WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
The demolition characteristics of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers
This post is in response to the 1st part of TW Scott's post 396 in this thread.
Burning and collapsing are entirely different things. The relatively small fires may have burned for hours, but the actual -collapse- occured within seconds. 9/11 Research puts it quite well in its article The Windsor Building Fire. In this article, it compares the Windsor tower, which suffered a partial and gradual collapse due to fires over time, vs. the WTC buildings:
***********
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
***********
This post is in response to the 1st part of TW Scott's post 396 in this thread.
Burning and collapsing are entirely different things. The relatively small fires may have burned for hours, but the actual -collapse- occured within seconds. 9/11 Research puts it quite well in its article The Windsor Building Fire. In this article, it compares the Windsor tower, which suffered a partial and gradual collapse due to fires over time, vs. the WTC buildings:
***********
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
***********
.. and I am saying that is not correct. The information I have regarding the towers states that the floors were concrete but it was the steel box columns providing the support in the core. There was no support provided by any concrete walls.
The framing of the building does not exclude the cores.
What are you talking about? The Madrid Tower had steel-reinforced concrete while the WTC had steel with fireproofing. The concrete, which is extremely fire resistant, is the reason the Madrid Tower stayed up.
Weak because it was steel? While the core was concrete?
It’s the second paragraph.Can you quote the part where it discusses the mistake(s?) NIST made? Don't want to have to read through the whole thing.
“
As will be seen, it appears likely that NIST got the load distributions wrong in favor of
survival of the structure. A simple explanation is that the core supported all floor loads
within the core plus approximately half of the floor loads outside the core. Further, the
DCR for the core is found to be roughly in agreement with Banovic, Foecke, and Luecke
[2007] who state “The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads
and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”.
“
From what I have read Scott there is no distinction to be made. The steel columns were providing all the support for the core.
“
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.
“
The framing they are referring to includes the box columns which made up the core.
Your Madrid Tower article makes no mention of a concrete core at all.
Last edited:
Logic is based on physics not words. Words are just symbols that are supposed to have something to do with reality but often they do not. Like that nonsense of Europe being a continent when there is no water separating it from Asia.
It is obvious from the videos that WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed in a different manner than WTC 7. But we have all these morons not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years earlier so this ain't rocket science. THE LOGIC IS OBVIOUS except to people not capable of it.
How do you compute the conservation of momentum of a supposed gravitational collapse from the top without knowing the distribution of mass through the structure? I know, YOU JUST BELIEVE, and then you don't need data to do anything. The LOGIC of not thinking.
psik
I admit that at times I get frustrated with official story believers and at times it may show a little. However, as you may know, I think we should refrain from using base insults (such as 'moron') because, in my view, it just lowers the level of discussion.
Anyway, I think that when it comes to 9/11 a lot of people will certainly get creative in not accepting certain facts. It reminds me of what what a certain PhD in psychology said, but both his name and what he said exactly eludes me at the moment (I believe John99 mentioned him recently). Anyway, I'm sure this same logic is used against the truth movement. Perhaps they've even got a PhD in psychology or 2 themselves
.This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of TW Scott's post 396 in this thread.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims?
We've never seen such large buildings collapse, period. However, other then in demolitions, buildings have -never- collapsed in the way that the WTC buildings did. In post 3 in this thread, I put up some pictures of a few buildings that collapsed due to earthquakes- the difference is rather obvious.
I'm truly curious- do you simply make up these points as you go along? Let's take a look at your 'insignificant dust clouds':
I haven't ever heard of an office fire resulting in tons of molten metal. I guess in your world, however, this is just a typical office fire?
Uh-huh. Let's see what Steven Jones, in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, had to say on the matter:
********
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
********
Headspin addressed your objection to point 7, on to 8:
This is more Headspin's area, perhaps he can answer it.
I think the point you should be watching for is that he wasn't american and thus not subject to the political tides of the place.
Quoting from another forum:
**********
Some unique features of each collapse
1) WTC2 = south tower struck 2nd, collapses first. Note that collapse initiates after smoke appears to lessen -- and RIGHT after 2 fire chiefs radio "2 localized fires. need 2 lines to knock it down" from 74th floor (see FDNY transcripts)
**********
This would be if you had a brick building fire. Wood places go up quick and paoper filled steel offices go just as damned quick.[/quote]
Quick? Steel framed buildings have never even -allegedly- collapsed due to fire on any other day but 9/11/2001.
What are you trying to say here? That the WTC buildings were designed to collapse straight down?
As Kevin Ryan wrote to NIST's Frank Gayle, "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. It can take a long time to persuade some die hard official story believers.
What reports might these be? Some choice tweaked out NIST simulations?
The windsor tower didn't have a sprinkler system at all. The building was weaker and the fires burned for many hours and yet it only suffered a gradual, partial collapse. You may wish to see a comparison between that building and the WTC buildings at this page.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims?
We've never seen such large buildings collapse, period. However, other then in demolitions, buildings have -never- collapsed in the way that the WTC buildings did. In post 3 in this thread, I put up some pictures of a few buildings that collapsed due to earthquakes- the difference is rather obvious.
I'm truly curious- do you simply make up these points as you go along? Let's take a look at your 'insignificant dust clouds':
I haven't ever heard of an office fire resulting in tons of molten metal. I guess in your world, however, this is just a typical office fire
?Uh-huh. Let's see what Steven Jones, in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, had to say on the matter:
********
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
********
Headspin addressed your objection to point 7, on to 8:
This is more Headspin's area, perhaps he can answer it.
I think the point you should be watching for is that he wasn't american and thus not subject to the political tides of the place.
Quoting from another forum:
**********
Some unique features of each collapse
1) WTC2 = south tower struck 2nd, collapses first. Note that collapse initiates after smoke appears to lessen -- and RIGHT after 2 fire chiefs radio "2 localized fires. need 2 lines to knock it down" from 74th floor (see FDNY transcripts)
**********
This would be if you had a brick building fire. Wood places go up quick and paoper filled steel offices go just as damned quick.[/quote]
Quick? Steel framed buildings have never even -allegedly- collapsed due to fire on any other day but 9/11/2001.
What are you trying to say here? That the WTC buildings were designed to collapse straight down?
As Kevin Ryan wrote to NIST's Frank Gayle, "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. It can take a long time to persuade some die hard official story believers.
What reports might these be? Some choice tweaked out NIST simulations?
The windsor tower didn't have a sprinkler system at all. The building was weaker and the fires burned for many hours and yet it only suffered a gradual, partial collapse. You may wish to see a comparison between that building and the WTC buildings at this page.
Last edited:
Steven Jones, Round 3
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
I'm not going to accept what I don't agree with. I certainly believe that there are those who are more experienced with things such as thermite. However, as Kevin Ryan has demonstrated in his article "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites", they look to be accomplices in the inside job. Because -they- are misleading the public, we must rely on brave individuals such as Steven Jones to tell us the truth.
A -bit- of reading? I've done a fair amount of reading on 911, but my knowledge concerning the WTC collapses pales in comparison to the likes of Steven Jones.
He may not have a -degree- in structural engineering, but I contend that his knowledge on the WTC collapses is up there with the best of them.
Perhaps it's tiresome for you when your conjectures are shown for what they are.
Yes, your argument that Jones was not following a strict methodology. Your constant dodge is that you're not going to do it 'again'. You're apparently too lazy to even link to your supposed previous refutation. Convenient but hardly persuasive.
Not sure how that ended with Headspin. Regardless, I believe I know what you mean now at any rate.
You can continue to claim such things but until you actually show some evidence in the here and now, instead of saying that you've done so before at some point in time, I'll continue to dismiss your claim.
They wouldn't have used thermite in the cleanup because:
1. Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”
2. They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.
What you should be checking out is a certain national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921. Firefighters for 9/11 truth quote the relevant section on their home page (search for 'exotic accelerants'). Here's a little something to read, from Kevin Ryan's The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan:
**************
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
**************
NIST lamely tried to defend its non compliance with NFPA 921. Their lame argument and its counter can all be seen in Robert Moore's article "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1".
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
I'm not going to accept what I don't agree with. I certainly believe that there are those who are more experienced with things such as thermite. However, as Kevin Ryan has demonstrated in his article "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites", they look to be accomplices in the inside job. Because -they- are misleading the public, we must rely on brave individuals such as Steven Jones to tell us the truth.
A -bit- of reading? I've done a fair amount of reading on 911, but my knowledge concerning the WTC collapses pales in comparison to the likes of Steven Jones.
shaman_ said:
He may not have a -degree- in structural engineering, but I contend that his knowledge on the WTC collapses is up there with the best of them.
Perhaps it's tiresome for you when your conjectures are shown for what they are.
Yes, your argument that Jones was not following a strict methodology. Your constant dodge is that you're not going to do it 'again'. You're apparently too lazy to even link to your supposed previous refutation. Convenient but hardly persuasive.
Not sure how that ended with Headspin. Regardless, I believe I know what you mean now at any rate.
You can continue to claim such things but until you actually show some evidence in the here and now, instead of saying that you've done so before at some point in time, I'll continue to dismiss your claim.
They wouldn't have used thermite in the cleanup because:
1. Thermite is extremely dangerous; it cuts through steel like “a hot knife through butter.”
2. They were trying to find survivors; any cleanup was secondary to finding the victims.
What you should be checking out is a certain national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921. Firefighters for 9/11 truth quote the relevant section on their home page (search for 'exotic accelerants'). Here's a little something to read, from Kevin Ryan's The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan:
**************
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
**************
NIST lamely tried to defend its non compliance with NFPA 921. Their lame argument and its counter can all be seen in Robert Moore's article "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1".
Last edited:
Leslie RobertsonThis post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.
Steven Jones debunks some official story claims
Indeed
With that in mind, here's an excerpt from the above linked paper:
****************************
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1..2..3..etc..
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The
767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than
the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the
energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the
velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. [Sic;
actually triple velocity means nine times the kinetic energy.]
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in
the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the
fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully, fully fuelled airplane compared
to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two. [19]"
But, as demonstrated, office materials can.
Describing it as all the columns bucking at the same time can give the impression of something unnatural happening. It doesn't quite work like that. There was clear weakening of the support columns leading up to the collapse. Floors were sagging and pulling on the perimeter columns. This is evidence that the conspiracy theorists are unable to account for. When the supports were sufficiently weakened so that a collapse started the remaining ones were not able to hold the extra load so they fail as well. So they didn't fail at exactly the same time.
Well that’s compelling.
Not according to the office tests performed by NIST.
Oh right but secretly loading up buildings with invisible explosives on every level of a building which is going to be hit by planes, and blowing up a building which isn’t going to be hit by planes for the sake of getting support for a war, yeah that doesn’t strain credibility. What a watertight conspiracy!
Oh god the panels again. Does the whole truth movement rely on taking evidence out of context and misrepresenting it? NIST made it clear that very few of those samples were from the impact floors. That is not the only evidence of the temperatures reached and to try and present it as so is disingenuous. But this is what I have come to expect.
… and… ?
So this is the master debunking the qualified structural engineers? Your conspiracy is in a pitiful state scott.
I think we have touched on most of the claims in that post. Some of them several times. Do you remember this Scott? Or are you going to tell me that you don't?
Last edited:
Wow all these years and all he can get is a little known journal which apparently required nothing more than a fee for publication. Isn’t that a bit strange.
So back to the point, why can’t he get these things published in a respected journal? Are you suggesting that all the structural engineers are dishonest?
No I substantiated mine. You did not.
No it doesn’t. Do you have a comprehension problem?
Perhaps they never existed. Perhaps they were flawed and he threw them out. My speculation here is as worthless as yours. You have no evidence to back the claim up.
I recognise conspiracy theorists who, when confronted with the usual total lack of evidence, actually take that as evidence as well! Evidence of a conspiracy! Lol.
The articles at journalof911studies are 'peer reviewed' by unqualified people like David Ray Griffin, Ryan and Jones. They can’t get structural engineers to support their work.
:shrug:
.. and I did not contest that and I thought we had moved on. Are you that desperate for argument points that need bring up where I was wrong five pages ago? It’s not a critical point at all. I fully expect you to bring it up in another ten pages when you are struggling.
I’ll bring that up again in five pages if I run out of things to say.
Experts? The people who are experts in relevant fields like structural engineering overwhelmingly support the official story.
Bombs in the buildings, Round 3, part 1
This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
Let's have a little look at the types of sounds being emitted before and during the collapses, shall we?
****
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]:
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
****
The official story people had ofcourse gotten to him, but his 'lower then the fire' bit is telling.
****
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]:
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
****
There's that 'lower' bit again. You can once again tell that the 'official story' people had gotten to him (we originally thought, implying that he now thinks that the jet fuel or what not did it).
****
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
****
Ground level.
This one is beautiful- exactly what happens during controlled demolitions; explosions, a slight delay, collapse:
****
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]:
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF
****
The following one is perhaps the best one I've seen, wherein the captain sites a multitude of seen explosions, with mention of flashes and popping sounds, also typical of demolitions:
****
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.):
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
****
If you'd like to see many more, feel free to visit 9/11 research's link on the subject, Explosions.
This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
Let's have a little look at the types of sounds being emitted before and during the collapses, shall we?
****
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]:
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
****
The official story people had ofcourse gotten to him, but his 'lower then the fire' bit is telling.
****
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]:
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
****
There's that 'lower' bit again. You can once again tell that the 'official story' people had gotten to him (we originally thought, implying that he now thinks that the jet fuel or what not did it).
****
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
****
Ground level.
This one is beautiful- exactly what happens during controlled demolitions; explosions, a slight delay, collapse:
****
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]:
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF
****
The following one is perhaps the best one I've seen, wherein the captain sites a multitude of seen explosions, with mention of flashes and popping sounds, also typical of demolitions:
****
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.):
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
****
If you'd like to see many more, feel free to visit 9/11 research's link on the subject, Explosions.
Last edited:
Ten years ago (when i was a professional engineer) we were working with one single large steel beam. What we were doing was trying to make this beam do what it didnt want to do, big heavy beam like you would find in sky scrapers and when this beam let go it was like an explosion. Broke chains and the force was incredible. Buy yeah it sounded like an explosion.
Does BOOM sound like an explosion? How about i say KABOOOOM if we are going to fixate on descriptive words.
After all take a look at this quote you posted:
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
*Actually that was a few years before i had the title of Engineer but we were working under the supervision of an engineer an were working on turbines the size of a small house.
Does BOOM sound like an explosion? How about i say KABOOOOM if we are going to fixate on descriptive words.
After all take a look at this quote you posted:
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.):
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
*Actually that was a few years before i had the title of Engineer but we were working under the supervision of an engineer an were working on turbines the size of a small house.
Last edited:
I understand your point and I did not call any specific person a moron.
I said a lot of "m-word" were not demanding to know about the steel and concrete.
So that must include a lot of people with advanced degrees from engineering schools that should know better.
psik
You may be underestimating the power of emotions on this issue. Consider John99's stance for a while- he was amenable to the idea that WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, so long as it was done in order to minimize the loss of life (this was my take at any rate). It seems what he simply can't accept is the idea that the government would actually murder innocent civilians in order to feed the military industrial complex with more wars. I would content that it's the same reason that many can't believe that the Roosevelt would want Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so that he could enter World War II with the majority of the populace backing his decision.
Alright, fine. Can you explain why it was a ground level explosion? If they're running to the door, the building clearly hadn't gotten down that far.
Bombs in the buildings, Round 3, part 2
This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
Why must you use terms such as 'stupid'? Yes, you're technically attacking my argument, but I think what you're trying to imply is clear. Thermite arson is a real if exotic way to set fire to a building, as I made clear at the bottom of this post. I don't see why it couldn't be possible that the windsor towers may have had a bit of it to get the fire going. In terms of the WTC buildings, no iceburgs careened into the twin towers and WTC 7 didn't even get hit by a plane.
The thing about speculations is that they frequently can be put to the test. As even you yourself have noted, Gregory Ulrich, who is a fence sitter in regards to some of the issues on 9/11, would like more investigation into certain matters concerning the WTC collapses. Do you agree that this should be done as well?
In regards to demonstrating that thermite was or was not involved in the windsor tower building, sorry, but I simply don't have the knowledge or the tools to do so. In regards to thermite arson in general, you aren't seriously arguing that the National Fire Protection Association is requiring that testing be done for fictitious fire accelerants?
On this we can agree. Nevertheless, I, atleast, am curious as to how John Skilling's analysis that the towers could withstand jet crashes went 'missing'. Who was in charge of that analysis? At present, the only people who apparently even knew that the analysis had gone missing is NIST.
You saying so doesn't actually make it so.
The steel frame actually makes it even less likely that the building would have collapsed due to fire.
9/11 Research makes quick work of that claim in its article The Windsor Building Fire:
Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
No, it's not. I recommend you take a look at whatreallyhappened.com's article, World Trade Center 2:
There Was No Inferno
Even if the floors were sagging (and that's in contention, as Jim Hoffman made clear in his article Building a Better Mirage), an isolated sagging floor or 2 does not a 110 story collapse make.
I've watched plenty. If you want to direct my attention to a particular clip, be my guest.
This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 412 in this thread.
Why must you use terms such as 'stupid'? Yes, you're technically attacking my argument, but I think what you're trying to imply is clear. Thermite arson is a real if exotic way to set fire to a building, as I made clear at the bottom of this post. I don't see why it couldn't be possible that the windsor towers may have had a bit of it to get the fire going. In terms of the WTC buildings, no iceburgs careened into the twin towers and WTC 7 didn't even get hit by a plane.
shaman_ said:
The thing about speculations is that they frequently can be put to the test. As even you yourself have noted, Gregory Ulrich, who is a fence sitter in regards to some of the issues on 9/11, would like more investigation into certain matters concerning the WTC collapses. Do you agree that this should be done as well?
shaman_ said:
In regards to demonstrating that thermite was or was not involved in the windsor tower building, sorry, but I simply don't have the knowledge or the tools to do so. In regards to thermite arson in general, you aren't seriously arguing that the National Fire Protection Association is requiring that testing be done for fictitious fire accelerants?
On this we can agree. Nevertheless, I, atleast, am curious as to how John Skilling's analysis that the towers could withstand jet crashes went 'missing'. Who was in charge of that analysis? At present, the only people who apparently even knew that the analysis had gone missing is NIST.
shaman_ said:
You saying so doesn't actually make it so.
The steel frame actually makes it even less likely that the building would have collapsed due to fire.
9/11 Research makes quick work of that claim in its article The Windsor Building Fire:
Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
No, it's not. I recommend you take a look at whatreallyhappened.com's article, World Trade Center 2:
There Was No Inferno
Even if the floors were sagging (and that's in contention, as Jim Hoffman made clear in his article Building a Better Mirage), an isolated sagging floor or 2 does not a 110 story collapse make.
I've watched plenty. If you want to direct my attention to a particular clip, be my guest.
You are beginning to sound like an ambulance chaser. I know a great deal about witness testimony during stressful events. Unless there is other evidence such as devices being found those sounds can be so many things. Could be something heavy hitting the ground from 90-100 stories up.
Why dont you get a real education and come back here.
I have lots of other things to say. It's not a joke. If you find fault in it, by all means share your point of view.
- Status