Re: OT Loose Change 9-11

<bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in a message

Well that's the official position that the media is pushing. But the
problem with these discussions is that it's impossible for anyone here
to actually come to a supportable conclusion.

The results of the NIST report and the manner in which they arrived at their
conclusions are supportable. ...but, if you don't trust "the official
version", there are more than plenty of highly qualified people who support
the same conclusion. Among them, Les Robertson, one of the engineers who
designed the towers.

The media story is plausible, but really no decent proof has been
supplied.

It's not the "media story", it is the story that comes from seeing what we
all saw (along with millions of others, either live, or live on TV), the
clues, the evidence, case histories, science, physics, etc.

Only a structural engineer would know for sure and then only if the plans
and
other data were carefully studied and after that it'd be only a
guess...a well educated guess... but still a guess.

Les Robertson would certainly fit that bill. He not only had the plans, he
DREW the plans. :-)
The NIST certainly had all the info required to do a full investigation.

After all, the crime scene was totally destroyed after the event...
...so no serious engineering data can ever be recovered.

Why do you think that to be the case? There were over 1,500 people digging
through that rubble for 8 months. It's not like the evidence was hauled off
immediately. 8 months is a significant length of time to collect and/or test
samples. 200 pieces of evidence from the WTC were kept for further analysis
and study.

If you want some real information, check out some analysis by an
INDEPENDENT engineer.

I have. They support the NIST findings.

...the building design to withstand an airplane crash...

A 707, going slow, preparing to land (thus, not carrying a full fuel load) -
and, they didn't factor in the resulting explosions and fires, just the
impact of the plane. The could not have considered the then non-existent
757/767, and they didn't consider the plane might have a full fuel load and
hit at high speed. (which is kind of odd - if you consider the building
might be hit by a plane as it is landing, why not when it is taking off?)

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and
nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the
Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog,
seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little
was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs
were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing
systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
- Les Robertson -
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

... the history of gigantic high rise fires NOT causing collapse...

What history would that be? Steel structures regularly fail due to the heat
from fire. McCormick Place in Chicago, 1967 - steel structure failed due to
heat from electrical fire, roof collapsed. Madrid Tower, progressive
collapse to the 17th floor, steel structure failed due to heat from a
"normal" office fire.

One doesn't need an engineering degree to consider why the steel structure
of the WTC was coated with a fire-resistant material in the first place. If
fire doesn't cause failure in steel structures, what were they protecting
the steel from?

... let alone two of them almost on schedule....

What are you comparing this to? Other instances where two buildings have
been hit by large passenger jets with near full fuel loads?

Furthermore I do NOT believe the story that aircraft fuel melted the
steel.
These were basically open air fires. (unless someone comes up with a
source
of oxygen feeding the fire)

Well, you do need to consider the wind tunnel effect that would be present.
It's rather obvious from the manner in which the flames are seen shooting
out from the buildings as the fire burns.

And, of course, we would wonder, if the fires were not hot enough to melt
steel, what melted the steel that is seen dripping from WTC 2?
http://media.putfile.com/Is-this-molten-metal-dripping-from-WTC-2

My feeling is that a fuel fire simply won't have the heat.

You are right. Now, apply your engineering knowledge - would the fire need
to melt the steel in order to cause a collapse? What temperature would be
needed to weaken the steel?

Low temperature for a fire can still be a lot with steel. Plastic flow
occurs with even limited temperatures, 700-900 degrees and given peak
temperatures above that point a certain amount of plastic flow will have
already occurred, since plastic flow depends on 3 variables, time,
temperature and stress. A lowering of the temperature (even assuming the
steel would cool that quickly. A piece of steel of the size in the upper
story columns will still be hot enough after 15 minutes to be above 900
degrees and that is for a limited heated area exposed to 40-100 degree still
air temperatures) doesn't eliminate or halt the plastic flow. As you still
have time and as the plastic flow introduces warpage in the member greater
and greater lateral stresses which would work to compound the effect of such
plastic flow as is occurring. As the member buckles along the weak axis the
ability of the strong axis to support load is significantly degraded. Right?

The towers were a unique design, with the outer walls providing a
significant portion of the support, along with a core structure in the
center of the building, with the floors spanning between the two - basically
a large, empty tube. The impact and explosion from the plane destroyed or
damaged a number of these supports. Why did the building stay up at that
point? What happened to the load that was supported by the now missing
exterior and, possibly, interior columns? It was now shifted to the
remaining columns, right? Given that the remaining columns and structure
were designed to bear specific loads, would this additional loading push
them closer to those load limits? At that point, how much heat would be
required to weaken that remaining structure?

You have missing structure and damaged structure, which shifts the load to
the remaining structure. The initiating sequence of the collapse only
requires that some additional support is weakened sufficiently to fail. That
would shift the load to the remaining structure, which is now that much
closer to load limits. More supports fail, shifting their load to the
dwindling number of remaining supports. Again, the remaining supports are
pushed closer to their load limits, and the process repeats. This all only
needs to happen on one floor. Now, you have failure of one floor. What
happens next? The entire top of the building falls down one floor, right?

Engineering time again. We now have a dynamic load, right? The structure was
designed carry a certain static load. What happens when the top of that
building comes crashing down onto the floor below the failure? How likely is
it that floor could handle that dynamic load?

Go try to melt some steel with your Bernzomatic torch. Ain't gonna happen.
Takes an oxygen feed to get that kind of heat.

Could you heat it enough to bend it?

Furthermore, if the steel did melt by some luck, the fact that not only
did the top section
collapse but the entire building did also is suspicious.

Why? Do you feel the building would have been designed to handle such a huge
dynamic load?

Heat rises, remember?

And gravity pulls down, remember?

And the fact that they came STRAIGHT down is even more suspicious.

Why? How would you expect them to fall? ... and they didn't fall quite
straight down, did they? Look at the debris and the number of surrounding
buildings that were destroyed or damaged (including WTC 7) by the falling
towers.

What amount of force would be required to move the building off axis to make
it fall in some direction other than straight down?

You'd expect a fire to be uneven with say one corner of the
building giving way first which would automatically produce a force
vector tending to throw the whole collapse off axis.

Like this?
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/10302355150.jpg&s=x402

Close up of the corner buckling
http://tinyurl.com/e7e3m


....the quick sweeping up of any real data such as the crime scene
metal...

Eight months is quick? ... and, these pictures of steel from the WTC might
make you wonder why conspiracy theorists want you to believe it was all
destroyed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover


As for conspiracy theories?
GIGO



.