Dramatic Video of Fires in WTC 7!
Kudos to Steve Spak for putting this together. It won't convince the nutbars, but it's excellent footage nonetheless.
Labels: 9-11, Steve Spak, WTC 7
posted by Pat @ 12:06 PM
40 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Kudos to Steve Spak for putting this together. It won't convince the nutbars, but it's excellent footage nonetheless.
Previous Posts
- Getting It Wrong
- The Dancing Jews Redux
- Two Degrees of Separation
- Check Everything
- Kevin Barrett Remains Under Fire
- Free At Last!
- Join the 9/11 Debunking "Cult"
- More Urantia
- In Which I Agree With Dylan
- Screw Loose Change On the Beeb!
View My Stats
Allies:
40 Comments:
Now thats a fire!!!
Roaring, out of control fire = beautifully executed Controlled Demo
Oh, I get it now.
No, you don't, bill. You will never be capable of comprehending any concept more complex than "fire=hot, water=wet". You simply do not posses the mental acuity.
I did not know they used fire in CD
Seeing as how it didn't land in its footprint I wouldn't call it beautiful.
haha nice try.
Somewhat contradicting to what you posted recently about the Madrid fires. "no steel frame high rise building was ever left to burn" (in all other cases but WTC7 firefighters were fighting the fires).
Didnt they evacuate in Madrid?
And btw, where are your 'experts' echoing this fire-theory?
Where is the NIST report?
This video belongs into the same category as the 'no planes' crap.
"no steel frame high rise building was ever left to burn" (in all other cases but WTC7 firefighters were fighting the fires).
Didnt they evacuate in Madrid?
Madrid Hilton was a concrete frame , the steel frame portion (which was not the majority of the superstructure) collapsed.
They also evacuated the Meridian in Philly (after something like 8 hours of firefighting), but they never stopped pumping water on it from a nearby building, and the active sprinkler systems had water available to them, unlike WTC7.
And btw, where are your 'experts' echoing this fire-theory?
Try reading the accounts of firefighters and other folks who were there. Gravy's WTC7 paper is full of them.
Where is the NIST report?
Being worked on, they'd like to get it right. The internal details are important but I rather doubt that int he macroscopic sense its going to say anything besides 'unfought fire = collapse'.
This video belongs into the same category as the 'no planes' crap.
Your desperation is showing.
Tam
He also forgot about the 20 story gash that went into the building some 25%
Hard to believe how dumb the toofers are
"He also forgot about the 20 story gash that went into the building some 25%"
ah yea, thats what explains the crink in the middle at collapse initiation, right?
The "crink in the middle" is probably more due to the design of WTC7. The centre of the building was cantilevered over a hell of a lot of fuel. Put a lot of fuel under a long stretch of unsupported steel flooring, and the result should be obvious - this was the logical fail-point for the building.
1. I don't see the whole building on fire.
2. A lot of smoke doesn't mean the whole building is on fire.
3. The best of all...there wasn't enough water, appeal to emotion by listing the number of firefighter casualites, and finally
In the foreground, firefighters on a ladder using what appears to be WATER trying to put out fires in another building! ROFLMAO.
I'm suprised you guys didn't mention that. What a classic piece of work to support the offical lie.
"On blah blah side of the building you can see fire on 12 floors..."
And then his next lie, the entire building is on fire. WTF?
This guy's powers of observation are as reliable as a blind mans.
Anything else out there that shows random fires causing a complete total collapse of a steel high rise building?
Alex, where did you get your degree in structural engineering?
One has to wonder why people like swing dangler are so trusting of the 9/11 Denial Movement's "Official Stories" that he doesn't bother to do any research on his own.
Apparently, swinger never read what the firemen around WTC 7 said about water lines. Five years later and swinger is still clueless.
Alex, where did you get your degree in structural engineering?
From the Swing Dangler School of Applied Bullshit.
Why do you ask?
Madrid Hilton was a concrete frame , the steel frame portion (which was not the majority of the superstructure) collapsed.
What portion of the superstructure was the steel?
LIE-Partially collapsed only a few floors. Did they pump water on that building for hours or give up right away to let it burn?
So firefighters can be experts in structural engineering, but are disregarded when it comes to the sound of explosions and loud claps of thunder? Yeaaah right! What a joke!
active sprinkler systems had water available to them, unlike WTC7
Please link to this information for all of our readers. Thanks!
to deniers:
How did the mega-smart/mega-dumb conspirators know that part of the WTC1&2 would fall on WTC7? They couldn't just demolish it without it having sustained some structural damage or it would be obvious that they demolished it!
So firefighters can be experts in structural engineering, but are disregarded when it comes to the sound of explosions and loud claps of thunder? Yeaaah right! What a joke!
If you could show firefighters claiming that explosions are unusual in a fire, then you might have a point. As it is, you're the only joke here.
SKING, did you watch the video posted?
UHH WTC 6..'nuff said.
I just read your analysis Alex and thought it very entertaining.
How many strutural engineering firms were allowed to examine the material remains, eyewitnesses accounts, video footage, blue prints, transcripts, etc?
It's not my analysis, idiot.
In addition to the final data SD wants to see all the inputs, ECO's, ECR's, specs used and every nut and bolt the NIST used. If you go to the NIST home page and dig there is an encyclopedia of info about them but he thinks they should go and get scratch pads and everything else the NIST used and give them to him personally. First he wanted the software, now all the input data which probably amounts to far more than the thousands of pages of released data. He is just a typ arrogant jerk that has to spout all this BS.
Given that they are dealing with the mechanics of building collapse, one would imagine that having an "expert" in civil or structural engineering would be more relevant, but in fact, out of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the most prominent civil engineering organization in the country, not a single member has publicly joined the "Toofers" or endorsed their findings.
It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the thousands gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Hey STEVEW, answer the question or can you? Character attacks solve nothing. Answer the question if you would pleae.
James, it did't need structural damage, remember? It only needed a fire. See fire nowadays brings down steel framed structures. Duh!
WTC 6, nuff said.
What portion of the superstructure was the steel?
LIE-Partially collapsed only a few floors.
Wow. Talk about uninformed and weak. The part that collapsed was the steel structural part. The concrete portion remained standing. Concrete can take the heat.
Did they pump water on that building for hours or give up right away to let it burn?
Does it matter? The stell portion collapsed, the concrete portion did not. Different materials.
So firefighters can be experts in structural engineering, but are disregarded when it comes to the sound of explosions and loud claps of thunder?
They are not disregarded, they are misunderstood by you CTards. You think that 'Explosions = Bombs' and will brook not other arguement. Wheras most folks are quite aware that there are plenty of things that can and will explode in a building fire.
Yeaaah right! What a joke!
The only joke is your pathetic attempt to try and change the subject or wave away some very crucial evidence that contradicts the lies you CTards have been telling us.
James, it did't need structural damage, remember? It only needed a fire. See fire nowadays brings down steel framed structures. Duh!
This is incredibly sad. You really are outright denying the reality of steel and fire. Its like a creationist talking about geology...they just don't get it.
And I don't know if you or the creationist is more pathetic.
Hey STEVEW, do you think the public community of structural engineers deserves the avaliable data or are you happy to see 1000's more die in fire related collapses in buildings now or in the future?
Hey what did the 9/11 Commission say about WTC7?
Hey STEVEW, do you think the public community of structural engineers deserves the avaliable data or are you happy to see 1000's more die in fire related collapses in buildings now or in the future?
Have you heard them complaining about it loudly, or are you just trying to speak for them. Y'all don't have a very good record when you try to speak for a profession.
Hey what did the 9/11 Commission say about WTC7?
Hey, the commssion report is not an Engineering study.
Tele, how far did it collapse? Total collapse or partial collapse?
Let me rephrase that question. What percentage of Madrid was composed of steel? What percentage of that steel suffered total collapse?
How long did Madrid burn for, Tele?
Go back to your hole kid cause frankly your outmatched here.
...plenty of things that can and will explode in a building fire.
Incredible I do believe. Examine if you will these recorded live mainstream press reports. And then explain to me why we don't hear similiar press reports from other buildings that suffer fire damage. Press reports of HUGE MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS...
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/
Explosions%20everywhere.WMV
And I'm the denier?? LOL
You really are outright denying the reality of steel and fire.
Actually Tele, I've read the ASCE manual and the relevant Chapters on fire's impact on steel, temperatures, etc. So to respond, I'm very very familiar with the science behind fire and steel.
It helps to have friends who have construction engineering degrees from major univesirites.
Unlike you and your ilk who puke the OS over and over, I've actually researched the source material.
What percentage of Madrid was composed of steel? What percentage of that steel suffered total collapse?
If you knew the first thing about buildings, you wouldn't ask such an idiotic question. Steel does not experience "total collapse". Buildings do. And you can't have a "percentage of total collapse". It's either a total collapse or it's not.
This is what the Madrid building looked like after the fire. It's pretty obvious that the only thing still holding it up is the concrete columns.
Go back to your hole kid cause frankly your outmatched here.
Yes, he's outmatched by a guy who thinks it's possible to have a partial total collapse. I don't know whether I should laugh, or pity you.
And then explain to me why we don't hear similiar press reports from other buildings that suffer fire damage.
Explosions! Oh wait, it's just a house fire.
More Explosions....in the Madrid building.
OMFG MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!!!.....in some guys garage.
EXPLOSIONS EXPLOSIONS EXPLOSIONS!!! in an Ottawa storage facility.
And for a change of pace:
Oh noes! Another conspiracy! Guess the CIA blew up those levies.
Ironically enough, I had to go through 3 pages of google results to get those links. Why, you ask? Because the majority of the results were conspiracy morons writing about 9/11. If not for them, I could have provided you with dozens of examples instead of just 4.
Unlike you and your ilk who puke the OS over and over, I've actually researched the source material.
That's the biggest load of horse-shit to come out of your mouth so far!
Tele, how far did it collapse? Total collapse or partial collapse?
Let me rephrase that question. What percentage of Madrid was composed of steel? What percentage of that steel suffered total collapse?
The building was built on a concrete base, with a concrete 'tower' from the 17th floor up. The steel portion was surrounding that 'tower' and that is what failed.
Go back to your hole kid cause frankly your outmatched here.
Bragging is an honor reserved for those who actually deserve to do so. So far all you've demonstrated is that you can ask questions. You've demonstrated no knowledge.
And then explain to me why we don't hear similiar press reports from other buildings that suffer fire damage. Press reports of HUGE MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS...
*Yawn*. there are hordes of building fires that have explosions, and if you actually researched you would find that that stuff does make the press. We've debunked these myths ages ago. The difference is that there were a lot more people interviewed in the wake of 911. This is nonsense.
Actually Tele, I've read the ASCE manual and the relevant Chapters on fire's impact on steel, temperatures, etc. So to respond, I'm very very familiar with the science behind fire and steel.
Seriously, dude, if you're going to try and bluff, you should at least show some attempt at knowledge. Right now you are acting like a hotshot poker player who is bluffing when his hands are bereft not only of a good hand, but in fact is not holding any cards at all.
It helps to have friends who have construction engineering degrees from major univesirites.
Really? Where are they? Where's the minority opinion on what actually happened? What revelations did you get from ASCE that makes you so much more knowledgeable than so many engineers all around the world? Why should your opinion, you claiming to glance at the diagrams in the ASCE manual, and some imaginary friends be of importance or relevance?
Unlike you and your ilk who puke the OS over and over, I've actually researched the source material.
No, you have not. You are trying to intimidate me by pretending to have knowledge and rationality that you do not in fact posess. You failed utterly to do so. If you actually bother to 'look at source material' (and keeping a dusty copy of an ASCE on the top shelf doesn't qualify. You are not an engineer, you don't have the qualifications to be an engineer, you don't have the brainpower to be an engineer, and if you have any friends who are engineers you sure as heck haven't shared your fantasies about bombs with them.
LOL Tam
Sd is really getting desperate it is not worth answering him, he will just come back with the same mindless babble.
He seems to want people to answer questions then when we do he spins it into another dumb question yet he has never answered one direct question.
He never does address anything posted with hard facts. I wonder why that is?
I wonder when he will ever give us his list of experts to back up his garbage.
Given I only argue with these guys to convince fencesitters, It is not needed on this occasion, as the video speaks for itself to all but the cult of "truth".
TAM
Not only does he not address anything with hard facts, he also has a habit of quietly disappearing once he's had his ass handed to him, only to come out swinging again in a later thread. He's like a bad case of herpes - he stops being annoying for a while, but always comes back.
So, I've missed this Swinger guy's antics for the most part. Has he pulled this 'don't argue with me! I read a BOOK!' bluff & nonsense before?
Oh has he ever. He claims expert knowledge in every major field, yet constantly makes the most basic mistakes, and displays all the most elementary misconceptions. Plus I'm pretty sure he's made just about every logical fallacy possible. He's THE running joke around here.
LOL sd is good for a laugh sometimes but he is more like shower mold, no matter how many times you clean it, it always comes back
:)
Ahh Alex, your intel shinning through.
Great examples Alex. I'm so proud of you!
I find it amazing, however, that after those explosions were heard in your examples and there was no global collapse of the structures., Second, none of the firefighters, first responders or FBI officials on scene suspected bombs, explosive devices, etc in your examples, UNLIKE THE WTC attacks. Checkmate, your done. Nice try,though.
Don't recall seeing this in your examples...
Fireman to civilian-there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
4574366633014832928&q=9%2F11+bomb
Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)
Mike Pecoraro, an engineer who is part of the crew that services the WTC complex, is at work in the mechanical shop in the second subbasement of the north WTC tower when it is hit. When the room he is in starts filling with white smoke and he can smell kerosene (jet fuel), he heads up stairs with a co-worker towards a small machine shop on the C level. Yet, he says, “There was nothing there but rubble. We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!” He then heads for the parking garage, yet finds that “there were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything.” He ascends to the B level where he sees a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door, which is lying on the floor, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” Pecoraro recalls seeing similar things at the Center when it was bombed in 1993 and is therefore convinced that a bomb has gone off this time.
When most of you continue to deny the use of explosive devices you only support the terrorists who carried out these attacks, no matter which terrorists you think did it. It is that simple. We can argue forver over who did it, but there is not an argument over the use of explosive devices.
All of you of course tap danced the Madrid issue. Neither the building or the steel suffered total collapse. We all know that. Or did it, cause I can't get a straight answer from any of you.
Seriously, dude, if you're going to try and bluff, you should at least show some attempt at knowledge. No bluff, brother. I posted the relevant information months ago on this blog including all the relevant information, edition, date of publishing, the Purdue University Contruction Engineer who loaned me the book blah blah just to shut folks like you up.
Engineering News Record-Officials leading the federal investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center say the $16-million study may never determine the exact sequence of events that led to the collapses triggered by terrorist plane attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
...I'm quite sure if the evidence for explosive devices were considered that would close Pandora's Box, as it makes the most sense, both from an engineering stand point, common sense stand point, and from a historical stand point.
How many strutural engineering firms were allowed to examine the material remains, eyewitnesses accounts, video footage, blue prints, transcripts, and lastly the computer models and data input from the NIST?
Get back to me on that will you?
Although NIST found little evidence that steel ever reached 600 deg. C, and the half strength critical temperature of steel is 650 deg. C., their report concludes column and floor assemblies softened due to fire, leading to "collapse initiation". This scenario contrasts markedly with the claim found in ENR that loads on perimeter columns could be increased by a factor of 20 before failing.
Does the World Trade Center Study Add Up?
by Rodger Herbst
Numbered references appear at the end of this article.
On August 21 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) kicked off its investigation of the 9-11 World Trade Center disaster. The resulting report, released in September 2005, concluded that the impact of commercial aircraft and ensuing fires led to collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, the North and South World Trade Center towers.
NIST acknowledges these structures were designed to survive the impact of a cruising 707. Comparing accounts of the towers' construction from the premier industry publication Engineering News-Record (ENR) with actual structural damage reported by NIST, it seems the towers should easily have withstood the impact of the 767-200ER airplanes. This supports the findings of a lone scientist, Abdolhasan Astaneh Asl, funded by the National Science Foundation, who noted "The impact did nothing to this building."
Although detractors have claimed the towers were not designed for the ensuing fires, John Skilling, of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, the Seattle structural engineering firm of record, noted "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there." [1]
Although NIST found little evidence that steel ever reached 600 deg. C, and the half strength critical temperature of steel is 650 deg. C., their report concludes column and floor assemblies softened due to fire, leading to "collapse initiation". This scenario contrasts markedly with the claim found in ENR that loads on perimeter columns could be increased by a factor of 20 before failing. [2]
According to ENR, the 47 core columns varied in thickness with floor height. Individual columns in the lower core measured 52 x 22 inches of almost solid steel that weighed up to 56 tons.
If columns and trusses in the impact area failed in a collapse fed only by gravity, what happened to those undamaged floors below impact, and in particular what happened to the massive lower core columns?
Incredibly, progressive collapse of the lower floors has been left out of the NIST collapse sequence computer models[3], which proceeds only up to "collapse initiation." [4]
In other words, the 10,000 page NIST report merely assumes the most important event, collapse of the structurally sound floors below the area of impact.
In dealing with the collapse sequence, NIST states repeatedly that energy of the downward movement of the building mass above the damaged columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the lower floors, so global collapse ensued. This is "progressive collapse" theory, and it has been assumed, not demonstrated.
Gordon Ross, of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, provided a momentum transfer analysis which showed that the momentum of falling floors above the impact area would be absorbed by the lower floors prior to column buckling, and therefore collapse would not proceed. Progressive collapse theory is not supported by this analysis.
From high school physics, a floor by floor gravitational collapse of the undamaged 90 floors of the north tower would take almost 80 seconds, not including the time delay to break the columns of each floor. But the towers collapsed entirely in 9-16 seconds, close to freefall speed. [5]
That the South Tower collapsed due to progressive collapse as described above makes no sense. The top 34 floors begin to topple, so there is no huge mass of material bearing down on the untoppled floors. The toppling 34 floors are in free fall; no crushing mass bearing down on them, so why did the building disintegrate into dust?
The top 34 floors of the South Tower began to topple sideways as the section under them turned to dust (top photo). The NIST study assumes progressive collapse through "pancaking", but that is not physically possible at the near free-fall speed of the actual collapse of the towers (side photo). The study does not attempt to explain why much of the mass of the building vaporized into fine dust.
The NIST investigation also omitted or distorted many important aspects of the collapses, including movement of the WTC1 antenna before the adjacent facade, the pyroclastic dust clouds, and pools of molten metal In the WTC basements weeks after the attacks.
NIST also failed to follow up on an unusual sulfur residue found during a previous study, which according to the NY Times, caused gaping holes that "shocked fire-wise professors." [6]
The NIST study is a product of the Bush administration. An enumeration of the inconsistencies of the NIST study is consistent with a long standing and well documented pattern of Bush administration abuse of the scientific method.
The House Committee on Government Reform found "numerous instances where this Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings"
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists, including Nobel laureates, signed a statement that "The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease". Since then, over 9000 additional scientists and engineers have signed on. [7]
A clear example of distortion of scientific knowledge was seen in the subsequent declaration by EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman that the "air is safe" in Manhattan a week after the attacks. In fact, according to top scientists, the air at Ground Zero was highly corrosive, and a "significant threat to health." The White House Council on Environmental Quality directed the EPA to edit the scientific findings "based on how it should be released publicly."[8]
Credible challenges of NIST methodology and results need to be addressed with more than labels of "conspiracy wingnut." Otherwise, distrust will prevail, and the the 9-11 Truth Movement will continue to flourish.
http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/84/
worldTradeCenter.shtml
Rodger Herbst has a bachelor degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and a master degree in Mechanical Engineering.
NCE publication-University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey
said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.
"NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to
correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the
modelling will be lost," he said.
http://911review.com/
coverup/imgs/resistcall.jpg
Feel free to read what more Structural Engineers are saying about the NIST and their models.
You should all really read some of the critices about the NIST from the engineering community and others. Had the NIST done their job correctly and in the public interest, there would be no criticism! It is that simiple.
You are not an engineer, you don't have the qualifications to be an engineer...
Nope. Never claimed to be. But I do read engineering publications, reports, etc. and quite sure I have the brain power to more than comprehend those publications. I don't need to intimidate anyone, especially you, Tele. Because your intellect far surpases my own. That or I'm just that retarded to think so. Have I shared my reasearch with my friends? Sure have.
Their response-"I wouldn't be suprised ...I didn't know that (regarding explosions..and as far as WTC 7, there are some serious problems with that scenario." So thanks for making some erroneous fruitless predictions and assumptions.
What research have you done on the issue Tele? And what Univeristy is your strucutral engineering degree from?
Alex is of course a complete liar as I've never claimed to be an 'expert' at anything and have pointed out numerous fallacies in his and other's positions. Alex I "guard Canada's borders" but haven't served in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect my country yet or his buddy in bed, SteveW who claims to work in the aeronautical industry (which I suspect involves taking out the evenings trash).
Enjoy your weekend and your denials gents. We will never find any sort of middle ground on 9/11 I'm convinced of that as your denials show in the face of overwhelming proof. Enjoy stroking each others egos as this blog gets real boring without the voice of troofers. Case in point, check the comment numbers when Troffers don't visit.
Nope. Never claimed to be. But I do read engineering publications, reports, etc. and quite sure I have the brain power to more than comprehend those publications.
And yet somehow you draw completely different conclusions from say, every other engineer in the world.
I don't need to intimidate anyone, especially you, Tele. Because your intellect far surpases my own. That or I'm just that retarded to think so.
Spare me. You told me to go away and followed up with a tiny laundry list of things you seem to think make you more qualified than almost every engineer in the world.
Their response-"I wouldn't be suprised ...I didn't know that (regarding explosions..and as far as WTC 7, there are some serious problems with that scenario."
Uh-huh. For the sake of arguement, let's assume this is true.
So when are you going to get some actual quotes? Or maybe something from an engineer where they agree with your asessment (bombs) rather than saying there were problems with some of the early models (such as the FEMA report). You're playing the creationist game, where every criticism of an aspect of evolution is a 'win' for creationism.
So thanks for making some erroneous fruitless predictions and assumptions.
None of my assumptions were in error, I can see the exact game that you are playing. You think you are very clever, but you aren't.
Gordon Ross, of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, provided a momentum transfer analysis which showed that the momentum of falling floors above the impact area would be absorbed by the lower floors prior to column buckling, and therefore collapse would not proceed. Progressive collapse theory is not supported by this analysis.
Gordon Ross has been so debunked over and over it is laughable. If you want a real calcualtion of the collapse, read Bazant's article in the March 2007 Journal of Engineering Mechanics. From which I quote:
"The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories Figs. 1(d) and 2 the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous. The relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy also sufficed to explain, without any further calculations, why the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top."
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf
Ross' paper had major flaws that many Engineers and physicists spotted right away. A good example is R. Mackay's comments on the JREF message board:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576
I find it amazing, however, that after those explosions were heard in your examples and there was no global collapse of the structures.,
Of course you find it amazing. That's because you're an idiot who can't fathom the concept that explosions are heard in every major fire, and explosions aren't what caused the WTC to collapse. That one sentence perfectly illustrates why you're so fucked up.
Post a Comment
<< Home