See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC Demolition
Source:
http://truthseeker.us/index5.html
URL Source: http://truthseeker.us/index5.html
Published: May 29, 2007
Author: WTC Demo
Post Date: 2007-05-29 07:19:57 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 136
Comments: 14
http://WTCDemolition.com Gaileo's Law of Falling Bodies: Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared 1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7 9.2 seconds Watch any video of the towers falling. Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?! *Government “owned” experts of “deception” *BBC (Chris Wise, ect.) *Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel) *NOVA video (Matthys levy) *Henry Koffman from USC *Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis *The New Scientiest They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted *National Geographic Today - 2,900F *A&E - 2,500F *History Channel - 2,500F They said: “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.” The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.) Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers! Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my a**! To clear up any confusion NIST does "NOT" say the structural damage from the collision of the jets was enough to cause instability. NIST says that the heat from the fires had significantly weakened the steel which led to the collapse of the WTC buildings. But the problem is that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation: “Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181 “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180 “All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143 “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143 THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS. This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!! The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. --City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!) “our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.” --City in the Sky The first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses! The floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those trusses....you could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations because there were other supports for that purpose. note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses. Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations. Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse. The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!) --City in the Sky, p 133 The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns. NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads. Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled. NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy. fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE! But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy! Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed. Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft! Ha! The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone I wont even go into weight I will just use the same math for speed and not add the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707. The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT! Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage. The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts! Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing New insulation is “patchy”? So the extra fireproofing that was put on was piss poor and the 2.5” in of fireproofing was “patchy”! ..."thermal protection was upgraded...in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1) “The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1) “The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3) Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of instantaneous large multi-floor fires In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors! The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable! After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C) On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour! “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179) The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation: “Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181 “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180 “All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143 “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Good website. bookmarked.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
And you will find the towers took about 15 seconds to collapse. Not the 10 seconds that the bombs-did-it crowd keep insisting. True. FALSE. If fires were even 600 C, unprotected steel would have quickly lost half it's strength. Now I call that significant. This is a highly misleading characterization of what NIST did. But what would you expect from Mark, folks? For starters, the columns in the test were protected and the floors which were not did indeed sag. The fact that a collapse did not occur is due to the columns not being loaded like they were in the WTC and the restraint conditions (on both columns and floors) being different. This is again highly deceptive. The test method was limited to samples that still had paint on them. This preselected out the samples that saw higher temperatures. Furthermore, the steel samples came from areas where fire code models indicate temperatures would not have exceeded the measured temperatures in that steel. The measured temperatures roughly agree with the calculated ones. Thus the steel samples validate the fire code model which did calculate much higher temperatures elsewhere in the structure. It was done in an age when large scale computers and structural analysis codes were not available. This is nothing but a LIE. There is nothing in the 1200 pages of preliminary calculations or final calculations that indicates an analysis for impact and fires resulting from a plane impact. The ONLY mention of such an analysis (and only for impact) ever being done is a single paragraph in a white paper that was a public relations document. Furthermore, the person widely recognized as the lead structural engineer on the project says the analysis that was done was for a low speed impact with a kinetic energy only 1/8th that of the WTC impacts. This is a bald faced lie. I dare anyone here to link such a study. It doesn't exist and it never existed. Mark is trying to feed you a source that is full of lies. This is a LIE. The author of this nonsense is just making up claims. This is a lie and highly deceptive. It ignores numerous differences between the two situations. But then ignoring facts is a characteristic of the *truth* movement. This is a LIE. http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_firetest.html "The fire caused buckling of some parts of the trusses on those floors. ." Which didn't function because of damage caused by the impact. Which was knocked off by the impact.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ Click on 9/11 Conspiracy Therories at the above link for the source of the quote below. Dr. Shyam Sunder- Lead Investigator- Building and Fire Safety Investigation of WTC Disaster: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
Sunder mistated the facts. THE FACT is that videos and images from that day prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the towers took about 15 seconds to collapse. The NIST report got it right. The FIRST PANELS falling from the towers took 9 and 11 seconds to reach the ground. If you can't accept that, honway, then all your posting of photos and articles is a complete waste of time on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared 1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7 9.2 seconds Notice how BAC edited out Galileo's Law? The Law that says without resistance the towers should take So a fall that BAC even admits is 15 seconds, means the building fell ======================================== Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared My mistake in reading the formula without the formatting! Formatting makes ALL the difference. However, the fact remains that the resistance of floors beneath that have not been removed by demolition should have taken much longer than between 10 to 15 seconds.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Dr. Shyam Sunder- Lead Investigator- Building and Fire Safety Investigation of WTC Disaster: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." What equipment did you use to make measurements? Is it possible the $20 million plus spent by the NIST and Dr. Shyam Sunder resulted in more accurate measurements than you achieved with your stop watch and your internet video?
ROTFLOL! Notice how clueless robin really is folks?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Distance = 16.08 x Seconds Squared My mistake in reading the formula without the formatting! However, the fact remains that the resistance of floors beneath that have not been removed by demolition should have taken much longer than between 10 to 15 seconds.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
I didn't want to do it, but one too many ROTFLOL's too many were too much to take, and I finally Bozo'd Mr. BeAChooser. But if I ever want to know what he thinks, I'll just look up the official government story on any subject and then add a few dozen ROTFLOL's to it.
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
http://WTCDemolition.com
#3. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Watch any video of the towers falling.
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But the problem is that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel,
and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11.
This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!!!!!
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel!
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building"
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system,
improved insulation
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
BAC: And you will find the towers took about 15 seconds to collapse. Not the 10 seconds that the bombs-did-it crowd keep insisting.
#5. To: honway, ALL (#4)
#6. To: honway (#4)
(Edited)
Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies:
16 9.2 seconds to fall. But the govt's theory would have required at least some resistance. without with very little resistance, just like a demolition (which is almost like free fall), where the floors underneath the falling building are blown out, just at the right time.
1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7
9.2 seconds
#7. To: BeAChooser (#5)
#8. To: robin, ALL (#6)
Notice how BAC edited out Galileo's Law?
The Law that says without resistance the towers should take 16 seconds to fall.
#9. To: honway (#6)
(Edited)
1362 ft tall = 16.08 x 84.7
9.2 seconds
#10. To: honway (#7)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#11. To: Elliott Jackalope (#10)
To shamelessly rip off a Youtube video game reviewer; BAC's posts should have the tage line: "Brought to you by ROTFLOL's, they'll have you rolling." But for the authentic BAC experence you need insults thrown in when his smoke screen runs out.
I didn't want to do it, but one too many ROTFLOL's too many were too much to take, and I finally Bozo'd Mr. BeAChooser. But if I ever want to know what he thinks, I'll just look up the official government story on any subject and then add a few dozen ROTFLOL's to it.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
#12. To: honway, ALL (#7)
honway provides an excellent example of why the so-called *Truth* Movement is a big fat JOKE. honway wants to insist that the towers took 9 and 11 seconds to collapse, simply because Dr Sunder made a statement to that effect. In honway's mind, it's not possible that Dr Sunder simply misstated the facts. Never mind that the NIST report, resulting from an effort that Sunder headed, clearly states "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).” Never mind that photos from that day clearly show the first panels falling well ahead of the collapsing level of the towers. Never mind that videos are available (and have been posted at LP) that show the panels took about 10 seconds and the collapsing levels of the towers took about 15 seconds to reach the ground. There is even human voice on the video by known TV personalities that one can use to verify that the video is being shown real time. Here is an except from the 911research link: "The top of the North Tower began to suddenly telescope about a fourth of a second after the radio tower started to fall. In views from the north the top is swallowed up in about two seconds. The CNN live video clip shows the mushrooming dust cloud reaching the ground at about 13 seconds. ... The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground." Never mind that numerous other sources (including some conspiracy websites) have stated that the claim the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is false and that they really took about 15 seconds. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. ... snip ... Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation." (http://www.seekinglight.net/911vis/rwtchtm.htm) says Jim Hoffman (another conspiracist) states that "Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds." It goes on to quote Hoffman saying "Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread." Never mind that they've posted frame by frame analysis of the videos to prove it. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/ "video recordings show that each collapse took approximately 15 seconds. See, for example, this elapsed time analysis of the North Tower collapse." Finally, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1n1.html (a conspiracy source, by the way) states that one of the photos on that web page was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". And the collapsing level is nowhere near the ground. So when are you folks finally going to give up on this silly assertion? Will you ever? Or will you simply go on discrediting yourselves, this forum and the "truth movement"? Or is that your real purpose? Never mind.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#13. To: BeAChooser (#12)
Thanks for the post.
BAC:.. The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground,
#14. To: Elliott Jackalope (#10)
I can only take the traitorous idiot in small doses.Since Bush's approval rating is as low as 28% in some polls, I wonder if the idiot knows how low the approval rating is for liars prostituting themselves for Bush?
I didn't want to do it, but one too many ROTFLOL's too many were too much to take, and I finally Bozo'd Mr. BeAChooser.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest