This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?

George Washington's picture




 

This is one in a series of safety-related public service announcements.

Death Traps?

Millions of people work in or visit high-rise buildings … assuming the buildings were more or less safe.

But it turns out that there is a severe, lethal risk of sudden collapse in even the best-made skyscrapers in America, Britain, Germany, Japan and other nations worldwide.

A New Understanding

Before 9/11, no modern steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.

9/11 radically changed our understanding of architecture and engineering …

Specifically, 3 steel-frame buildings collapsed on that day. That includes one that was never hit by a plane, and had only small, isolated office fires prior to its collapse.

This was unexpected, as much hotter, longer-lasting fires have never before brought down a modern steel-frame office building.  For example, the 2005 Madrid skyscraper fire “reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighter”  and lasted some 20 hours without collapsing.

In other words, officials who write building codes, architects and structural engineers had never before worried about small office fires causing office buildings from collapsing.

Appendix A of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study notes:

In the case of the fire at One Meridian Plaza, the fire burned uncontrolled for the first 11 hours and lasted 19 hours. Contents from nine floors were completely consumed in the fire. In addition to these experiences in fire incidents, as a result of the Broadgate fire, British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cordington in the mid-1990s 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 beam reaching 800-900 °C (1,500-1,700 °F) in three tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 °C [1,100 °F]), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

Underwriters Laboratories tested the steel components at the Twin Towers and found they could withstand fires for hours without failure:

“NIST [the government agency - National Institute of Standards and Technology, a branch of the Department of Commerce - responsible for investigating the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11] contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] 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, 2005, p. 140).

Other fire tests have also failed to cause failures at high temperatures.

So the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 (not hit by a plane) was a surprise … and should be a huge concern to the millions of people who work in office buildings worldwide.

To get to the bottom of this issue, Washington’s Blog reached out to a former manager at Underwriters Laboratories – Kevin Ryan – to seek reassurance that the danger was small for the millions of financial services industry workers, business men, lawyers, web executives, and others who work in office buildings:

[Question]  Wasn’t the steel used in the Twin Towers and Building 7 of inferior quality?  So as long as builders use better-quality steel, can’t we be assured of safety?

[Kevin Ryan]   The steel used to build WTC Building 7 was the standard grade for high-rise construction–still used to this day–called ASTM A36 grade steel. It was not inferior in any way from the steel used to make many of the other high-rise buildings in America.

For the Twin Towers, fourteen different grades of steel were used in the construction, including A36, which has a nominal strength of 36 ksi.  The other grades used were higher strength steels like 100 ksi WEL-TEN steel which was manufactured in Japan and shipped to the States. The steel used in the Towers was actually far superior to typical structural steel.

The official government reports on the destruction of the WTC buildings did not find any problem with the quality of the materials or construction methods used. And although those reports did make some recommendations for changes to building codes, those changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.

[Question]   You write in Foreign Policy Journal:

“And if people actually understood and believed the official account of what happened at the WTC they would not enter tall buildings because in doing so they would be putting their lives at risk.”

What do you mean?

[Ryan]  What I mean is that high-rise buildings are designed and constructed to withstand fires that are much worse than what we know existed in WTC Building 7. My former company, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), plays a big part in that process. We know that UL did the fire resistance testing that was behind the selection of the steel components for WTC7 because that fact is in the NIST WTC7 report. Therefore the steel columns and floor assemblies should have withstood 2 to 3 hours of intense fire in a testing furnace, as required by the NYC code.  But on 9/11, the fire lasted only 20 minutes in any given area, a fact that NIST admits, and the entire structure was destroyed due to an inexplicable failure to resist fire.

Moreover, NIST abandoned its previous hypotheses that suggested the destruction of WTC7 might have resulted from diesel fuel fires, or damage from falling debris, or the design of the building. In the end, NIST said that it was only the effects of the fire fed by office furnishings, on fully-fireproofed steel components, that caused the total destruction of this 47-story building. And since no actions have been taken to retrofit any existing high-rise buildings, we must assume that what happened to WTC7, according to the official account, could happen to any tall building that experiences a typical office fire.

No Change (?!)

Given that 9/11 totally changed our understanding of how dangerous small office fires could be, we couldn’t believe Ryan’s claim that “changes have not been incorporated in municipal codes or adopted by the building construction community.”

So Washington’s Blog contacted Richard Gage,  a practicing architect for more than two decades, who has worked on most types of building construction, including one project which used  around 1,200 tons of steel framing:

[Question] Have high-rise architects and engineers changed how they build skyscrapers, to prevent collapses after 9/11?

And have they changed how they build skyscrapers to prevent office fires from knocking down steel buildings?

[Richard Gage] No – they haven’t made any structural changes.

No structural changes?!

Either building code writers, architects and engineers are cavalierly ignoring this catastrophic new understanding of the extreme danger of small office fires, or the investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11 was flawed.

No wonder New York residents have launched a High Rise Safety Initiative to try to protect the safety of those who work or visit office buildings.

Postscript:  Until this issue is resolved through a complete revision of building codes and architectural and engineering practices, we recommend that everyone stay out of office buildings. Because if even small office fires can cause the whole building to collapse, it’s just not worth the risk to go inside.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:19 | 4437241 OhBaldOne
OhBaldOne's picture

Welcome to the world of controlled demolition using thermite to cut through the steel beams…and found for years afterwards in samples of the debris from the towers and building 7.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 16:39 | 4437175 Dinero D. Profit
Dinero D. Profit's picture

On 9/11 I lived in an apartment on !0th Av, b'tween 46/47th.  I took the dog out for a walk at 8;30AM. and by 8:45 (plus or minus seconds) I was at the corner of 11th and 46th.  

VAROOM! Came the startlingly loud noise of jet plane with its engines at full throtle, I looked up and I saw what appeared to be a two engine commercial jet flying downtown, and surprisingly fast.  I saw it for a just two seonds. It disappeared from view beyond a tall building.

I heard and saw this fucking jet plane, and I insist upon this.  I insist upon it!

The path of the jet was between 11th Av and the West Side Highway.  I insist upon that too.

 

After studying the 9/11 Truth information I am now willing to concede that what I saw was a hologram, or something.  

IMO an actual jet plane hitting a steel building would break apart, at least some, if only 1 pissent. The videos all show a plane zooming into something as dense as a cloud!  They show zero plane debris.

 

 

 

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:11 | 4438764 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

The Space Shuttle Columbia's Port Wing Leading Edge was hit by a Pound of Foam that fell from the External Tank.

 

Foam is much softer than a Reenforced Carbon Panel.

 

Yet that Foam blew a hole through the Port Wing of Space Shuttle Columbia and doomed the Spacecraft to burn up upon reentry about two weeks later.

 

The Foam was estimated to have an Air Speed of 500 MPH at the Time of impact.

 

These Aluminum Skinned Jets were traveling at about 300 MPH. Structural Steel is much weaker than Carbon Fiber. Furthermore the Jets weighed in Tons and not just a Pound.

 

Ek = (1/2)mv2

 

They were much more massive. The velocity was lower. And Steel is much weaker than Carbon Fiber. Aluminum is much harder than foam.

 

There were no Holograms. That is misinformation to sway the Science Illiterate away from the truth.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 14:57 | 4437137 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

It is both amazing and sad that so many here seem to have missed the tongue-in-cheek expression of this post's admonitions about unsafe buildings. 

Baaaaaaa. 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:35 | 4439652 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"It is both amazing and sad that so many here seem to have missed the tongue-in-cheek expression of this post's admonitions about unsafe buildings."

 

I haven't missed that the story is a 180 twist to make a point, criticizing NIST.

 

The fact is that a building can collapse in a fire, no matter how remote it might seem due to past experience.  Titanic was deemed unsinkable, yet sank on it's first voyage.

As far as building fire codes, the new 1 World Trade was not built as a tube design.  It has concrete reinforcement.  The new 7 World Trade was constructed differently as well, i presume, to make it more fire resistant.

In Los Angeles we have many buildings that are known to be suseptible to collapse from major earthquake, such as on the San Andreas, yet they have not all  been retrofitted and people are working in them, as if that day will never come.

 

 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:45 | 4436863 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

That fuckin Lee Harvey Oswald again.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:57 | 4437366 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

No, these patsies were a bunch of Arabs.  Don't you follow the news?

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 14:05 | 4436926 Gankfest
Gankfest's picture

Grab some popcorn and watch the Hysteria show! :D

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:32 | 4436814 Fíréan
Fíréan's picture

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001 until their flight numbers changed, neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled flights on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/) do not list either flight that day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&diff=next&ol...

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:30 | 4436620 supermaxedout
supermaxedout's picture

Frankfurt, Germany University Towers dynamited on 2.2.2014.

http://www.spiegel.de/video/frankfurt-sprengung-des-uni-turms-video-1324...

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:05 | 4437186 marathonman
marathonman's picture

Don't worry.  Obamacare is going to make sure that there aren't any jobs to go to in those high rise buildings.  Democrats really are looking out for our safety....  ! 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:28 | 4436619 Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Only if the giant asteroid doesn't get us first.
Assclown.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:25 | 4436598 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

I suppose that the theory of steel-eating termites weakening the Twin Towers and Bldg. 7 holds as much water as the official pronouncement that diesel fuel fires brought down the structures.  If you ever were in the lowest level of a high-rise building, the idea of a plane crashing into the 90th floor and causing the building to collapse would appear laughable....

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:04 | 4436738 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

diesel?  i heard it was kerosene

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:54 | 4436498 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Here's a simple mind experiment (which could be done full scale, though it would cost several hundred million dollars minimum).

Build exact replica of WTC 7. 

Argument #1  --  brought down by debris damage and "primarily office fires" (NIST)

Argument #2  --  brought down by controlled demolition

Since I subscribe to CD hypothesis and a fair minded guy I'll let the fire-collapse guys go first.  From best evidence we cut columns that were damaged by debris and we hand those who support the 'official narrative' a book of matches.  Go set some fires, again from best evidence as to floors and locations.  And we wait....  Fix it and try again.   Can't do it in 1000 tries.  Not in a million, I suspect, or ever.

Since I support the CD hypothesis I apply explosives according to best demolition experts directions over 8 floors or more.  And you know what?  I can create that same ABSOLUTE FREE FALL  acceleration profile as evidenced in the videos for the collapse of WTC 7 everytime.  Everytime.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:09 | 4436534 sosoome
sosoome's picture

The error in most CD claims is that "free fall" can only mean CD. That is a gross assumption which has no business in an objective investigation. The fact is, the point of failure shows the perimeter walls broke and buckled at their connections, with no sign of being cut. Study the Verizon Bilding damage. How did 5 floors of WTC7 entire west perimeter wall get embedded flat into Verizon from the ground up?

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:19 | 4436578 nuclearsquid
nuclearsquid's picture

GW.  I usually love your posts, but come on.  Yes! millions of people are in danger of their steel building collapse.  But when one collapses, only a few thousand, max, will die at once.  Catastrophic, sure.  But in the middle ages, in china, there was an earthquake that killed MILLIONS of people at ONCE! it was because their stone huts all caved in.  But guess what?  When we have an earthquake, all our buildings stay up.

So is it worrying that a small fire, if left unchecked, could weaken structural steel and cause a building to collapes?  I guess so.  Good thing we have fire departments, fire suppression systems, sprinklers, fire escapes, fire alarms, fire drills, etc.  Lets hope when the fire starts in my high-rise, the fire department won't be too busy hosing down protesters.

 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 23:59 | 4438743 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

So you missed the satire...Ok.

 

May God forbid you read Jonathon Swift's, "A Modest Proposal".

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:53 | 4436491 mr1963
mr1963's picture

Quick, crawl under a rock, it's the only safe place on earth. Oh, wait, a sinkhole just opened up under me...

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:57 | 4436469 TalkToLind
TalkToLind's picture

Look, I didn't originally trust the official version of 9/11, but that changed after I conducted my own experiment.  I took 2 baseball bats and dipped the tips into a bucket of kerosene, then I planted both bats firmly into the ground.  Next I set the tips of the bats on fire like torches.  Both bats burned uneventfully for 50 minutes or so...but then something truly amazing happened:  the entire structure of both bats collapsed...at free fall speeds into piles of fine sawdust!  So y'all bitchez can give me down votes, but I saw it happen with my own eyes. 

P.S.  This shit just keeps getting weirder.  A small tree several feet away from where I burned the bats has just collapsed.  Meanwhile my neighbor called to tell me about the small tree collapsing 20 minutes before it actually happened!

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:57 | 4436504 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Oh, the damage you've done.  How many innocent baseball bats will be lost (your fault) as kids across the land attempt to replicate your ground-breaking experiment?

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:15 | 4436369 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Where is structural corroboration of controlled demolition GW???? Have you bothered to look, prior to making such wild claims? Obviously not, for there are tons of evidence which show the buildings (all 3) broke apart at their connections. 

Forget NIST and do some research. NIST models are moot, for they didn't include this: 

http://wtc7fact.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/world-trade-center-7-the-gash/

You won't find this on Gage's site either.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:47 | 4436476 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

Neither of the towers were "steel framed" either, they were supported by th exterior CONCRETE walls, (they were not curtain walls), and the interior stair wells also made of concrete. Thee were steel supports to carry rhe floors but they were of a K-bar design sort of like a truss and they were in turn supported by light steel members where needed but mostly by the concrete. Compared to the Empire State Building, a steel FRAMED building, they were/are of TOTALLY different design.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:55 | 4437354 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

the towers were significantly stronger than the Empire State Building.  The cores were massive and built to support 3-4 times the load - the idea that fires weakened these to the point of near free fall collapse - even as load above was forcifully ejected dozens of yards away from the building, is absurd - unless there was "extra" energy in the system somewhere. 

 

You think a skyscraper is supported by concrete walls?  Really dude?  Really?

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:13 | 4439286 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

I'll put my engineering degrees up against yours any time dipshit. The exterior walls of towers 1 and 2 were massive steel rienforced concrete and any asshat can look it up even YOU. Concrete is much stronger than steel in compression but fails in deflection, the building was supported by concrete and the floors were supported by steel joists.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 13:16 | 4439598 sosoome
sosoome's picture

"The exterior walls of towers 1 and 2 were massive steel rienforced concrete..."

The exterior walls were NOT encased in concrete. The only concrete above the 6th floor were the 4" slabs of the floors themselves. You really should check your sources, if you have any.

The walls were essentially steel lego pieces, bolted at their butt joints, with lightweight floor trusses holding them plumb.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:58 | 4436506 sosoome
sosoome's picture

You're half right. 

The perimeter walls were steel, not concrete. They consisted of essentially lego pieces butt jointed and bolted together, relying on the floor trusses for plumb.

The staircases were encased in concrete only to about the 6th floor above street level. From there, they were encased in drywall, the source for most of the dust.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 12:39 | 4436642 InflammatoryResponse
InflammatoryResponse's picture

I have a book that is all about the towers and their construction.

 

they had a central load bearing skeleton.  whe the planes HIT they damaged that skeleton  the 20 some odd floors ABOVE the impact(s) lost support.  so they fell and each floor collapsed the floor below as the the skeleton collapsed.

 

think about it this way

 

 

you're standing up.   I take a baseball bat and break both of your legs.    You won't be standing up any time soon.  samething with the buildings.

 

and the "POOFS:" out the side that people thought were explosions were likely air blasts coming out of the elevator shafts.  the elevators would have locked into place when the "emergency" occured.  so that formed the plug.  the pancakiing floors above are going to Push a LOT of air down rapidly the place to vent?  the doors on the floor above get blown out.

 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 13:06 | 4436746 sosoome
sosoome's picture

It was much more than the floors collapsing upon each other. The perimeter walls of the tops broke up and fell down through the Towers and between core columns, outracing all the lighter floor material.

They were punching through the floors well ahead of what is commonly considered the collapse line.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:45 | 4436468 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

 

Nanothermite material found in the dust of the WTC. 

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

 

Hey whore, how much do they pay you to troll websites like this?

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:53 | 4436493 sosoome
sosoome's picture

You better bring more than dust to the grand jury if you want anew investigation. And btw, those "scientific" papers didn't consider rust, wihich reverts to iron at it's boiling point, much lower than that of steel, as a source for iron micro spheres.

Find some steel that shows controlled demolition. There's tons of it available for your study.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 16:02 | 4437388 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

Nanothermite is not rust, you moron.

And the steel girders show evidence of melting and of sulfidation. Where did the sulfur come from asshole since it wasn't originally in the steel.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 16:26 | 4437462 sosoome
sosoome's picture

Where did I say it was?

Now who's the moron? You can't read? Rust reverts to iron at it's boiling point. Why didn't the "scientific papers" consider this the source for iron micro spheres?

And I'll repeat a bit of logic for you. It's not complicated, so follow along. If the buildings were cut apart with anything to bring them down, there will be structural evidence in the debris piles. Corroborate your theory with structural evidence. And you can't say it was hauled off because I can show you reams of structural evidence which shows the buildings broke at their connectors.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 22:56 | 4438625 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

I guess you have a hard time following anything. You asked for evidence of controlled demolition. Nanothermite in the dust, sulfidation of the girders, evidence of melting of the girders, firefighters and police heard explosions, fire has never brought down a steel frame skyscraper either before or after 911; iron microspheres, the fact that jet fuel is largely kerosene and kerosene does not burn hot enout to burn steel. If it did, my kerosene heater would burn to the ground every time I turned it on. There is also the fact that the buildings fell at close to free fall speed. Why the lack of resistance as one floor hit the other. Answer: the joints at each floor were being blown in advance of each floor falling - it's called a controlled demolition.

I know you're here to support the "official story" because you're a paid whore. And I'm done with you whore.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 01:09 | 4438873 sosoome
sosoome's picture

I've asked for structural evidence, as in members cut with thermate or other cutter charge. I can't find any. All i can find are members ripped apart at their connectors. 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 00:13 | 4438759 surfsup
surfsup's picture

Nano nano thermite...

nanny nanny nanny goat... 

nope nope nope 

snodgrass the:  http://addictedtotrolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DAM-THINGS-TAILED...

 

Here is your nanny goat:  http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartLINK/HutchisonEffect.jpg

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 10:16 | 4436197 loregnum
loregnum's picture

Is this Washington's Blog article supposed to be sarcasm? I only ask since the site has before indicated it feels the official story is a myth yet this article seems to act like the official story is legit and office buildings are going to collapse because of some fires.

Seems like a flip flop if this is indeed supposed to be a legit article.

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 02:45 | 4438732 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

It is a means of going on the offensive. Wait until I file suit against the Building Inspectors in San Diego County and ask a Judge for an injunction of relief to CONDEMN ALL SKYSCRAPERS as unfit for Human Habitation.

 

The NIST Report is my Evidence. It is Official after all.

 

Now I have to rid myself of all of my money to make the State pay for my complaint.

 

I think I will lose my Gold in a Boating Accident.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 15:49 | 4437342 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

jesus.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 20:27 | 4438206 Son of Captain Nemo
Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Jesus?

No rabid Jew.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 17:25 | 4437685 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

wept

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 11:00 | 4436334 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

It's just a tongue-in-cheek exercise in logic. If nothing unusual happened on 9/11 and we are to believe the official reports then ALL the buildings are unsafe and we should stay out of them. We should anyway since the odds that you come within sliming distance of an evil bankster in one of those building is much higher than in a typical lowrise building on Main Street. 

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 09:52 | 4436122 EcoJoker
EcoJoker's picture

bwahahaha... worst article ever seen on this site.   Bollocks.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 09:34 | 4436076 The Pop In
The Pop In's picture

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to the President.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 09:27 | 4436059 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Not an ounce of science or a single calculation - one would think that someone making a counter argument based upon the behaviour of objects under gravity (Physics, IOW) would have some or any knowledge and use that in a counter argument.

I am not going to clog this with a spreadsheet, the figures are simple Maths.

One floor shall suffice.

One floor of WTC with furnishings and such: ~2,482,758 kilograms in mass.

Gravitational speed of acceleration is around 9.8 metres per second square m/(s^2)

KE or PE are in Joules, or (kg-m)/(s^2). That's energy.

One tonne of TNT contains roughly ~4,184,000,000 joules or 4.2 gigajoules.

It's now a matter of 4th grade multiplication.

Floor 110 was 418 metres high, it had a mass of ~2,482,758 kilograms and it we use 9.8 m/s2 to calculate energy not it's actual speed. Speed acceleration would have been slower and affected by air resistance and converion of energy and momentum and velocity into force. That's where all that dust came from - energy converted to crushing force.

PE=mgh. Mass in kgs times 9.8 times height in metres.

PE of ONE FLOOR, floor 110, was thus;

2482758 * 9.8 * (418-75)

We adjust height as the debris would not have fallen all the way to the ground when it hit WTC7. 75 ,metres would have been around 20 floors off of the ground. A reasonable assumption.

Answer: 8345542741

Units:KGS *(m)/(S^2)*m

Units:(Kgs*M^2)/(S^2)

The units for a Joule are indeed that, so the calculation is for Joules.

One floor of WTC, floor 110, contained 8,345,542,741 Joules.

One tonne of TNT is around ~4,184,000,000 Joules

Now we divide.

(8,345,542,741 Joules) / (~4,184,000,000 Joules) = 1.995

Let's just round that to 2.0.

That's 2.0 TONNES OF TNT EQUIVALENT.

Just one floor. Floor 110. Remember, TWO BUILDINGS. Double it. ONE FLOOR WAS 2 TONNES OF TNT EQUIVALENT.

Now run the calculations adjusting for height and sum both buildings.

Yikes. It's a huge figure. Each building contained about 5.6E11 Joules or 134 TONNES OF TNT. 

This energy was 'stored' when the building materials were hoisted up to build the structures back in the early 1970's.

The event was merely Thermodynamic conservation of energy that was input during construct, but it all was 'discharged' in under 30 seconds. Heat, friction and destruction. That unit is called 'Work' or a 'Newton'. Appy the joules over a distance of metres to get the work done. Again, a huge massive figure from the collapses.

So each building had 134 tonnes of TNT equivalent in stored potential energy. 268 tonnes equivalent. This does not include thermal energy, also known as 'a fire'. Just PE if all converted to KE.

Do you need to be told WHY WTC7 was not designed to withstand a bomb blast of 268 tonnes of TNT? Of 26.8 tonnes? Of 2.68 tonnes? Also remember that WTC 1 and 2 can collapse, AND also discharge this PE into another building. Wow. Bad, bad day. And events show that it was bad. Lots of ground up everything. Melted steel, collapsed hirises, just a mess.

One can play with the heights and masses involved but they don't change the result by more than a fact of 2 or 3.

Huge amounts of energy involved. Just one percent was sufficient to 'do the impossible'. ONE PERCENT. It's reasonable to conclude that 10 to 20 percent was converted to damaging joules upon impact with other structures, and the results show this to be the case.

But if ANY OF YOU understood basis maths (you don't and I do not know why), and if you DID you should have performed the calculations I did in this post the same day of 9-11 to prove that the conspiracy explanations are ignorant of science, then I would not have to post this 12+ years after the fact.

It speaks volumes to our current high self-esteem but low intelligence, anti-intellectual, "What is STEM???", culture that I have to make this simple argument that you should have done yourself.

You guys are suspicious and skeptical which are admirable traits, but you lack the education and intelligence to back it up and when disproven you simply ignore it as you will ignore this post I have made.

You guys downvoted my first post 18:2. Lets' see if you can improve upon your ignorance and raise the quotient to greater than 10 to 1.1.

Fri, 02/14/2014 - 23:22 | 4438682 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Now I see your error. You gave the same Potential Energy to every floor.

 

A floor which has more elevation has more Potential Energy due to its Elevation.

 

After all  PE = mgH...Note the H

 

And since PE = KE as Energy is conserved the KE for every siingle floor is different.

 

So I need to see all of your figures which you calculated.

 

One floor just does not get it.

 

Show me the Spreadsheet.

 

Furthermore the Vector Forces as the PE is converted to KE are not all directed toward the ground. Much of it is directed elsewhere as Sound, Heat,  Friction, thus Resistance.

 

And the Buildings imploded toward the ground in the path of MOST RESISTANCE at nearly Free Fall???

 

Yeah. Let me see your spreadsheet.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 09:17 | 4464704 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

 

"Now I see your error. You gave the same Potential Energy to every floor.

A floor which has more elevation has more Potential Energy due to its Elevation."

 

 

Incorrect. Wow, you guys really ARE incapable of simple Maths, aren't you? You need to see my spreadsheet? Are you incapable of doing this 4th Grade Maths on your own? I think you are...

You really cannot do simple math. This explains it all.

The PE for floor 110 is 10170372414 joules.

Here:

Kg/Meters/Height per floor/PE

2482758.621 418 3.8 10170372414

If the PE were the same then total PE of 110 floors would be:

110*10170372414=1118740965540 joules.

Divide by the TNT joules figure of 4,184,000,000 joules per tonne of TNT.

268 tonnes for each building.


Now remember, this isn't with the adjustment in height of each floor -75 metres to account for the debris hitting WTC not at the ground but 20 floors high. 

When that adjustment is made you get this for just floor 110:

2482758 * 9.8 * (418-75) = 8345542741.2

If the PE for each floor were the same then the total would be:

8345542741.2 * 110 = 918009701532

Divide by 4,184,000,000 to get total tonnes of TNT for one WTC tower:

219 tonnes for ONE WTC tower.

 
Those figures are LARGER than mine, and if you understood maths and simple physics you would have understood that you were asking me to prove that the energy was higher than I claimed.

You have now proven that you believe what you believe, due to deep and profound ignorance of Mathematics and Physics.


Here are the top ten floors/rows and all columns. Copy and paste it into Excel. This is not complicated.

 

FLOOR MASS ,,,,HEIGHT METRES PE,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SUMMED PE

110 2482758.621 418 3.8 10170372414 10170372414

109 2482758.621 414.2 3.8 10077914483 20248286897

108 2482758.621 410.4 3.8 9985456552 30233743448

107 2482758.621 406.6 3.8 9892998621 40126742069

106 2482758.621 402.8 3.8 9800540690 49927282759

105 2482758.621 399 3.8 9708082759 59635365517

104 2482758.621 395.2 3.8 9615624828 69250990345

103 2482758.621 391.4 3.8 9523166897 78774157241

102 2482758.621 387.6 3.8 9430708966 88204866207

101 2482758.621 383.8 3.8 9338251034 97543117241

100 2482758.621 380 3.8 9245793103 1.06789E+11

You want to adjust floor height to the floor and not roof, fine. You want to adjust the mass of each floor, fine. You want to take some of the lower joules figures for TNT, fine. My figure of 2482758kgs/floor is low, on the conservative side, Many estimates are over 3 million kgs per floor.

Even with all these adjustments, the PE expended into KE in joules was in the scores of tonnes and I claim over 250 tonnes combined for the two towers down to an elevation 75 metres or 20 floors above street level. To ground level and with higher TNT joules and mass per floor of WTC the figure can get to over 300 tonnes of TNT equivalent.

If you think that WTC 7, steel, or concrete, or a human body, or anything, "should have withstood this force" you simply lack the education and mathematical intellectual ability to understand when you are wrong.

This was on the scale of a low yield nuclear device, or 28 MOAB's or 7 FOAB's.

If you actually think WTC7 "should have withstood" 7 FOAB thermobaric explosions simultaneously, you just are not smart enough to hold your opinion.

 

Sat, 02/15/2014 - 11:24 | 4439302 blindman
blindman's picture

you don't need to see his spread sheet. just read this.
@j.c.b.
"You've just described the collapse of the first building
in history to be constructed without any support structure." j.c.b.
.
it happens that apparently intelligent people can over look the very
simple and obvious while they become enamored with their own
technical bias; it is the initial assumption, oversight and bias
that leads to fallacious conclusions. either that or the practice
of lying for pay.
check this link where
n.c. argues from "uncontroversial" facts to a fallacious conclusion
based on the absolute profundity of his bias. (to some applause)
.
Noam Chomsky slams 9/11 truthers (VIDEO)
http://wtfrly.com/2013/11/27/noam-chomsky-slams-911-truthers-video/
.
the gate keepers at work.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!