This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?
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 -


You've just described the collapse of the first building in history to be constructed without any support structure. Indeed, what you describe is a world in which a system gains energy even as it looses energy, all because of existing mass and near free fall acceleration.
Conservation of Energy and Momentum never came up in your college physics class? Really?
You think that the core columns and lower floors, built to support 3-4 times the load above, grew weaker as the load above lessened? Oh right, "jet fuel" huh? The jet fuel that wasn't initially burned up or dispersed unignited was sufficient to weaken the absolutely massive core columns?
Have you seen this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
You think that the core columns and lower floors, built to support 3-4 times the load above, grew weaker as the load above lessened?
Engineer? Going to self-invoke Appeal to Authority Fallacy?
Wow, you really don't understand how this building was designed.
The lower floors weren't built to support ANYTHING. This was two tubes with sprung concrete cantilevered for each floor with the outside of the building and the inside providing all of the support. Once the building drops 3.8 metres, one floor, the entire exterior tube has been compromised and it no longer has rigidity or tensile strength and its ability to hold up anything is diminished or gone.
Those floors gave the tube rigidity. Remove one and bend the outside of the tube and it's not stable
Take a brick and put it on top of a tube of cardboard 18 inches long. Holds up.
Now, take that tube and bend it. Straighten it back out. Put the brick on top.
Oops.
AWESOME. Thank you fellow engineer. (or at least one who can do the math).
That was a piss poor attempt. Potential Energy is a function of Height. Each floor, depending upon ELEVATION, has a different Potential Energy.
If you were in my Physics class and you presented shuch an intellectually LAZY way of approaching this problem...THEN I WOULD FAIL YOU.
Ep = mgH
H is variant as the building has different floors at different elevations.
What firm do you work for as a Engineer. I would like to forward this analysis, and your assessment, to your boss as well as the Licensing Agency of your state.
Anyone who is a Licensed Engineer and will buy this exercise needs to be stripped of their License as that is what will place the Public Safety at risk.
You forgot to itemize how much energy would be required to break apart all the pieces of steel and concrete into tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of pieces.
Probably that amount of energy to break all that steel and concrete apart would be greater than all the potential energy and kinetic energy of freefall of the building mass.
You forgot to calculate the time required to break all that steel and concrete into millions of pieces, and how much power comparison would be equivalent to the power that would be required in 15 seconds of freefall to expend all that energy in breaking apart millions of pieces of steel and concrte.
How much Kilowatt-hours in 15 seconds?
Zero time would require Infinite power.
It takes a finite amount of time to break steel and concrete at ordinary power levels.
I think that you should seek psychiatric help. I mean this sincerely and with compassion.
Leraconter
Good of you to share with us a bit of your learned information. However it is a bit strange to me that you are are giving figures relating to the energies released during the collapse, when the subject of the discussion is how the collapse should never have happened in the first place.
For my part, as a foundry engineer of some experience in the design and operation of fuel air metallurgical furnaces, knowing the mechanics and difficulties of producing high temperature environments within enclosed spaces even under optimal conditions, I have never been convinced that proper fuel air ratios, air flows or thermal containment or time were sufficient to cause any applicable weakening of the asbestos covered structures involved. (Yes, the holders of these buildings were facing requirement by the city to either perform asbestos abatement or face condemnation.)
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
Most of the large buildings in Manhattan are likely wired for controlled demolition at all times. Just think for a moment about why they would do that. You don't want one tipping over and taking down others. On 9/11 either this was exploited or stupid people were on the plunger. And of course they will never admit these buildings are all wired. NEVER.
Now examine the downvotes on that post. The same reaction I get every time I tell people they are all wired. It doesn't fit the theory that the WTC buildings were wired just before 9/11. It doesn't fit the status quo baloney that that there are no rigged buildings ever. Yet, it is the logical answer. The buildings are all rigged and those WTC buildings were brought down by stupid or corrupt people who were trusted with access.
Google some pictures of building collpase. Real ones fall over onto other buildings as much as anything else, not straight down. That is why they rig them to implode at all times.
Worse. The can be dropped by scalar waves:
http://addictedtotrolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DAM-THINGS-TAILED...
Or they could have been vaporized by space lizards with laser beams.
But there is a simpler explanation...
Since we have any number of pseudo-scientists on here, some of whom believe that most of the potential energy that gravity unleashes in a falling object is converted into heat, I think it would be helpful to point out that there have been many, many studies that discredit NISTs finding published in peer-reviewed journals. NIST´s studies have not been peer-reviewed, and the computer models that they rely upon (exclusively, disregarding all other evidence) have never been published, released, or reviewed. No one knows, in effect, how NIST generated its results. The proponderance, in fact all, of the properly-conducted scientific research into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings supports the contention that these buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. This website has some of the peer-reviewed papers. There are many more, however. http://911debunkers.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
There is a reason why 2000 or more professional architects and engineers believe these buildings were destroyed by demolition. This is not some wild theory.
AurorusBorealus, You're smart than that...
What over 2000 architects and engineers signed their name to read:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
And you must be smart enough to realize that these people did not sign that petition because they were worried that current fire-safety codes were not sufficient. Everyone knows what that statement really means... "we believe those buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
" Everyone knows what that statement really means... "we believe those buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
To me it means they want a circus.
David Chandler was blowing smoke when he claimed that a plume of horizontal smoke near the 95th floor, as 1 World Trade began to collapse, was evidence of a cutter charge. It was evidence that the floor space was compressing and smoke was being forced out a window or windows on the west side of the building.
No, I don't agree, in the case of everyone I've spoken to who signed it means- WE'RE BEING LIED TO, and we need to cover all bases including one realistic possibility that was completely ignored by the "work product" of the NIST.
Out of the 9 I know of who signed, 1 does have a fetish for explosive theories, but he wasn't of the two who had actual industrial demolition experience. Not a statistically relevant sample size, but I don't think you're going to find the inverse by increasing the number.
(Edit: someone above thinks it was possible to pull off a "perfect" controlled demolition of a high-rise building with A HUGE FUCKING AIRPLANE stuck in the middle of the building).
I think you're lying, regardless you otherwise are in fact missing the point, and I bet you think you need to run wires to explosives...
Radio waves are problematic for precision sequencing and timing in areas with high signal interference. They're fine for amateurs playing with background booby traps, or professionals trying to eliminate a specific target, and also for people who get their "experience" from reading shit on the internet.
Structural de-engineering is a bit more complex...
I have to agree completely. All the people who think they can explain 'the failure' and subsequent collapse mechanics mostly full of shit just as the NIST work is. As a scientist that works at a world class lab I see even at our labratory completely faulty papers based on almost pure fluff being accepted and printed in so called world class journals.
As another posted commented, garbage in, garbage out.
This is a message to those who conducted these fire studies. There is a simple solution here. Heat those buildings in a controlled way so they DO collapse and then observe (high speed video/camera) the resulting collapse.
I will put 1 gold ounce right now on a even money bet of the following:
1) Any asymetric heating profile that leads to collapse will not cause the CD type pancaking observed - not in 1 out of 10 times nor probably even 1 in 100.
2) The temperatures required to cause a collapse (lets assume symmetric) will far exceed those of normal fires AND will be required to be symmetric and sustained for a far longer time to have any hope of producing the type of failure observed.
In the modelling add the following:
3) Assume shoddy materials were used or some group of idiots as a joke removed a certian number of joining bolts in the frame at key points. How much does this affect (1 and 2) above?
4) Assume there was no fire insulation AND that the frame materials had begun to rust. How much does this affect (1 and 2) above.
The mere fact that not one real world test has been done which can reproduce the results indicate a complete failure to properly investigate what occured. Either our buildings, construction materials, or methods failed, OR something else occured.
I also agree there are strong reasons why thousands of professional architects and engineers believe the buildings were destroyed by demolition. The straight upshot is that there is no other explanation that matches ALL of the facts observed. One might argue that one building could have this happen. Not two or worse 3. One of them would have fallen over (toppled or slid off) rather than pancaked.
When one looks at the demolition methodologies the only way to have the entire building pancake IS to take out structural members in a systematic fashion otherwise one gets a building that topples and leaves an intact substructure frame with rubble nearby (as well as a damaged building(s) nearby) or one that doesn't collapse the entire structure making removal a royal pain in the ass again tossing debris away from the intact lower structures and on to other nearby buildings/structures.
Twin towers destruction was too perfect, no explanation of why there was burning molten metal beneath the rubble heaps is made either. This stuff was molten for days if not weeks after the drop. Was this magic? Did satan shoot a thunderbolt out of his asses? I am convinced the destruction of the twin towers was one of the key turning points in American history not regarding 'terrorism' but regarding the beginning of a government that was playing the people with lies and false flags to achieve other ends (wars in Afghan, IRAQ, etc.). In effect it was the time the American government turned on its citizenry to achieve it's own ends.
Sincerely,
OldE_Ant
"I also agree there are strong reasons why thousands of professional architects and engineers believe the buildings were destroyed by demolition. The straight upshot is that there is no other explanation that matches ALL of the facts observed. One might argue that one building could have this happen. Not two or worse 3. One of them would have fallen over (toppled or slid off) rather than pancaked."
Fire. All three buildings that collapsed were on fire. The top floors of 2 World Trade, did start to topple over to the east, which makes sense, as the jetliner plowed through the eastern half of the building, setting it on fire.
"The temperatures required to cause a collapse (lets assume symmetric) will far exceed those of normal fires AND will be required to be symmetric and sustained for a far longer time to have any hope of producing the type of failure observed."
What is present in an office fire?
"The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.
Do these temperatures exist in special conditions only? No. A National Fire and Arson Report article from 1992 details the tests done on four steel mattress springs from a normal fire, which appeared to be partly melted: The apparently melted ends of each of the four springs were cut off and mounted in a metallurgical mounting medium, polished, etched, and examined at up to 500x. Three of the four springs exhibited a decarburized ferrite microstructure, with oxidation on the top surface. Such a microstructure is typical of steel exposed to temperatures in the range of 1800°F [982 °C]."
"All the people who think...full of shit just"
That's really all I needed to read.
YOU DEMONSTRATE THE INTELLECTUAL FUNCTION OF A LOWER PRIMATE.
Now provide PROOF of what your lower primate brain THINKS happened, or STFU.
Don't know which post led me to this link but it could be a contributor and plays into plausible explanations.
The link I give below discusses seriously the buildings most people talk about as being fire 'resistant' are the old ones that have significantly overbuilt internal structures. These structures are also significantly augmented with actual concrete encasing the steel. As time passed architects simply started shaving off material, using newer materials with newer structural designs (i.e. curved, fluted, hollow metal) etc. Eliminating use of cement almost entirely to cloth and protect the steel. The use of newer materials for furnishings (i.e. plastics, composites, etc.) might be able to cause higher temps than expected. I've seen plastic curtians ignite and burn with much hotter temps than natural fibers. None of this deals with new composites and high temperature/fire resistance. (like shit from China)
Combine this with a known wholly corrupt NYC bureaucracy that can be bribed and construction companies who carry out fraudlant practices and one easily can see how the WTC buildings and many others in point of fact could be death traps waiting to happen. Which supports GW's tongue and cheek, if it wasn't CD then we have buildings that are pieces of shit and no-one knows or cares.
This fits what I see in a lot of places in terms of overall corruption at all levels. Many of my assumptions regarding analysis assume the structures followed applicable codes and there was no fraudlent construction. Which is why my 3 and 4 in my main post are even more important.
The key issue is how much fucking heat for how long. The other prime issue is what mechanism could keep all of these buildings from dropping mostly symmetrically down. One explanation is that key support columns were on the outside of the buildings and hence might funnel the collapse towards the central core. My other problem is that the central core elements were not still standing and that the amount of heat left over according to a great many witnesses left a huge amount of heat in the ground far exceeding what one would expect. One never sees red hot iron left months after a CD job. (NEVER)
What IS clear. Removal of evidence was criminal and I for one would not hesitate to call for criminal charges to the companies and personelle involved who did not file complaints about this while in process. Never in recorded history has evidence from such a destructive and loss of life event been so carelessly and wholeheartedly discarded.
Secondly investigations not just into the causes of the collapse, but whether we have serious flaws in construction of these high rise buildings still have not been seriously undertaken. I see so far that no one scenario explains all of the reported observations.
Both cases involve again a government (top to bottom) at least criminally negligent and at worst criminally responsible actually operating against the preservation of life, and liberty much less happiness of its citizens.
How does that work for you Redneck.. (Like I give a shit about what you think about my primal or higher cognitive functions)
BTW: Not anything official but just interesting when put in context.
http://www.oilempire.us/wtc-design.html
All of this would bring me back to my original supposition - do one or more real experiments using new and old construction (surely there are both old and newer buildings slated for CD that could serve as illustrative examples) as a test. Most of these will have same fraud, shoddy construction etc. since you can't just fuck up one.
OldE
It's not proof, but since neither of has us any (or we'd be somewhere else) it works for me (and shows you're capable of a lot more than the blanket dismissal of anyone who might disagree with your opinion from the previous post, which I hindsight- I probably should have read more closely) but I can work with that.
It simplifies things that we appear to agree on NIST negligence/complicity, but while I think physical modeling is of minimal benefit vs serious (and open-source) computer modeling and reconstruction.
Since physical reconstruction of the critical failure points is no longer possible - thank you NIST TRAITORS (or FAT .GOV FUCKS WHO FULLY JUSTIFY THE MASSES HATRED AND ANY REVENGE THEY MAY EVENTUALLY EXTRACT) both are less than ideal solutions.
In regards to scale models the problem is the actual scaling- you can build it only 10 stories tall, but can you properly scale the performance characteristics of building component down to rivets and coating thicknesses? And then when you go to blow it up you cannot recreate the dynamics in play over 100 floors in 10. Se to me, it seems too impractical to do scale model physical reconstruction.
Either get the NSA to do something productive with their massive computing skills or build the whole 100 stories (which would cost a lot less than the usual "shovel ready" shit the government wastes money on).
In regards to the specific point in your two previous posts
1) I would distinguish between the heating profile and the fire profile, while the fire profile would vary across any given floor, the heat will rise to first to the ceiling, and towards either elevator shafts/stairwells or a gaping hole on the leeward side of the building, which would lead to a somewhat more uniform heating profile than you imply and which would concentrate the heat in the vicinity of the core columns and truss joints.
2) Timing is critical, flame temperature less so, since the larger issue is heat accumulation. Whether or not the asbestos was properly applied, survived the plane impact, or was cut for OSHA or Mob Penny Pinching impacts the time required for "natural" failure but without containment efforts it only postpones the inevitable. We only have estimates for the oxygen supply based on wind speed in the general vicinity and estimates of infiltration, as an added complication, in most of the high rise offices I've been in there is concentration of combustible material (file and storage rooms) around the core of the building (the don't have tall buildings in the vicinity of my volunteer department), but the NIST report didn't even include "before" photographs to document that they put any effort into their black box model.
3) As to the realistic (but in my opinion remote) probability of CD in regards to buildings 1 & 2, one would have to 1) precisely place the devices without being able to (pre)calculate, exactly where (what floor) the plane (or plane substitute) would impact, and more importantly what the immediate damage would be, which would significantly alter the calculations required to achieve "control" of a CD, and 3) finally one would have to remove all the evidence of charge initiation from the rubble (unless EVERY S&R and debris removal person was in on the "deal" or immediately suicided before leaving the job-site)
4) No idea about the mysterious molten rivers (but explosives seem unlikely) and more importantly I think the rivers would need a source of oxygen to allow combustible materials to continue to generate heat since I don't think they designed the bathtub with thermal insulation in mind. I inquired above to someone who has foundry experience but haven't gotten any feedback to evaluate yet.
5) I agree with the overall trend towards crap construction, with the caveat that while in the old the days steel framing would have encased with everything but the porcelain from the kitchen sink the WTC was built without some more modern methods which would most certainly would have prevented collapse. Concrete either in box beam filling or I-beam column wrap would have prevented deformation (far more so than ANY amount of asbestos they could have applied)
--
That was way more fun than name calling and why I still stick around here- sorry for the previous insult. On a more optimistic note- here's a guy from the NIST (whose modeling was far more sophisticated than mine, and whose conclusions were slightly different) calling the NIST a bunch of ass-clowns (too bad he isn't still there, but if he was still on the inside he'd probably be singing a different tune)
--
http://www.911truth.org/former-chief-of-nists-fire-science-division-call...
Key points:
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"We only have estimates for the oxygen supply based on wind speed in the general vicinity and estimates of infiltration..."
We also have Flame Color as an indicator of O2 availability.
No idea about the mysterious molten rivers (but explosives seem unlikely) and more importantly I think the rivers would need a source of oxygen to allow combustible materials to continue to generate heat
Thermite has oxidizers in the form of Fe2O3. Once a Thermite reaction starts it is almost impossible to put out as the Oxygen is liberated freely.
Oh I realize that we have sketchy evidence at best since it was criminally destroyed. Supposedly the people at NIST are far better equipped with more evidence.
But the NIST Report has so many holes that it resembles Swiss Cheese.
So you are a volunteer Fire Fighter? Cool.
Where I come from everyone volunteers and if they're too old or disabled then someone in their household does, which makes for some interesting office jokes whenever the EMS/Sheriff's guys get a memo that could be interpreted in a certain way from the federal fools. I missed the 2nd biannual CPE exams since my exile from the US began so I'm chained to a desk or mop bucket for service until one of the 90 days per year that I'm allowed back in the country actually aligns with VDFP's exam schedule (which are still written, unlike the EMS guys who have more online CPE options).
Unlike explosives with legitimate uses in geological and structural excavation, my experience with thermite is limited to one or two events of juvenile delinquency (although in contemporary bullshit PC speak that might qualify me as an expert terrorist when they're drawing up drone lists of overseas Americans to target).
But back to the important conundrums- scientifically, once ignition occurs there's oxygen released from the thermite itself, and additional oxidation agents that can supplied by melting rusty metal, but the supply of Fe2O3 is constrained by the surface area of structural steel where oxidation can occur. Once this oxygen supply is consumed, even with the now(then) molten steel hot enough to ignite all the fuel/furnishings at the bottom of the rubble heap in a fire- how is an exothermic reaction sustained over time without a significant additional supply of oxygen in order to keep all that steel in a liquid state? Hours and days are one thing, but weeks are another, even with the optimal engineering of foundry crucible- molten steel or aluminum will revert faster than "several weeks".
I have reviewed many computer finite element model stress analyses in ten years experience as a stress analysis engineer,
and I have seen many poorly constructed or error filled computer stress analysis models,
and the output results are only as good as the input parameters,
and as the computer industry saying goes,
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The NIST computer models could easily have been Garbage.
My immediate reaction 9-11-2001 to seeing the WTC collapses, it was unbelievable, impossible.
After later studying the book published evidence, in my Engineering opinion, it was controlled explosive demolition.
Re: "Are Millions of Business People At Risk of Dying In Collapsing Buildings?"
Only if said buildings contain incriminating evidence...on more than one issue btw.
Can't we all just blame Goldman Sachs?
Bush's fault.
500,000 tons each (250,000 tons WT7) and the pile on the ground was at best 8 stories tall... (?)
The bathtub which surrounded the structure never was puncured with what we have been told are "falling buildings." (?)
Cars almost a mile away toasted like tests of John Hutchison in his thrice confiscated laboratory after the dust clouds rolled out... (?)
And what about SlipperyStien coming out and saying "..the loss of life was just too much and so we decided to pull it -- just pull it." (?)
Why would he admit to a demolition term like that? He's not dumb -- he just made a couple Billion dollars -- smart guy. (?)
Dr Judy Wood is your next buffet meal Mr Washington. Dig in and enjoy the stray pieces all coming together!
http://www.drjudywood.com/
"Cars almost a mile away toasted like tests of John Hutchison in his thrice confiscated laboratory after the dust clouds rolled out... (?)"
No cars were toasted a mile away because of the collapse of the Towers.
"500,000 tons each (250,000 tons WT7) and the pile on the ground was at best 8 stories tall... (?)"
The external steel was all over the place, which spread out the pile. The internal columns were laying often laying lengthwise and would also have been both inside and ouside the area of the core, thus would not have resulted in an outrageously tall pile, as they would had if they had been neatly stacked up in a small area.
And most of the core columns were laying on TOP of the piles, confirming they were the LAST to fall. Of course, CD proponents ignore this fact and still claim the vertical support was cut in order to collapse the buildings. Go figure.
But they fell. Unless they were cut from the interior lateral supports or cut from beneath THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE FaLLeN.
The fact that they fell supports CD.
Look up "splay".
Now go find some evidence the lateral support was cut. I'll save you the time; you won't find any. They all show they were torn from the vertical support.
Yes. Finally a thinker! Congrats for seeing past the obvious deceptions. The bathtub issue is one that most followers of the 9/11 deception have no knowledge of. Now, don't get me wrong, most of the people signed onto the Architects for 9/11 Truth are good honest people. But just like these New Bolsheviks have done in the past, think The Trust set up by Lenin to lure back in their most dangerous enemies and take their money, Architects for 9/11 Truth was probably set up by the New Bolsheviks as a container for all those who were smart enough to see through the obvious falsehoods of the official story and keep them in a tight container. Remember also that Henry Kissinger was the first New Bolshevik trotted out to head the 9/11 Commission. The ultimate example of the fox auditing the hen house.
Just below FDR Drive -- amost a mile away from the actual event
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OfpZQm4cpao/SwH4U4qiW9I/AAAAAAAABe4/9P60zbB4cZ...
Next question: Why did it take 11 years to build the next builing? Why all the lag time? Because the area was still "cooking" if you
can call it that... Study the material above -- let the data unfold before going decuctive on it -- then decide.
This is likely the best data blast of her work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg
She's going legal as well http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Won't this be an interesting court case.
What a back ass way for the validation of this technology to go public!!!
"Fate it seems, is not without a sense of irony." :Morpheus
Clever stab to question 9/11 and building 7 George.
I vacilate between Union shortcuts with shoddy material and a government conspiracy to get us into the Middle East.
You know, it could also be a little of both. I couldn't live or work in a high-rise either way.
I just wonder why the terrorists bothered with planes.
Seems we have a new way to inflict terror.
Simply hijack a couple of trucks carrying drums of fuel, and use the goods lift to fill a couple of floors with drums (perhaps use a local realtor to find a nice high building with some empty floors for lease).
A couple of IEDs and Bobs your uncle, collapse that sucker into the street, no need to even be a martyr.
Don't blame me DHS, I'm just using information provided by the US government.
...trucks carrying drums of fuel...
attempted in the 1993 WTC attack. Failed.
I get your sarcasm.
We know the story is bullshit. So we kill the people whom worked for NIST, and their families, POST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. It is no problem.
There were innocents who died on 9/11. These people disrespect their memory and do not care as they are Psychopaths who trade their ethics for a paycheck.
Their genetic legacy does not need continue to infect the Earth.
they used subways in london, a train in spain...
"Al Qaeda" surely doesn't attack Israel though, which seems odd given the testimony of the purported "mastermind" of 9/11.
I still shake my head in amazement at the fact that people who zealously stick to the official version, nevertheless zealously reject the suggestion that American blind support for Israel played a role in 9/11....and may use the "anti-semite" card, even though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind" in the official narrative, explicitly said it was a reason in sworn testimony.
Yet this was pretty much never discussed in the media, on the talk shows, and anyone who brought it up was dismissed as "anti-Israel" or censored...
Even though bin Laden purportedly said the same thing.
But no significant talk about US support of Israel, or blowback, in the MSM. Cute, isn't it?
I absolutely believe this is an indication that the media is "controlled" by the usual suspects, although I think much of this control is "soft" in the sense of fear of broaching a topic, rather than relying wholly on ownership and management - which is itself substantial and wuildly disproportionate.
"I just wonder why the terrorists bothered with planes."
Obfuscation. Detonating an EMP in the middle of Manhatten would be even more effective, but that would cause uncomfortable questions, like how they obtained the EMP of the necessary size/scale. Easier to go with the hijacker scenario, because it's technically blunt and caters to the "barbaric brown people" premise.
Parody Sarcasm or Illussion the point of TPTB is for you to believe what they've said, digest it and swallow it period and throw the science to the garbage can. Fact is no steel frame structure ever collapse from fire until 9/11.
"Parody Sarcasm or Illussion the point of TPTB is for you to believe what they've said, digest it and swallow it period and throw the science to the garbage can. Fact is no steel frame structure ever collapse from fire until 9/11."
You should review the Windsor Tower fire. There was a partial collapse of steel structure, thus styeel structure has collapsed due to fire, prior to 9/11.
News Flash: ALL DHS, ObamaCare and IRS offices to be moved to the topmost floors of ALL office buildings. Oval Office as well!
There, fixed it for all of humanity!
911 TRUTH will never go away. It won't go away like the JFK thing. This is the internet age. Eyes are open. More people learn who the real criminals are every day. People will hang for it.
I appreciate the humorous approach of "stay out of office buidings for your own safety." It made me laugh. It really shows that NOBODY actually believes that those little fires really collapsed WTC7.
from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf
Bottom of page 6
"If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction codes,6 have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance companies do not accept the PC hypothesis."
"If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in."
There is seldom a major fire in a steel frame skyscraper.
Ban steel frame structure buildings worldwide so this will not happen again ;D