that debris which could destroy partitions and structural members in the analysis models could not remove sprayed on fireproofing with measured adhesive and cohesive strength of less than 12 psi? You provide more evidence that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and that you haven't actually read the NIST documents. First, the steel tests actually validate the NIST modeling because the tested specimens did not come for the regions in the simulations where they found the highest temperatures. They came from regions in the models where similar temperatures to those determined for those test specimens were calculated. Second, the steel test procedures used were limited to specimens subject to relatively low temperatures (roughly 250 C) because they depended on paint still being on the specimens. Third, the detailed analyses done by NIST and reported in NCSTAR 1-6 clearly show that the temperatures in structural members without fireproofing were indeed high enough for long enough to seriously weaken those structural members. Right. You are such an *expert*. False. Just thought I'd let your readers know they they probably should go read the NIST reports before believing you or quoting you. They do that and they are liable to embarrass themselves. The impact modeling is discussed in great detail in http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf. Allow me to quote from that report for WTC 1: "The exterior wall damage was the one structural system for which direct visual evidence of the impact damage was available. Therefore, the comparison of the calculated and observed exterior wall damage provided a partial validation of the analysis methodologies used in the global impact analyses. A comparison of the north exterior wall observed and calculated damage from the base case WTC 1 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-28. The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage zone were in good agreement. This agreement in the position and shape of the impact damage served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings." "The comparison also indicated a good agreement in the magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall. The exterior wall completely failed in the regions of the fuselage, engine, and fuel-filled wing section impacts. Damage to the exterior wall was observed all the way out to the wing tips, but the exterior columns were not completely failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact regions. Failure of the exterior columns occurred both at the bolted connections between the column ends and at various locations in the column depending on local severity of the impact load and the proximity of the bolted connection to the impact. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of the impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower." Now here is what the report says about base case WTC 2 analysis: "The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage were in good agreement. This agreement served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower." And for the more severe case analysis: "The calculated damage to the south wall from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-54. A comparison of the south exterior wall observed (Figure E-46a) and calculated (Figure E-54) damage from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis indicated that the calculated and observed magnitude and mode of impact damage were still in good agreement." And then there is this from the same report ***************** "The observables available to help validate the global impact analyses included the following: - Damage to the building exterior (exterior walls and floors in the immediate vicinity of the impact) documented by photographic evidence. - Aircraft debris external to the towers (landing gear for WTC 1 and a landing gear and an engine for WTC 2) as documented by photographic evidence. - Eyewitness accounts from survivors who were inside the towers (blocked or passable stairwells). An example of such comparison was a detailed comparison between the observed and calculated damage (from the base case analysis) to the north wall of WTC 1 and the south wall of WTC 2. The comparison included the mode, magnitude, and location of failure around the hole creatd by the aircraft impact. The color code included in the following: (1) green circles indicating a proper match of the failure mode and magnitude between the observed and calculated damage, (2) yellow circles indicating a proper match in the failure mode, but not the magnitude, (3) red circles indicating that the failure mode and magnitude predicted by the calculation did not match that was observed, and (4) black circles indicating that the observed damage was obscured by smoke, fire or other factors. The comparisons shown in Figure E-62 and Figure E-63 for WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively, indicate the overall agreement with the observed damage was very good." Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models. In general, however, the results of the simulations matched these observables reasonably well." ******************** So again, we find you aren't being totally accurate about your description of NIST findings. Why do we continue to encounter this problem, Mark? Well it would appear they are too busy following the Spears and Smith stories to fact check what they are being told by folks like you.
Again, lots of ccp face summary paragraphs, with a few nuggets of truth and deception. When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind. The NIST report is a blur between reality and computer modeling. Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation, of how aircraft debris and office furnishings, convert from shotgun blasts, according to NISTs experiment, and shear and scrape all the SFRM off of trusses, steel decks, steel columns etc.., in all directions and certain angles over 3-5 floors of office space, or in its "computer boundaries" of 9 floors. It would or may take 100,000 shotgun blasts. One would think that NIST would have done EXTENSIVE testing proving this hypothesis. NOPE. At the very end of the report, at the LAST minute, NIST inserted a 12 page addendum. In it, the report contained a test that consisted of firing a SHOTGUN, at a wooden box, with a piece steel sprayed with SFRM. 15 shots were preformed at a FLAT piece of steel, not a steel column or a coupling with all its shape difference, or not a steel deck. NIST also shotgun tested a truss sprayed with fireproofing. NIST also had to widely vary the shotgun degree angle to get the removal of SFRM. If the angle wasn't just right, the fireproofing did not come off, or it was a very, very small limited area. There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers. As the aircraft debris mixed with the office workstations the psi force would considerably diminish. The most force would have been in the immediate impact hole area. Here is another question for everyone reading this thread. If all this aircraft and office debris sheared, scraped and widely dislodged all the SFRM with all this psi force, why wouldn't the impacts clear out all the office workstations and furnishings? If all this debris is cleared out, then what is burning? Where is all the heating? What's burning to raise temperatures according to their severe computer models? Not jet fuel, since it was burned off in minutes. NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited. Where is all the thermal heating of the steel coming from? NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning? Modern office furnishings are fire rated, so they are mostly fire retardant. NIST states the core had no combustibles to burn and no fuel loading, so what raised core temps in their severe computer models? NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed. ANY damage at all was 100% in its severe comuter simulations. If a chair was TIPPED over, it was 100% damage. In NISTs workstation burn tests, NIST ran twelve physical tests and only revealed one. In the one test, NIST DOUBLED the known fuel in the area and OVER ventilates the fires to get air/gas temps of around 1800. This then is what NIST plugs into it severe simulation. This isn't science, its witchcraft. NIST could only see 3 meters in, NIST could only calculate observable EXTERIOR impact hole damage of the towers. Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed. NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers. WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole. NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect, or no more correct than the others. NIST chose the most severe because it caused a simulated collapse, while the others did not. In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely. The airliner also didn't completely crush itself on impact and missed many obstructions. NIST couldn't have this outcome, NIST needed the most severe case modeling to provide for the most destruction possible. In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence. NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse". NIST has a some SPECIAL cases of mix-n-match tinkertoy simulations that I may reveal later if you continue. All in due time, maybe. Hee, hee. NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models". Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this? The closer and closer NIST gets the towers "poised" for collapse, the more vague the whole cartoon project gets. NIST had computer modeled the aircraft down to the seats and number of fan blades, but modeled the east face of WTC 2 and the south face of WTC 1 with a low, resolution, coarse simulation. The very areas where NIST claims the bowing and sagging and collapse started. Computer simulations and adjustments are not scientific evidence. Keep dragging this out. You are doing all the work to destroy the NIST report and reveal the govenment lies. The report is like the Billy Joel song, "Its Just A Fantasy" oh oh, oh oh, it not the real thing, oh oh oh oh.
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. False. Just read the reports folks. I provided links. Mark doesn't know what he is talking about. How many examples do I have to provide where Mark said something that isn't true before you see that? Hopefully, by now you have. If you haven't, you probably never will. You will NEVER find the truth if you rely on the sort of misinformation posted by folks like Kamala (Mark). ROTFLOL! According to Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT? No, you got this claim from Kevin Ryan (the KOOK water treatment expert)'s description of Wierzbicki's analysis. Right? But Ryan didn't get the description right, as he got most things wrong. Folks, if you want to know what Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of Applied Mechanics at MIT, really thinks, then read this report by him on the WTC impact: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf It says nothing like what Kevin Ryan (the water treatment expert) claimed it said. And here is what MIT structural engineers REALLY think, folks: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ (this has Wierzbicki's report and others) http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/skyscrapers.html http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/31114/1/61145960.pdf You see? Kamala seems to be trying to misrepresent what MIT engineers think. Ask yourself why he is doing that? This is a misrepresentation of what NIST says in its reports. Why would Kamala misrepresent this? Did Kevin Ryan tell him this? Or Steven Jones? Or perhaps Rodriquez (the janitor) or Rodriquez's lying lawyer? The NIST reports say what is burning. Can you provide a link to this claim? It's not that I don't trust you ... but I hope its not Kevin Ryan, the water treatment expert. I bet not one of those engineers has come forward to support your bombs in the towers theory, Mark. The problem is Mark, you don't actually know or understand what NIST did. Actually, Mark, that suggests the affect of the impacts was worse than the simulations were able to capture ... i.e., more damage to the structure. By all means, tell us how your bombs in the towers theory manages to make landing gear, engines and fuselage exit the opposite side the towers. How do you figure this, Mark? Have you looked at the trajectory of the engine through the tower? Are you suggesting that somehow an engine traveling through the building would do less damage to structural members in the building than one that didn't manage to exit the other side? Tell us Mark, how does that work? Actually, Mark, one could easily interpret the discrepancies you've claimed to mean the simulation UNDERestimated the ability of the structure to deform and stop the plane. That would suggest that the structure didn't slow the plane down as much as even the severe model showed and one explanation for that would that there was much worse damage inside the structure than even the severe case suggests. By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that? Perhaps structural engineers, experts in demolition, experts in engineering mechanics, experts in macro-world physics around the world. Because NONE of them seem to believe you, Mark. Any guess why?
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. You sure like to throw out that word expert at everyone. Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is... Tell us *incompetent at everything*, just what it is about the word could that you don't understand??? Or the words predicted, estimates, considered, partial validation, and assumed??? Do ANY of these words imply FACT, or do they imply HYPOTHESIS??? Another of your incompetencies - understanding of the English language. I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet... That's probably something YOU'LL never look at - it would cost a few dollars to get a copy. But then again, you're content to believe "experts", and are in denial that these "experts" may put job security and the welfare of themselves and their families above TRUTH. Why an alphabet agency would never deliberately "off" somebody to shut them up would they???? But as long as there are shills like you helping keep the Amerikan public in their comas, they don't need to worry about offing the one or two "kooks" do they... BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11 - considering how the whole squalid mess wasn't an inside job??? For the same reason you refuse to tell us your area of expertise - you don't have an answer...
why is it that you DO refuse to address this concern BAC? Why?
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader. I thought you were Summa Cum Laude.
you're too much for me BAC. you ask good question in 415 - who will be the experts, the judges, etc. we are incapable of getting satisfactory conclusion on this issue. It is those evil faces that came out of the smoke. They are stopping us.
There are no replies to Comment # 416. End Trace Mode for Comment # 416.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Pull" is a term used in building demolition...
#3. To: BeAChooser, All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#6. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#4)
#10. To: Kamala (#6)
(Edited)
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning.
Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on.
#12. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#10)
#59. To: Kamala, AGAviator, ALL (#12)
To AGAviator - According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes.
The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all.
The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/9-72.jpg 
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/docs/wp_wtc29c.jpg NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved.
NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600.
NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire.
#87. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#59)
(Edited)
#149. To: Kamala, ALL (#87)
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive.
1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees.
Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written.
If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out.
If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems.
All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out.
Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results.
Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature.
If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse.
NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime.
NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire.
The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts.
The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers.
Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow.
DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts.
MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors.
a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority.
All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report.
NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off
yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees.
By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones.
How does cool structural steel fail?
#165. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#173. To: honway, ALL (#165)
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter."
#184. To: BeAChooser (#173)
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
#188. To: RickyJ, ALL (#184)
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white.
You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
#198. To: BeAChooser (#188)
(Edited)
That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum.
#203. To: RickyJ, ALL (#198)
That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001.
But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway?
#204. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#203)
Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
He said he was a loner
But he knew he couldn't last.
#230. To: SKYDRIFTER, esso (#204)
(Edited)
CREDIT: ESSO
#255. To: angle, esso, ALL (#230)
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters.
However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
#257. To: BeAChooser (#255)
#258. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#257)
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
#269. To: BeAChooser, Jethro Tull, *9-11* (#258)
#329. To: Kamala, ALL (#269)
NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes
#357. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All, *9-11* (#329)
#362. To: Kamala, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All (#357)
You are reduced to calling me a liar
NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was directly in the impact area.
NIST states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2 seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns.
The NIST final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe.
NIST concluded that while the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft.
#366. To: BeAChooser, Intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Robin, Diana, RickyJ, Skydrifter, Christine, Angle, All, *9-11* (#362)
#377. To: Kamala, Intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Robin, Diana, RickyJ, Skydrifter, Christine, Angle, All (#366)
In its severe computer simulations, NIST removes all the SFRM from the impact hole through the debris path.
Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path.
Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out.
Aircraft impact areas and debris path are totally different. NIST could only see around 3 meters into the towers. Any computer modeling of a debris path is complete speculation.
No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path.
The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
#396. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ., Peetie Wheatstraw, BTP Holdings, InToTheAbyss, Wakeup, Angle, Critter, Skydrifter, Diana, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Formerlurker, Hounddawg, Lodwick, Burkeman1, Horse, IndieTx, Esso, Innieway, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, , *9-11* (#377)
(Edited)
#400. To: Kamala, ALL (#396)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation
There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers.
NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited.
NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning?
NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed.
Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed.
NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers.
WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole.
NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect,
In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely.
In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence.
NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse".
NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models".
Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this?
#402. To: BeAChooser (#400)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that?
#404. To: innieway, BeAChooser (#402)
why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11
#414. To: Red Jones, critter, innieway, all (#404)
#416. To: BeAChooser (#414)
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader
Replies to Comment # 416.
