posted 09-29-2003 10:26 AM            

Stravinsky “Rite of Spring” is one of the most powerful classical pieces available today. It is known throughout the world for its powerful lines, orchestration and melody. But when this piece premiered, it was a different story. Read this article to learn of the history and creation of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring.”

Igor Stravinsky was a Russian composer renowned for his works in the early 1900’s. Stravinsky created the “Firebird Suite,” a work for ballet and orchestra in 1910. His ideas for a next piece were not to be so favorably received. Stravinsky wanted to create a piece that was in accordance with a new rage passing through Paris and certain parts of Europe. This societal trend was toward the primitive, and led to a resurgence of tribal beats and dances in public forums. For his piece, Stravinsky wanted to create a dance around a tribal myth of a virgin being sacrificed. His music and ballet followed the plot of a small girl being killed to appease the God of Spring, and the ensuing Springtime.

Stravinsky’s work, eventually named the “Rite of Spring,” was subtitled “Pictures of a Pagan Russia” by the composer. In keeping with this theme, Stravinsky created music that varied greatly in beat and rhythm, and used loud, strong downbeats and blaring orchestral sounds. Because his theme was so chaotic, his music is wild and unpredictable, and sometimes seems to come from an alien planet. While hints of Russian folk tunes exist in the piece, they are present only in idea. Nothing like this piece was ever heard before Stravinsky’s time.

The ballet for the piece was choreagraphed by the famous dancer Vaslav Nijinsky. His lead dancer was Sergei Diaghilev, a Russian dancer of huge renown. This dancer was infamous because of his numerous affairs with other male members of the Parisian musical world and even, it is said, with the composer. The piece was split into two parts, The Adoration of the Earth and The Sacrifice. The dancers moved in blocked, step-like patterns quite different from the normal lavish movements found on a stage. The set was minimal, and contained all sorts of pagan references to sacrifice. Huge leaps and irregular motions were included in the dancing, making it incredibly hard for the dancers to perform.

Costume and design were no different for the set. The costumes were brown and draped around the dancers bulkily. The stage contained gray, black and brown hues, and the dancers moved in an open space in the center surrounded by images and shadows of rocks and primeval earth-like references. Most of the dancers are on record complaining about the costumes, calling them everything from “potato sacks” to “tatters.” The dark colors and departure from the aesthetic shocked the audience, who expected a glittering, colored sequel to the Firebird Suite.

The premiere, therefore, was a landmark event, for reasons one may not expect. The work opened in Paris in 1913, at the Theatre des Champs Elysees. The Parisian audience was dotted with a number of very famous musicians and composers, as well as not a few critics. When the evening began with a former ballet of the composer, “Les Sylphides,” the audience settled in for a peaceful night. Their peace was shattered with the opening of the “Rite of Spring.” Drums nearly knocked them from their seats, and they responded with roars. Audience members stood on their seats to boo and yell, and the noise made it impossible for the dancers to hear. Nijinsky and Diaghilev shouted timing and numbers from the back to keep the dancers in step, while audience members left. To keep themselves heard, the orchestra played louder and louder, and finally the piece was terminated near the end. Famous composers that were there had an even split in their thinking-half thought that the work was pure genius, while half thought that the composer should be shot.

There are reasons that an audience may not have been ready for the work. In one case, the strong sense of religion that invaded Paris at the time caused many to look down at the primitive rage that swept the arts crowd. The costumes were minimalist and the blocking and dancing unusual, especially for an audience used to glittering costumes and fairy tales. The music itself was jarring and dissonant, a shocking change from the other melodies and tonal works of the composer. The work was simply too futuristic, too ahead of its time, from the mind of a composer that could not be restrained by the period he was in.

Today, the “Rite of Spring” is loved. It is a common component of music classes and a dazzling exercise in the power of music. So while it had a rough start, it will not be forgotten for generations to come. The lesson that this rejection teaches will hopefully have an influence at the next scorned premiere of a great work.

Well,

Noble Gas has been compared to Stravinsky by critics, especially this song:

An excerpt from "Toadstools", a real naked, primitive, techo-pagan piece.
http://www.noble-gas.com/toadstools.mp3

posted 09-29-2003 01:47 PM            

The following page is presented on the Serendipity site as a supposed “proof” that the WTC collapse was a planned demolition. (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm) The page author has chosen to remain anonymous rather than present any type of qualifications. Therefore I will refer to him as “Some Anonymous Person,” or SAP for short. My comments will be added in red italics.

On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything at all, are close to zero.

It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) (So is SAP saying that the fact that it burned out of control for seven hours had nothing to do with the collapse?) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Think of this as a testament to the thousands of firefighters that fought and put out fires in other high-rise buildings over the years. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. And, just what was the “Breakneck speed?” With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. This is an assumption on SAP’s part. The structural engineers designed the structure to withstand the impact. Fire protection is a whole ‘nuther ball of wax. SAP is assuming something that is not clearly known. It may very well be that the WTC designers did not adequately consider the effects of a jet fuel fire on the floors. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse. Apples and oranges. Not all buildings are the same, not all fires are the same.
THE "TRUSS THEORY" IS LUDICROUS

The truss theory is the absurd belief that the only support (between the central core and the perimeter wall) for the concrete floor slabs, was lightweight trusses. It was invented to explain away what were obviously demolitions and has become the "official" dogma. The central core, perimeter wall and the mythical trusses are all introduced in the next section. There you will find out their dimensions, their numbers and their supposed usage. After reading the rest of this article you should return to this section and (with improved understanding) read it again. Unable to refute the known facts, SAP has taken the art of conspiracy theory to new levels. In this part he tries to prove that the construction of the WTC’s is completely different from what every engineering textbook, study, architect and steelworker involved with the construction of this project knows through direct experience.

According to the "official" story, there is no significant lateral support for the walls (against wind loading) between the ground and top floors. This is like a bridge with a 1,300 foot span between supports. Even though the tube structure of the perimeter wall was designed for maximum rigidity (within the given weight specifications) the 1,300 foot span between supporting pillars, meant that even this very rigid design would sag in the midsection under wind loading, just like a bridge with such a span. In a typical steel framed building the span between pillars is only 12 feet (one floor) and such a problem does not arise.

In a key failure of his theory, SAP is confusing the design of the WTC with more typical steel framed structures. In a typical steel framed structure, the perimeter structure is relatively flexible in the vertical plane. Wind loads are transferred from the flexible perimeter to the core by horizontal I-beams. The core in a standard high-rise is stiffened to provide the necessary wind resistance for the building. This stiffening is generally done by one of two methods. In most buildings, the core walls are built of masonry block (usually what the average person calls cinderblock). The masonry does two things, it fills in the space between the columns and beams, thus preventing them from flexing out of square, and it provides a firewall between the building floor and the core area, since the core area usually consists of various pipe, HVAC, elevator and stair shafts. In other buildings, the stiffening is provided by diagonal cross braces.
For the WTC towers:
“Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.” (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php)

The WTC was built the opposite way. In the WTC, it was the perimeter walls that provided the necessary stiffness to the building.

“The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.” (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php)

The World Trade Center towers were like huge sails in the wind. These sails had to be able to resist the 140 mile per hour winds of a hurricane. Such hurricane force winds exerted a large (some 6000 tons) lateral force on the building. This lateral force is called the wind loading (or force of the wind) on the building. According to the "official" story, the only possible intermediate support comes from the flimsy trusses and the lightweight concrete floors. The WTC was designed to survive a 45 pounds per square foot, wind loading. This translates to a 12 x 207 x 45/2000 = 56 ton force on each of the floor segments. What this 56 ton force on each floor segment means, is that if one was to lay the World Trade Center on its side and use the pull of gravity as a substitute for the push of the wind, then each of the 110 floors would need to be loaded with a 56 ton block of steel (so the entire wall would have to support 110 such blocks of steel, that is, 110 x 56 = 6160 tons in total).

The fact that the tubular structure of the walls is very rigid, does not stop the central core from needing to bend when the walls bend. This means that the walls have to transmit the full force of the wind to the core, so that the core will flex to the same extent as the walls (this is obvious, otherwise if the walls flex while the core does not, the floor slabs would, by definition, be crushed). Here SAP demonstrates his lack of understanding of building dynamics of the WTC towers. The core was more flexible than the perimeter. Again, it is important to note that the rigidity of the walls does not protect the central core from the full force of the wind, what it does, is it limits the distance that the walls (and hence the whole structure) can bend. The more rigid the design the less it tilts in the wind.

In strong winds the midsection of the windward wall will be pushed several feet towards the core. In a typical steel framed building of WTC type design, (No, this is not the WTC design.) heavy steel beams transmit the wind loading to the core, which then bends together with the walls. However, in the WTC (as described in the "truss theory") the trusses and floor slabs are too weak to transmit this force to the core without buckling, (Prove it.) so the core will stay in its original position as the wall advances to it. This will crush the trusses and floor slabs, leading to the collapse of many floors.
(Apparently SAP has never heard of the concept of “Distribution of load.” This is another key failure of his theory. One wall does not move toward the core, while all of the other walls are stationary. The perimeter columns, spandrel beams, floor joists, floor slab, etc. are interconnected. This interconnection serves to distribute the various loads among all of the structural members.
Since this did not occur during the 30 years in which the buildings stood, we must assume that the "official" story is false. (To “assume is to make an ASS of U, but not ME )To see how utterly ridiculous the "official" story is, lets calculate the lateral loading (wind loading) that each one of these trusses was expected to resist. Consider, a one floor segment. Here, we have 30 trusses (how many? This doesn’t agree with what you state later) and a slab of concrete supporting 56 tons. That is about 2 tons per truss and piece of slab. If you balanced a 2 ton block of steel on top of one of these flimsy 60 foot long trusses and (a 60 foot long by 6 foot 8 inches wide by 4 inches thick) slab of concrete, we all know what would happen - the truss and slab would buckle and collapse.
Statements like this make me think that SAP has never attended a single engineering course. We are talking about the weight of two typical cars here (OK, maybe two old Lincolns). You have to consider that this weight will be distributed across the entire truss. Furthermore, the trusses were not designed to support weight in the manner described. The trusses (like all other trusses) were designed to transmit the load to the ends of the truss where they transferred the load to the angle clips on the spandrels and core beams.
In addition, since this is a key point in SAPs argument that the trusses were too weak, I expect a little more analysis before I will accept this. Simply saying “we all know what would happen - the truss and slab would buckle and collapse,” is not enough. I want to see the math that proves this.

Another point to consider, is that if the walls alone handle lateral loading, then the pressure on the windward wall must be transmitted via the corners to the remaining walls (this transmission of loading to the other walls is what gave the WTC its rigidity) but corners are far too weak to handle this task alone. OK, what part of this don’t you understand? The columns (perimeter and core), spandrels, core beams, decking and concrete floor are all interconnected. They all work together to transmit the loads. If one of these pieces fails, the other components have to pick up the slack.

posted 09-29-2003 01:54 PM            

WHERE IS THE STEEL?

Since the trusses are incapable of resisting the wind loading, (Explain to me again, just how you “proved” this. I don’t see any kind of mathematical analysis of the forces involved above, just your statements that the trusses “are too weak.” we know that the "official" explanation of the WTC collapse is false. If the floor joists (supports) were not the claimed trusses, then what were they? They had to be strong enough to support the floor slab and stiff enough to resist the wind loading. In fact, they had to be large steel beams. (According to SAP, “heavier is stronger” ) This is not to say that trusses were not used at all in the construction, but just that (contrary to the "official" line) the main floor joists were steel beams and not trusses.

The above argument using wind loading is certainly enough to tell one that trusses were not really used as the floor joists, but there are also other ways to determine this. Another approach is adopted in this section. We will:
Calculate the weight of steel theoretically used in the construction of one of the towers assuming that the floor joists were trusses.
Compare the result of this calculation to the 96,000 tons of steel known to have been used in the construction of each of the towers.
Note that the calculated weight of steel is only 67 percent of the required 96,000 tons.
Conclude that the 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for, is due to the fact the the floor joists were actually weighty steel beams and not flimsy trusses (and thus that the official story is a lie spun to explain away what were obviously demolitions).
Calculate a rough cross-sectional area for the steel beams that did serve as floor joists.
Since a cubic foot of steel weights 490 pounds, it is enough to deal with volumes rather than weights. We will calculate the volume of steel on a per floor basis.

To calculate the per floor volume of steel used in the construction of the twin towers, we will divide the calculation into three parts, namely, the volume of steel in the perimeter wall, the volume in the central core and the volume used in the floor support system.

The perimeter wall was comprised of box columns welded to large spandrel plates. Two typical prefabricated sections are illustrated below. Each consists of three spandrel plates welded to three box columns and each is three floors high.

The first figure below shows the cross section of one of the perimeter box columns and its surrounds. The second and third figures detail the dimensions of two actual perimeter columns that were salvaged from the rubble.

The numbers in the figure denote:
36 - the steel column
38 and 39 - fire resistant plaster
40 - aluminum facade
42 - window glass
43 - the window frame.
To obtain an estimate of the "typical" perimeter column, the dimensions of the perimeter columns listed in the WTC Steel Data Collection I have been unable to access this info to verify if what SAP says is correct. But for now I will assume that it is.) documentation were averaged. Whether this accurately reflects the true distribution of perimeter column thickness, is unclear, but it is all one has to go on (till those who hold the architectural details release them).

So, our "average" perimeter column has dimensions:

d = 13.4, t_w = 0.48, b_f = 12.9, t_(tf) = 0.32 and t_(bf) = 0.32.

and cross-sectional area:

2 x (13.4 x 0.48) + (12.9 x 0.32) + (14 x 0.32) = 21.5 square inches,

The parameters d, t_w, b_f, t_(tf) and t_(bf) are as in the following diagram from Appendix D which is part of the report found at http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm.

For the time being we will ignore the column end plates and the spandrel beams. Since each floor is 12 feet high, the per floor volume of steel in an average perimeter box column is:

12 x 21.5/144 = 1.792 cubic feet.

In total there are 240 such columns, so the volume of steel so far is

240 x 1.792 = 430 cubic feet.

Now lets deal with the volume of steel in the column end plates. Each end plate is 14 inches wide by 11.75 inches deep and 1.375 inches thick, giving a volume of

14 x 11.75 x 1.375 = 226.2 cubic inches = 226.2/1728 = 0.130896 cubic feet.

Since, on each floor, one third of the columns are joined, and each join involves two end plates, the per floor volume of steel in the end plates is

2 x 0.130896 x 240/3 = 20.9433 cubic feet.

The spandrel plates are large, being 52 inches high and 3/8 inches thick. Each floor has the equivalent of one spandrel beam that stretches 4 x 207 = 828 feet right around the building. The volume is easily calculated to be

828 x 12 x 52 x 3/8 = 193752 cubic inches = 193752/1728 = 112.125 cubic feet.

So the overall per floor volume of steel in the perimeter wall is

430 + 21 + 112 = 563 cubic feet.

Now, we wish to calculate the per floor volume of steel in the core section

of the building. To do this, we first need to calculate the volume of steel in each of the core columns. This is complicated by the fact that the dimensions of the columns reduced in size with increasing height. For example, at the base of the WTC some of these columns were 36 inches wide by 16 inches deep and 4 inches thick, whereas at the top, these box columns had transitioned to H-sections (I-sections) fabricated from 3/4 inch steel (the transition to H-sections occurred at floor 85). We will ignore the reduction in width and breadth of the columns, and only take into account the reduction in column thickness by assuming an average thickness of 2 inches (this roughly corresponds to a reduction in thickness of one quarter of an inch, every seven floors, up to floor 85). In reality, the column width and breadth decreased quite considerably and we only make this very generous assumption as the actual reductions in the width and breadth are unknown. So, we assume each core column has the following cross-section:

The cross-sectional area is (36 + 12 + 36 + 12) x 2 = 192 square inches = 192/144 = 1.333 square feet. Since each floor is 12 foot high, the per floor volume of steel in one such column is 12 x 1.333 = 16 cubic feet. Reports as to the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. Once again, we will be generous in our assumptions and choose the higher figure of 47. Thus, the total volume of steel (per floor) in the core columns is

47 x 16 = 752 cubic feet.

On each floor, the core columns were bound together by a rectangular grid of beams. As the dimensions of these beams are not known we will assume they were, 14 inch by 14 inch box sections fabricated from 3/4 inch steel. Again, this is a very generous assumption. The cross-sectional area of such a box section is:

( 2 x 14 x 0.75 ) + ( 2 x 12.5 x 0.75 ) = 39.75 square inches = 39.75/144 = 0.276 square feet.

The core section is 137 feet wide x 87 feet deep. Hence, our rectangular grid comprises six 137 foot sections and eight 87 foot sections, for a total length of 822 + 696 = 1518 feet. Additionally, the outer two 137 foot sections have to extend to the perimeter wall (to give support for the trusses). Actually, the "official" version has a much smaller U shaped beam, but as I have mentioned above, we are being very generous. This adds another 140 feet to the length. The volume of the 1518 + 140 = 1658 feet of box section is:

1658 x 0.276 = 458 cubic feet. Thus the overall volume of steel in the core section is:

752 + 458 = 1210 cubic feet.

We now turn our attention to the floor support system.

The floor slab was poured on 1.5 inch corrugated 22-gauge steel decking. Now, 22-gauge steel is 0.0336 of an inch thick. The corrugations lead to 1.25 square feet of steel decking for every square feet of floor slab. Hence, the volume of steel involved is

207 x 207 x 1.25 x 0.0336/12 = 150 cubic feet.

posted 09-29-2003 02:06 PM            

To complete our calculations, we need to calculate the volume of steel used in the system of trusses which supposedly supported the concrete floor slabs. The following graphic illustrates the truss system. The double trusses (of which, in this graphic, we only have an end view) ran perpendicular to the transverse trusses, and were essentially two transverse trusses bound together.

Consider one of the 3 foot four inch (40 inch) sections illustrated in the above graphic. The diagonal rod has a diameter of 1.09 inches (radius 0.545 inches) and a length of twice the square root of 20 squared plus 30 squared, that is, a length of

2 x srt( 20^2 + 30^2 ) = 2 x srt( 1300 ) = 72 inches.

Here, srt stands for the square root.

The cross-sectional area of the rod is 3.14 x 0.545 x 0.545 = 0.933 square inches. Hence the volume of rod in this segment is 72 x 0.933 = 67.2 cubic inches.

This gives a volume of 67.2 x 12/40 = 20.16 cubic inches per foot of truss.

Pictured above, is the connection of one of the double trusses to the perimeter wall.
Actually that is a very telling graphic. The gussets (or clip angles) are believed to have been the week link in the system. When these failed, the floor failed and the collapse began. Note that the truss is designed to transmit the load it bears through these connections. Because the truss is a rigid structural member, the direction of the force transferred by the truss through the angle clips to the spandrel beam and column is downward. In the heat of the fire, the trusses began loosing up to 60% of their strength. This isn’t even considering what damage the impact of the plane caused. As the steel in the trusses began to weaken, they started to sag. This changed the direction of the load force from downward to inward as the sagging truss began pulling on the angle clips. When on of these failed, the load was transferred to the adjacent clip. If it was just one clip that failed, the buildings would still be there. But with the damage caused by the impact and the intensity of the resulting fire, who knows how many failed initially. The remaining clips were unable to support the load alone and they too failed.

The cross section marked X--X in this graphic, is pictured below. Note that the original graphic from the WTC-report was so out of scale, that it was necessary to stretch it somewhat.

The first image below is apparently the real life version of the above graphic (supposedly obtained from the WTC wreckage). The second image shows the gusset plate and seat connection.

As I see it, rather than support you theory that there were no trusses, these photos prove that the trusses existed. An I beam floor joist would have used a different type of connection.

The dimensions quoted in the following section were made by taking measurements from these two photos. Standard adjustments for perspective had to be made for measurements from the second photo.

posted 09-29-2003 02:09 PM            

The gusset plate is 4 x 2 x 3/8 and has a volume of 3 cubic inches. The seat angle has a volume of roughly 2 x ((9 + 4) x 14.5 x 3/8) = 141 cubic inches and the "stiffeners" add another 9 x 1.5 x 3/8 = 5 cubic inches. Since there were (at most) 120 gusset plates and seat angles, these add in 120 x 149 = 17880 cubic inches. The 76 horizontal diagonal brace plates add in another 76 x 90 x 3/2 x 1/2 = 5130 cubic inches for an addition of

(17880 + 5130)/1728 = 13.3 cubic feet of steel to our total.

The upper chord (top section) of one of the double trusses consisted of four pieces of 1/8 inch thick angle iron, as illustrated below (it is circled in red).

Below, is a more detailed view of the cross section of the top chord of a transverse truss (left) and double truss (right).

So, the upper chord has a cross sectional area of

((2 + 1.25) + (1.25 + 2))/8 = 0.8125 square inches for a transverse truss and,

((2 + 1.25) + (1.25 + 7 + 1.25) + (1.25 + 2))/8 = 2 square inches for a double truss.

Since we have no information concerning the lower chord (and the "official" pictures are inconsistent and nowhere near to scale) we will assume it has the same dimensions as the upper chord.

Now summing the volume of steel in the top and bottom chords and diagonal rods, we have the following per foot volumes:

2 x 0.8125 x 12 + 20.16 = 39.7 cubic inches per foot for the transverse trusses, and

2 x 2 x 12 + 2 x 20.16 = 88.3 cubic inches per foot for the double trusses.

Now we need to calculate the total length of double and transverse trussing. There were apparently, 60 double trusses spanning the 60 feet from the perimeter wall to (a beam attached to) the core and 24 double trusses spanning the 35 feet from the perimeter wall to the core. They are pictured in the following graphic:

The overall length of double trussing was thus 60 x 60 + 24 x 35 = 4440 feet. Transverse trusses ran perpendicular to the double trusses as illustrated:

The overall length of transverse trussing was thus 8 x 207 + 4 x 87 = 2004 feet.

There was also a lesser supporting feature called "intermediate support angle". Since all we know about the intermediate support angle, is that its support capabilities were inferior to the double and transverse trusses, we shall be generous and assume that it was similar in nature to the transverse trusses. This adds another 1764 feet, to give a total of 2004 + 1764 = 3768 feet of transverse trussing.

Hence, the volume of steel in the double trusses was 4440 x 88.3/1728 = 227 cubic feet.

And the volume of steel in the transverse trusses was 3768 x 39.7/1728 = 86.6 cubic feet.

So the overall per floor volume of steel in the floor support system was

150 + 13.3 + 227 + 86.6 = 477 cubic feet.

The total per floor volume of steel, is now the sum of that in the perimeter wall, the central core section and the floor system. This is 563 + 1210 + 477 = 2250 cubic feet.

So why have we gone to all this trouble to calculate the per floor volume of steel? Well, we know that 96,000 tons of steel was used in the construction of each of the WTC towers. The WTC towers had 117 floors (110 above and 7 below the Plaza level) so an average floor contained 96,000/117 = 820 tons of steel. Since the density of steel is 490 pounds per cubic foot, we see that each floor contained about 820 x 2000/490 = 3347 cubic feet of steel.

Now, according to the above calculations, the per floor volume of steel in each of the towers, is (a very generous) 2250 cubic feet. But this is only 67 percent of the volume of steel that we know was used in the construction of the tower. So, the big question is: Where is the other 33 percent? Where are the missing 32,000 tons of steel? What features of the building are being left out of the "official" explanations?

Could it be that each concrete floor was actually supported by weighty steel beams and not by the very flimsy trusses of the "official" story?

Could it be that you have no idea what you are talking about?

posted 09-29-2003 02:11 PM            

Well, the following picture, taken during the construction of the WTC, may hold the answer.

Here, one can see what appear to be large steel girders laid out according to the plan for the positioning of the supposed double trusses (this plan is pictured here). To make things clearer, the position of the girders have been marked in white in the photo below. Remember, that the perimeter columns which appear like a row of toothpicks in the visible sections of the wall, are actually 14 inches wide. Thus the floor joists do indeed appear to be quite large steel girders. One thing is certain though, they are not the claimed double trusses.

That photo is too blurry and indistinct to make any assumptions from it. Hell, I can even make out some “orbs” in there.
In this photo the vertical red lines correspond to visible core columns. The white lines (apart from the outer perimeter lines) correspond to visible floor joists.

Above, is a photo of early construction work on the South Tower. Behind, is the North Tower and further back, the Verizon building. The photo was taken from the old extention of Greenwich Street (which was ripped up to make way for WTCs 4 and 5) looking north west. Some interesting aspects of the construction are presented in the following enlargements of the red-boxed regions.

In this enlargement one can see eight perimeter box columns at ten foot intervals (further up the structure these columns split into three smaller box columns at 40 inch intervals). Of course, what is of interest here are the eight (seven on the lower level and one on the upper) quite solid looking beams spanning the 35 foot gap between the perimeter wall and the central core, where the "official line" promised us there were only flimsy trusses.

Based on the car in the foreground, it appears that we are looking at the ground and subgrade levels of the building. Where has it been claimed that the trusses were used in the construction of these levels?

BTW, for those of you who think that there were explosives set off on the lower lever that caused the tower’s to collapse, please look at these photos and tell me how many separate explosives would be required to cut all of the columns in that picture.

In the foreground of this enlargement one can see eighteen perimeter box columns of the South Tower (those in the background are of the North Tower). If you look closely, you can just make out a single quite large beam spanning the 60 foot gap between the central core and the perimeter wall. Remember, that the corner core column to which this beam is attached is some 3 foot wide (and 16 inches deep). However, one floor below this, workers are working on a section of flooring held up by what appears to be trussing. One supposes that this is temporary flooring. Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but nobody’s toeses are roses as Moses supposes his toeses to be. (sorry, I couldn’t resist). SAP has obviously never worked construction, or for that matter he has probably never even seen a high rise building being built. “Temporary flooring? Ha, ha, ha, ha. That’s a good one. What contractor in his right mind would bother to erect temporary flooring? You would have to take it out to put in the real flooring. Typically the high iron guys will be putting up the structural steel a few floors above where the guys putting the floor trusses and decking are working. After the decking is in place, another crew puts down the rebar and the concrete it pumped up for the finished floor elevation. There is no need, nor is there any reason why anyone would want to waste time and resources putting in and taking out temporary flooring.
If one looks carefully one can see a barrier rail to prevent workers from falling off the area supported by the trusses. This tends to support the case that this is temporary flooring. So are you stating that they would not have any safety barriers up when they put in the “real” flooring?

posted 09-29-2003 02:16 PM            

Assuming that all the missing steel is contained in these beams we can estimate their cross-sectional area (the assumption that all the missing steel is contained in these beams is somewhat dubious, as I suspect that the sample of perimeter columns has been deliberately biased toward columns with thin cross-sections, and hence, that a significant percentage of the missing steel, is missing from the perimeter columns). Still, using this assumption, we have 1100 + 227 = 1327 cubic feet of steel to play with (the 227 comes from the no longer necessary double trussing). That is of course that your assumption that the reported value for the total quantity of steel use in the building only includes the high-rise portion of the building. As you can see from your own pictures, the buildings also included subgrade areas that were much larger than the footprint of the building. The total length of double trussing to be replaced is 4440 feet. Hence, the desired estimate of the cross-sectional area is:

1327/4440 x 144 = 43 square inches.

So, we have enough steel to replace the double trusses by H-beams (or I-beams, depending on how you view them) that are 24 inches deep, 10 inches wide and fabricated from one inch thick steel. These would be very, very strong beams, and would be much, much stronger than necessary to span the 35 and 60 foot spans from the central core to the perimeter wall.

It is worth emphasizing that these beams, plus the thicker stronger perimeter columns, would mean that WTC One and Two were actually traditional steel-framed buildings, that also incorporated extra thinner perimeter columns, to attain the rigidity necessary to resist wind loading.

Above are pictures taken during the construction of the WTC. On the right is a picture of some 30 feet of trussing, which one supposes was temporary flooring. WHY? Note the vertical gaps in the box columns of the perimeter wall. Gaps in the box columns do not seem to be a sensible feature in a supposedly load bearing wall. Those are the column end plate connections, SAP. Is this because the perimeter wall was not actually meant to be a load bearing wall as such, but a feature designed to give the WTC its required rigidity (against wind loading)? In the left photo note the yellow and red lines in the concrete. In the right photo note the three parallel light-colored lines (about 4 inches wide) in the concrete. That is the corrugated steel decking before the concrete was poured, SAP. One also wonders why the pile of steel in the foreground was hoisted up the building, unless it was to be incorporated in the structure. I can think of a dozen other uses for those. They could be concrete forms, core beams, etc. There is not enough info to say anything about them. An answer to this question may be provided by the following photo.

Between the workers cutting up a couple of WTC core columns, is a column with concrete still attached to the beams that are welded/bolted to it. That is not concrete, SAP, that is the sprayed on fireproofing. These U-shaped beams look suspiciously like the lengths of steel in the foreground of the picture of the trussing. Is it possible that floor slab was some eight inches thick and laced with significant steel beams? Was the slab poured in situ and not prefabricated as some claim? Who claims this? BTW the correct term for a flooring slab is precast, not prefabricated. The floor trusses were prefabricated, I have been unable to find an indication that the floor slab was precast. In fact, your detail drawing, above, (Captioned: “The upper chord (top section) of one of the double trusses consisted of four pieces of 1/8 inch thick angle iron, as illustrated below (it is circled in red)) would seem to indicate that the floor was indeed poured in place.
Was the temporary flooring only necessary till the concrete in the floor slabs had set? Again, it is quite obvious that you have never been on a construction site.
And where does the following piece fit in the whole affair?

Probably from somewhere in the subgrade maybe in the core area or maybe near the train station.

posted 09-29-2003 02:18 PM            

CONCLUSION

• Impacts of the magnitude of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them.
  
• The possibility of a jet-fuel fires the size of those that occurred on September 11 were considered by the designers of the twin towers and the towers were designed to survive them. But, since the engineers in the 1960’s had never had a first hand look at what happens when a fully loaded jet slams into a building, some of their calculations were based on assumptions. Weren’t they?
  
• In order to explain why the towers collapsed, where other steel framed buildings would have survived, the WTC conspirators invented the "truss theory". A theory that dates back to the date the structures were built, apparently.
  
• The "truss theory" is seriously flawed. It cannot explain how the perimeter wall transmits wind loading to the central core. It doesn’t have to, SAP. The perimeter wall was designed to provide the required stiffness.
  
• The "truss theory", if accepted, leads to a 33 percent underestimate of the amount of steel in the towers. That is, the "truss theory" does not account for the whereabouts of 32,000 tons of steel (of 96,000 tons) used in the construction of each of the towers. Since we have no clue as to what data was used to calculate the original steel estimates (what was and was not included), and since your assumptions fail to take into account the lower and subgrade levels, I think that it is safe to assume that it is your estimate and your conclusions based on that estimate that are seriously flawed.
  
• The "truss theory" is a lie that has been spun to convince a gullible public, that what appeared to be the controlled demolitions of three of the World Trade Center buildings, were actually natural consequents of the aircraft strikes and not controlled demolitions at all. You have not presented any evidence of controlled demolitions anywhere in your above claims. Therefore, you can not at this point draw this conclusion .
  
• There are photos showing large steel girders positioned where the "official" line states that only (double) trusses should be. No. All you have shown is that the ground and subgrade levels were constructed with standard I beams. This is entirely to be expected. The loading on these floors is totally different than on the high-rise floors. In addition, the subgrade floor plans are larger and more extensive than the high-rise portion of the structure.
  
• In all, one has to conclude that the "truss theory" is false and that those who push it are part of a large conspiracy to deceive the American people. Based on the above, the only one trying to deceive anyone is you, SAP. I don’t know if it deliberate or self deception based on ignorance, but nothing that you claim above pans out in the least.

Design architecture for the World Trade Center was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates. Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record. Since these people have nothing to hide, they should provide the architectural plans of the World Trade Center, for all to see. This will enable any misunderstandings regarding the facts of the collapse to be established and corrected. In fact, Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Roth & Sons, or their descendent companies, should put the entire set of architectural plans on the internet.
ASSOCIATED LINKS

Home Page (an assortment of articles on September 11 and Palestine). [Now disappeared.]
Detailed Analysis of the Crash at the Pentagon and the FAKED Explosion Pictures. Large 1.4 megabyte file.

The most extensive presentation of the official line are the 21 pdf-documents to be found at
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

The most pertinent of these to this article are
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_toc.pdf (Table Of Contents). http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxB.pdf http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxB.pdf http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxB.pdf

html-versions of these documents (with comment) can be found at:

Table Of Contents For The Report.
WTC_ch2.htm Large 2 megabyte file.
WTC_apndxB.htm
WTC_apndxD.htm
WTC_apndxD_sheet.htm

Other sites of interest are:

Testimony of Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives, April, 2002.
Microsoft software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Centre. http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2.htm http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/Elaboration%20on%20WTC%20Paper.PDF
html-version of the above HERA article. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Article on the World Trade Center collapse from Scientific American. http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/index.htm http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

It is MY conclusion, that the data and conclusions presented by SAP are seriously flawed. In fact, his data only reinforces the generally accepted view that the collapse was precipitated by a failure of the clip angles holding the floor trusses.

- Wolf

posted 09-29-2003 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Here's a counter punch.
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/57333.php

---

Thank you JBE, that helps prove my point.

Study the above.

Notice that the fire had already traveled halfway up the building from the impact floors at the time of the collapse. Notice also that the collapse very clearly starts at the impact floors. As the top floors start to drop, they too begin to break up. Notice the flames being expelled from the collapse point by the pressure of the dropping floors.

If you think that the tower collapse was a controlled demolition, then please answer these questions.

1. If the collapse started on the impact floors, how did TPTB know which floors to plant the explosives on?

2. How were the explosives planted on the floor without anyone noticing?

3. High explosives are touchy things. How did the explosives survive the impact of the plane and subsequent fire without going off?

4. How were the explosives triggered to explode simultaneously? It is a good bet that any and all wiring systems were wiped out by the impact and fire. A wireless system would be too dangerous. You wouldn’t want the charges to go off prematurely because some yahoo used a cell phone too close to the column.

5. How is it that we don’t see any evidence of the charges detonating prior to the collapse? You would expect to see the flashes and hear the detonations as the charges on the perimeter columns and trusses went off. The detonations would also release large amounts of very rapidly expanding gasses into the interior of the building. This would be visible from the outside as these gasses forced puffs of smoke from the building.

From that above page

quote:

---

Above is a photo of a number of 45 feet (13.5m) long trusses and a buckled steel column after the Broadgate Phase 8 fire (the WTC towers had 35 and 60 foot trusses). The fire occurred while the 14-story high-rise was under construction. Little of the steel was fire protected and the sprinkler system and other active measures were not yet operational. Even though a number of trusses and columns buckled, due to thermal expansion, no collapse was observed at Broadgate.

---

Yeah, but Broadgate didn’t also have a fully loaded jet slam into it also.

quote:

---

Eagar totally ignores the fact that the floor slabs were composite (that is, studs or projections from the steel beams were embedded in the concrete slab) preferring to believe the fiction that the floors just rested upon the beams supporting them.

---

Where in any of the articles does Eager state that?

The floor slab of WTC is poured on a corugated deck. This deck is fastened to the trusses. This is standard building technique. Nobody has said anything different.

quote:

---

It is the speed (and shape) of the projectile that determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Other common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and severe damage localized to a few floors.

---

So the severe damage is localized to a few floors, and those floors are also subjected to the intense heat of a jet fuel fire, and you don’t think it is likely that this is the cause of the collapse?

posted 09-29-2003 09:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran's wife:
Common sense will tell you that between the damage from 300,000 lbs, traveling at over 400mph, combined with the heat from the fire being fueled by paper, wood, and jet fuel, add in the structure of the twin towers and the height at which they were hit, I would say DUH, anyone who knows simple geometry can figure out that much weight will pancake the floors when they collapse. It's obvious that a lot of debunkers here know nothing about construction techniques of high rise buildings. Oh, I forgot that what you read on the web is gospel. I refuse to believe that the government brought down the twin towers.

---

I think you mean: "It's obvious that a lot of Chemmies here know nothing about construction techniques of high rise buildings."

posted 09-29-2003 10:53 PM            

quoting another brain (using the term loosely)...
The republicans are using the starstruck awe of celeb status though it seems. First Ahhnuld for governor, now possibly Dennis Miller for senate I heard

What about the clintons and streisand, Sheryl Crow, Rosie O Donnell and many others? I keep forgetting sometimes of the novice type debaters here. And Dennis Miller? who cares he's nobody special.

posted 09-30-2003 07:58 AM            

If you make accusations of being out of tune, prove it by waveform analysis. If you can't, then it's your ears that are out of tune, and not alternative singers. Besides you are outnumbered in your opinion.

People used to say that about the following: Ray Charles, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bill Haley, and Cab Calloway. You know what, people's dislike for their socialist tendencies would taint their observations, and try to find any stupid thing to hate them.

posted 09-30-2003 10:56 AM            

Please read this and know that some who spread the truth are under attack. There are links to 9/11 truth, too!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctrl/message/32816

Don't know if it's the FBI, but I've received a couple of Klez worms recently myself. Don't worry - I have a great zapping system!

BC

posted 09-30-2003 11:04 AM            

Friends are all that matters.

Talk is cheap, as my grandma used to say.

I think it is high schoolish to fling egos around, with no concern of the feelings of fellow humans.

If you want information, read other people's sites where you are a casual observer, and not a participant.

Otherwise, expect that some people will befriend each other, and you can stay on the sidelines, and yell facts.

I have made lots of friends here, MOD, and Mega. We have met, talk to each on the phone, and email each other. We have similar likes and dislikes, and personally I like to communicate, rather than dropping the symbolic, penis-on-the-table-it's bigger-than-yours idea.(Yes, females do the same thing too)

In another thread, you speak of Universal Love in the Future, yet you critisize someone who is expressing a heartfelt feeling.

posted 09-30-2003 11:36 AM            

Thanks for the warm welcome. I quess you already have the answers and don't need friends. Well, you can have your closed in world. I'm from the 60's when friendship, love and honesty amongst friends was top of the line. We gave strength to each other to go against the TPTB and we did stop the Vietnam war. And this is what we are still maintaining to over come what is going on now.

Calling me highschoolish must mean that I sound younger than I am. Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

posted 09-30-2003 11:51 AM            

I'm glad that you have found friends on boards, and so have I. I guess I'm concerned that issues threads get side-tracked with other personal conversation and that it seems to distract, I feel, from our mutual goals of sharing our views and information and relating on that level.

I love all my brothers and sisters, but discussing issues is not a rejection of caring values. Again, this seems like an "either-or" kind of thinking. I belong to boards where we share our personal lives and we start threads pertaining to it.

So, I didn't mean to offend, but I was concerned that we keep on-topic that's all. Again, it's not my purpose here, anyway, to "make friends," but I do feel respect for all who do.

I'm not ego-bound to one upmanship others, either! I share what I know and think just as you do.

Thorry!

posted 09-30-2003 11:59 AM            

I was just saying that we shouldn't get lost in the information highway, and lose track of the fact that we are flesh and blood.

If you read this thread back to the beginning, you'd see that I was responding exactly on topic. I am an admin at MOD, and I know quite well how to keep on topic. Professor started with personal insults, and then attacked my singer and our music. I responded by facts on Stravinsky, and actually, it took Wolf_Larsen to get back on track. If you put up a picture of your child on a thread, and someone called that child ugly and stupid, I'm sure you respond the same way. It's our child, and the dislike of what we do is outnumbered 5 to 1 by the people who like it. I have emails at home praising it, and if you perused our web site, you'd see our history, and some of the greats who have praised us, as well as everyday people.

The people that are here to invade this forum, will do anything to bring it down, and divide and conquer is the method of operation.

If you go to the Main Den of Debunkers, Maverick's. you'll see juggarnauts in action. They are constantly threatening how they will destroy sites like CTC, Method of Destruction, Megasprayer, Carnicom, and Chemtrail Tracking. They fight amongst themselves like two wolves fighting over a piece of meat. http://pub31.ezboard.com/bcontrailsandchemtrails22884

The one thing we have over them is our friendship. So please don't be off-ish to people expressing inner feelings. It's what keeps us one step ahead of them.

Peace