[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: WTC Demolition 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 Browns 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 NISTs 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
Good website. bookmarked.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|