posted 11-03-2003 02:13 PM            

First of all, it was published in the Spring of 2002. Not very up-to-date, but I'll take a crack at it!

The article was not written by an engineer, it was written by a reporter, more of a human interest kind of reporter ABOUT Barnett's travels to the salvage site, almost a month after the collapse, with a few paragraphs about his study at the end.

"He knew that the world had never seen the collapse of a protected steel-framed building." (referring to Professor Jonathan Barnett.) I find this statement very confirming of shatoga's claim that the world hadn't seen this kind of total collpase before in any steel structured building fire.

good credentials: "Today he is a full professor of fire protection engineering and co-founder and co-director of the Melbourne (Australia) Project Center."

The writer describes Barnett's adventure to see the steel rubble at the salvage yard and how he retreated because of the human remains all around.

Getting into the investigation part, the writer states: "As the FEMA report indicates, the twin towers withstood the mechanical insult of the planes' impact, but were then subjected to interior fires, with temperatures ranging from 200 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit." I find this writer to be quite assuming in this, as though it was fact and proven at that. But it is what FEMA reported.

quote:

---

To compute the size of the fires, Barnett needed to know how much oxygen was available to burn the 10,000-gallon fuel load in each 767. His calculations included the enormous holes ripped open by the planes, and the dimensions and location of every window, stairwell, and elevator or utility shaft. He also plotted the layout of offices, the location of partitions and furnishings, and flammability specification of the building materials, furnishings and other contents.

To determine which windows were open during the fire, Barnett examined more than 120 hours of videotape to see where smoke was venting. WPI undergraduates pitched in, taking home tapes to screen over the Thanksgiving break. One of these students was Patrick T. Spencer '05, son of fallen firefighter Thomas E. Spencer; Patrick came to WPI on a scholarship set up for children of victims of the Worcester warehouse fire. Ironically, he was the one who first informed Barnett of the terrorist strikes on the morning of Sept. 11. Graduate students in Barnett's failure analysis class helped calculate how much jet fuel the initial fireballs consumed.

To quantify and compute all of these variables in such a large, complex space-- a space that no longer exists-- is a mammoth task that requires painstaking research and a certain amount of informed speculation.

---

I find the following quote to be relevant to final assessments and you offer no further research, Larson, of this team. "Barnett says it took one week to simulate 10 minutes' worth of the fire. During the three weeks of report writing, only 40 minutes of the fire event could be modeled. The complete simulations won't be available until fall." Where is the assessment of the fall study? Fall 2002?

Barnett says, "A bigger budget, more time and earlier access to the scrap yards" would have helped the investigation and his work.

Whether he's part of the NIST investigation team is a mystery, too. Perhaps you could find that out, Larson.

Barnett and his university team were a credible force for truth, but again, the investigation came up inconclusive and the cry for money and proper evidence always rises up!

No meat here, buddy! Maybe some followup articles on this investigator would be in order?

Did you visit the SPINE study sight? You academically commmitted to this or not, Larson?

bc

posted 11-03-2003 05:07 PM            

I’ll admit that I skipped over most of the technical details, but it is clear that it is not impossible to use a cell phone while on an airplane.

more

So the idea that it is impossible for anyone to make a cell phone call from an airplane is apparently false. People do it all the time (although it is illegal).

From http://www.flyana.com/strategies.html

quote:

---

Thanks for writing about cell phones on airplanes. Most passengers still think that their phones will work from the plane. They don't remember that the operators some of the passengers on 9-11 were talking to were the onboard phone system operators. Many of these systems no longer operate due to lack of revenue, so now there would not be the same opportunities for passengers to call if or when the next event happens. Thanks again for your pointers that present the facts without fear."

---

posted 11-03-2003 10:13 PM            

This is the paper written by Jim Hoffman, the "software engineer."

After a casual glance over the paper, I noted a few glaring errors.

Hoffman goes to great lengths to calculate the energy behind the expansion of the dust cloud based on a single photograph.

To begin with, to base your entire premise on a single photograph seems rather questionable to me, especially when you are estimating the time that the photograph was taken. There is insufficient evidence presented to back up his claim as to the timeline of when the photograph was taken. I consider his implied estimate of the exact time that the photograph was taken (30 seconds after the collapse +- 1 second) to be way too precise. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt and allow an error of plus or minus 5 second5, this throws some serious error margins in his calculations.

quote:

---

* The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.

---

Unfortunately he fails to take into account the fact that the dust cloud was funneled down the street by the presence of the building on either side of the street. This would have increased the apparent speed of the cloud down these streets.

Edited to add: He also does not take into account the inertia of the volume of air within the tower as it is pulled downward by the collapsing floors. This downward inertia will radiate outward from the center of the column.

He also fails to account for all of the potential energy sources present in the collapse. He does not consider the heat energy present due to the fires. Nor does it appear that he consider the heat energy released by the friction of the collapse (I consider this to be a significant error). One other source of potential energy: concrete generally contains quartz in the form of aggregate. Quartz crystals are known for their piezo-electric properties, energy that would be released when the aggregate is ground by the friction of the collapse.

He does not bother to account for the inertia of the dust. Nor does he remember the fact that the building sprinkler systems, although they were damaged and ineffective on the fire floors, were pumping out water non-stop for an hour before the collapse. (not to mention the water that was released from the plumbing in the toilet rooms of the impact floors. Once those pipes broke, there was nothing to stop the water from flowing.

Finally I don’t think that he fully understands the relationship between pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas.

quote:

---

If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K.

---

Lets say that you have a volume of gas about the size of the tower. Now if you compress that tower down to about a quarter of it’s volume (yes I know, some of the air will escape, but not all), then the pressure and temperature of the gas will increase. In fact if you are starting with hot combustion gasses, the increase in temperature will be significant. This increase in temperature is likely to cause further release of combustion related energy. If you release the constraints on the gas, it will expand rapidly (cooling while it does so) until the pressure is equalized. In fact, if some of the thermal energy of the is transferred to the solid particles while the gas is compressed, then the expanding gas can cool of to a temperature below the ambient temperature. (Anyone who has ever opened the valve on a gas cylinder can understand the principle here. If the gas is under pressure, at room temperature, it will cool off as it expands. This is how A/C units work.)

posted 11-04-2003 03:26 PM            

Physics911.org & SPINE
- Home Page
- Privacy Policy
- Help Us
- S.P.I.N.E.

Physics911.org Articles
- Operation Pearl - an alternative 9/11 scenario
- The Missing Wings
- Pentagon Physics
- Cell Phones & 9/11
- Collapse of WTC 7
- WTC Dust Cloud

Other Resources
- Downloads
- Links
- Photo Gallery
- Reference Articles
- Weblog

As anyone can see, there are plenty of articles to sharpen your argumentative acumen! The clouds one is not the only physics-rich topic!

I appreciate your arguments, however, on the dust cloud. Wasn't it one of your physics people who measured the heat of a fire cloud from a photograph? A gigawatt, I think it was. Why would you condemn a similar study on the dust cloud?

I suggest you take your time and view the other subjects on that site, too. They look meaty to me!

Did you read the cell phone studies? You might find them interesting!

You do yourself an injustice to ignore the other physics topics, Larson!

Good job on arguing the dust cloud theory. This doesn't even take into account the explosion clouds occuring before the collapse, either.

posted 11-09-2003 10:00 PM            

As to the cell phone issue, please don't forget that cell phones are line of sight communications devices, so a cell phone in an airplane has a lot longer range to a given cell than a person in a car.

There is no technical reason why you can't use a cel phone in an airplane. The problem is that is can cause issues with the computers routing and handling the calls when two or more cells are picking up the same call. But, if you are over a rural area in Pensylvania, there is a lot of territiory between cells.

Oh, BTW "This doesn't even take into account the explosion clouds occuring before the collapse, either. "

posted 11-11-2003 08:42 PM            

15 pages with innumerable links to dozens of websites with pictures and testimony to "flashes" and puffs of smoke through newly shattered windows,
eye/ear witness acounts of firemen and civilians hearing explosion before the collapse.

Ain't gonna get away with posting evidence, and facts to support the truth?

Come'on wolfLarson.

RNC- Bivings, or whatever contractor you work for,
should really both pay you more and provide more credible BS for your pro Bush rantings.

The absolute continuing failure to read anyone elses' posts.
The absolute refusal to visit any links and view evidence.

It doesn't make you more credible.

It only reinforces the belief that you are merely posting propaganda.

Notice that your side believes anything rush (et al) tell them to believe.

You should post evidence and rational argument to counter those of us who already know for a fact:
Both sides lie.

Only difference is between total disregard for all evidence on your side, and disinformation being dissemnated on our side to distract us from thre whole truth.

WolfLarson,
You lost the argument when the first links to actual pictures (of the controlled demolition) were posted.
It then became a choice between:
Believe our own eyes;
or believe your fairy tales.

posted 12-03-2003 10:34 AM            

I wonder how many will be claiming to have witnessed an “explosive demolition?”

Hey Mech, where is your buddy firefighter Lou?

posted 12-04-2003 04:26 PM            

"Sure I'll believe a Firechief stood in a raging inferno and claimed he saw only two pockets of fire."

<>

posted 12-05-2003 02:17 AM            

That sound file supports my thesis that we should all believe the Firefighters on scene.

"two pockets of fire" is so clear
the request for engine companies takes a couple of repeat plays.
"We need two engines up here"
"two fires..let's get some water and knock it down"

No way a Fire Chief could have stood in that 'chimney effect' 'raging inferno', postulated by the Bush supporters here, and said "two pockets of fire"

I take his assessment of the south tower as a dying declaration.

We must all respect the sacrifice of the people who died in that (unnecessary politically motivated) controlled demolition

and demand an investigation independent of control (coverup) by the Bush Administration.

posted 12-05-2003 09:49 AM            

Shatoga, Why don’t you go over there and explain your position to some real firefighters? I would be very interested to see how that would play out.

posted 12-05-2003 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

That sound file supports my thesis that we should all believe the Firefighters on scene

---

Sure, we should believe them.

Okay, how many NYFD firefighters agree with your conspiracy theories then?

posted 12-06-2003 07:56 PM            

Believer in documented evidence* and rational explanations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by msu94:
Sure, we should believe them.

Okay, how many NYFD firefighters agree with your conspiracy theories then?

Not a single one has came out with that belief, so that is good enough for me.

---

Since you ingnored the links to NY firefighters talking on camera about 'explosions just before the collapse',
and ignored the links to tapes (of firefighters) recorded on 911;
Probably no facts nor expert testimony will sway you.

There is no way to sway a closed mind.

Belief that, only those who agree with your preconceived notions and support your opinions, should be listened to-
has precedent.

Another continent, another time, officials and party members in a big circle jerk like youse neo-cons are doing now.

(then as now it was a faked terrorist attack as excuse to impose a rightwing police state, and to justify wars of agression against weaker nations)

I don't believe in the conspiracy theory of the tinfoilhatters posting all over the web.

No way a conspiracy of a few dozen Arabs could overcome NORAD, and the US Military.
No way a few conspirators who were judged by their flight instructors: 'barely able to fly a Cessna', could have flown jumbo jets at speeds and manuevers beyond the capabilities of both auto pilots and professional commercial pilots.

Nope!
That conspiracy theory being shoveled out the Bushies is way too whacko for any rational person to believe.

Constructing a plausible explanation from recorded evidence and proven facts:
No conspiracy needed.
Operation Northwoods* is a FACT!

(and it readily explains all events and all anomalies on 911)

Project Mongoose, appendix a: Operation Northwoods.
Existence of the Northwoods Operational plan is vouched for by the Dept of Defense.

posted 12-06-2003 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Since you folks from the other side are reading this thread now, let me clear up a few items:

shatoga:

quote:Sure I'll believe a Firechief stood in a raging inferno and claimed he saw only two pockets of fire.

When pigs fly!

Boomer Chick:

quote:they mentioned hearing explosions

I have the recordings of the fireground radio communications. Battalion 7 Chief Orio Palmer, my old Lieutenant, did in fact reach the 78th and 79th floor before giving his life. In stairwell A he reported numerous fatalities and that there were "2 pockets of fire" which needed to be extinguished before he could continue up. Not all the fire, just what was blocking his Herculean progress. He may well have performed the most heroic of all feats on that day!

In this 16:00 minute recording, reports of explosions on the 78th floor are given, the time of those reports are 3 minutes into the tape. Almost 30 minutes before the collapse of tower one. I got news for ya Boomer, explosions in fires are NOT a unusual occurance.

You make your assumptions from the safety of your computer desk. You pick through quotes and bend them to meet conspiracy theories. I assumed I could ignore you, I was wrong.

shatoga again:

quote:sudden complete collapse of buildings designed specifically to withstand airplane impacts

Not 757s and those designs never took the fuel load into account. Also, at the time of design, fireloads consisting of todays office furniture, computers and other petroleum based polymer fixtures were not taken into account.

Failure of the steel barjoist assemblies is a common hazard in our field. We know about it, we've seen it and we know the results of it, collapse.

I've read the posts in your thread, some of you indicate you would like to hear from a firefighter and hear his side of what happened. Here's my side:

Two planes struck the World Trade Center causing massive structural damage. The ensuing fire caused a massive structural collapse. Sorry folks, that's it, nothing more. No radio controlled bombs, no government conspiracy. Just a couple of dozen militant extremists led down the road to destruction. They are a sick bunch of folks. They trust nobody, hate everybody, ignored their governments and set out on their own to destroy civilized man and live in chaos.

Sorry part of it is this, we have so many of these same ideas in the heads of people here in America, Tim McVeigh comes to mind.

Oh, wait, let me guess. He was a CIA agent sent out to destroy the FBI, right?

Say what you will, I will not change your minds. But do me a favor, leave us out of it. We saw what happened and we are not easily persuaded to “go along with the story”. If there was a hint of inside action here you would be reading it from the mouths of the 12,000 firefighters who were there that day.

I was one of them and this is my opinion. Quote me if you want but understand, I do not speak as a representitive of my department or my brother firefighters.

__________________
IACOJ Bartender,

---

posted 12-06-2003 10:12 PM            

Not impressed.
firefighters and arson investigators also bought into the Reichstag Fire being the work of a conspiracy of foriegners.

Choose to believe only whomever agrees with you and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Just don't expect to convince anyone who has not closed their minds to the concept of taking all evidence into consideration.

Chief Palmer was not on the ground like most of the firefighters present that day.

He climbed a stairwell to the impact site and called in for 'two engines' to fight 'two pockets of fire'.

Any real firefighter would respect the observations of the Fire Chief who was actually on scene, inside the building, at the crash site.

(and who was killed in the controlled demolition that collapsed that tower into it's own footprint, instead of letting it fall over)
I do visit and read at that website BTW.

FYI
I was not a firefighter.
Just someone who 'saved firemen's lives', by designing and installing, automatic fire protections systems.

"Saving firemen's lives" illustrated:

NJ, an explosion in a building with one of my systems.
Three sprinklers activated which put the fire out;
14 others with links partially fused but not melted. (not desoldered)
Wall paint blistered , floor covering/ plastics burned.
Fire dept called me at 3am to bring a crew and put the building back in service.

(one sprinkler covers usually a little over 100 sq ft/ thus fireball of 1700-1800 sq ft)

Instead of entering a smokey building to find and save people,
Firemen got wet inspecting for pockets of fire and while installing wedges to seal open sprinklers.

posted 12-07-2003 10:17 PM            

The buildings were doomed from impact onward, but:
They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 and should have remained mostly intact below the impact zone.

Photos (links posted previously in this discussion)
show the top of one tower toppling sideways seconds before the tower collapsed into it's own footprint.

A tall tower toppling sideways can cause massive damage and huge loss of life.

The scenario of the towers falling over had to have been considered and planned for after the 1993 terrorist bombing of the WTC.

It must have been a difficult decision to implode the towers in a controlled demolition.
To sacrifice 3-4 thousand lives in a controlled demolition instead of allowing the towers to topple and spread fire far through the city.

Sacrifice 3-4 thousand lives to save tens of thousands of lives.

I'll bet they have trouble sleeping now.

Of course the neo-cons lack a conscience and therefore have no problem rationalizing the loss, of lives that had to be sacrificed, to achieve "the conservative vision"

Structures are weakened most where impact and fire damage destroys structurial integrity first.
Toppling over is normal.
Collapsing into it's own footprint only occurs in a controlled demolition.

Evidence must be considered over opinion!
(this is really like repeatedly telling small children not to play in the street/ stubborn refusals to apply rational thinking)
Evidence must be considered over opinion!

posted 12-08-2003 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:

Toppling over is normal.
Collapsing into it's own footprint only occurs in a controlled demolition.

---

No, in this case, toppling over would not be normal. In order for the building to have toppled over, the center of gravity would have had to move outside the building footprint. This would have required an enormous lateral force to accomplish this.

Yes the top of the south building tilted slightly as it started to collapse. That was because the failure of the beams and columns started on one side then progressed to the entire floor. Consider the design of the building. The weight of the building was born by the perimeter and the core columns. Once one side failed, the core and the other sides were not able to support the load alone so they failed also. At this point, the biggest force on the top of the structure was gravity, which pulls straight down. The columns were simply not strong enough to translate that downward force to a lateral force. There was no point about which the building could rotate and "tip over." The building was not a tree. More like a house of cards. Can you build a house/tower of cards and cause it to topple over like a tree?

posted 12-09-2003 12:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
No, in this case, toppling over would not be normal. In order for the building to have toppled over, the center of gravity would have had to move outside the building footprint. This would have required an enormous lateral force to accomplish this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:

Yes the top of the south building tilted slightly as it started to collapse. That was because the failure of the beams and columns started on one side then progressed to the entire floor. Consider the design of the building. The weight of the building was born by the perimeter and the core columns. Once one side failed,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
the core and the other sides were not able to support the load alone so they failed also. At this point, the biggest force on the top of the structure was gravity, which pulls straight down. The columns were simply not strong enough to translate that downward force to a lateral force. There was no point about which the building could rotate and "tip over."

---

Obviously you know nothing at all of mechanical engineering or building construction.

Undamaged portions of a structure do not spontaneously fail just because damaged structures on the opposite side or adjacent sides of a building have failed.
They bend and attachments shear off as the damaged protions collapse first.
Falling over is natural.
Falling straight down only happens in controlled demolitions.

visit the website of CDI (the contractor who both set the charges and cleaned up after the OKC (OP Northwoods) and the WTC (Op Northwoods)controlled demolitions.

I know no neo-con can ever be swayed by any voice outside the cult of conservatism.
I'm posting for the open minds of rational people outside the cult.

posted 12-09-2003 09:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
An enormous lateral force like a jumbo jet slamming into the building and causing localized extensive damage?

---

You almost have it. Keep two things in mind. The lateral force imparted by the impact was mostly absorbed by the structure of the tower. (i.e. deformation of the beams and columns) some of the lateral force was translated into sidewise motion. (swaying) as indicated by the seismic traces and the eye witness accounts.

BUT this movement dissipated after a few minutes. How can you suggest that the lateral force of the impact should have caused the buildings to topple sideways over an hour later?

Like I said, you almost have it. Yes there was enormous localized damage. What happened to the building loads that were once supported by the columns and beams that were now sheared, bent or twisted out of plumb?

Another part of the building had to now support this weight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Obviously you know nothing at all of mechanical engineering or building construction.

Undamaged portions of a structure do not spontaneously fail just because damaged structures on the opposite side or adjacent sides of a building have failed.
They bend and attachments shear off as the damaged protions collapse first.
Falling over is natural.
Falling straight down only happens in controlled demolitions.

visit the website of CDI (the contractor who both set the charges and cleaned up after the OKC (OP Northwoods) and the WTC (Op Northwoods)controlled demolitions.

I know no neo-con can ever be swayed by any voice outside the cult of conservatism.
I'm posting for the open minds of rational people outside the cult.

---

No, my friend, I am afraid that it is you who fails to grasp the basic principles of engineering and physics at work here.

To begin with I think that you fail to appreciate the shear size of these buildings. These were not masonry chimneys at an abandoned factory here, these buildings were huge.

It is a simplistic explanation, but: Things topple over because their center of gravity shifts outside of their base. To shift the center of gravity you have had to rotate the top of the tower at least two feet for every foot that the COG shifted. The distance that you would have had to shift the COG for the tower would have been at least a hundred feet or more.

Furthermore, for the tower to topple over as you imagine it, the structure would have had to remain stiff and rigid without bending, twisting or breaking.

The undamaged columns did not “spontaneously” fail. They were bearing up the weight of the building, both the loads that they normally carried and the loads that were transferred to them from the damaged area.

Once the building began to sag toward the damaged side, the columns on the opposite side would have snapped like a bunch of celery stalks. At that point, there would have been no fixed point from which the top structure would have been able to rotate.

The top portion that had shifted laterally may have continued to do so slightly as it went straight down, but 99% of the momentum and energy was going in one direction only, down.

Falling over is only natural if you have a completely rigid structure that with no elasticity, like a tree or a masonry wall or a brick chimney. Even in those cases, very tall masonry structures will go straight downward once the wall starts to break apart.

posted 12-11-2003 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by A firefighter:
Yes Wolf, I'm from there, as a matter of fact, that's my quote you posted.

---

Cool!!

As you can see, this thread is dying out, since none of the arguments for a controlled demolition has stood up to any reasonable scrutiny.

posted 12-13-2003 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
This thread is dying out because all the evidence and testimony supports a controlled demolition,
and only refusal to examine evidence nor consider testimony supports the tin-foil hatters' conspiracy theory.

---

What evidence?????

Every piece of evidence, testimony, etc. presented so far to support the controlled demolition theory has been shown to have been either taken out of context, distorted, or just plane wrong.

You have provided NOTHING to support this theory.

The seismic data does not support this theory.

The firefighter tape does not support your theory,

The contention that the building was in fact a traditionally framed structure, is plain wrong and does not support your theory.

The various videos and pictures do not support your theory.