posted 10-06-2003 03:38 PM            

The steel beams did not melt. They softened and lost strength. This coupled with the damage caused by the impact weakened them to the point where they failed. Once one column began to fail, the load was shifted to the other columns. These in turn began to fail, accelerating the collapse so that it appeared to be simultaneous, but in fact the evidence indicates that it was not, the collapse occurred over several seconds.

Furthermore, look at the video of the collapse a couple of pages back. Notice the flames shooting out of the building at least 10 floors above the impact site. This does not look like it was burned out by any stretch of the imagination.

I dispute the notion that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes. I believe that the fuel managed to soak the carpets and penetrated into the floor cavities, cracks, furnishings, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc. Thus the fuel burned for quite some time.

posted 10-06-2003 04:46 PM            

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake2.html
http://behindtheillusions.50megs.com/contact.html
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=356126&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21%E2%88%82=

opposed to the theory of demolition:
http://www.vashongreen.org/WTC-theory.htm
http://www.codshit.com/myths-reality.asp

posted 10-06-2003 05:06 PM            

quote:

---

I dispute the notion that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes. I believe that the fuel managed to soak the carpets and penetrated into the floor cavities, cracks, furnishings, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc. Thus the fuel burned for quite some time.

---

Why would the jet fuel you talk about not have ignited when a source of heat was present? It makes no sense that the fuel spread as you say without igniting.

You do not refute the seismic explosions present before each building's collapse, either. How do you explain that?

Just to say "I think" this and "I believe" that are pretty flimsy refutations.

Weakening of intersections of beams through low heat could be a good theory if all steel beams were weakened at the same time on all floors. But the fire was localized and the heat from the jet fuel burned off immediately. The rest was office equipment and other substances which again, even if they could melt the jumctions, were only localized on a couple of floors. Many firemen have testified that fires in high rises do not cause pancaking. So just through common sense, you know the pancaking had to have help and strong help indeed.

A pathetic try, but at least a try!

BC

posted 10-06-2003 07:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Larson said:
Why would the jet fuel you talk about not have ignited when a source of heat was present? It makes no sense that the fuel spread as you say without igniting.

---

I did not say that the fuel spread without igniting, The fuel was quite probably on fire as is spread. One thing to remember is that liquid fuel does not burn. It is the vapor phase above the fuel that burns.

A complex mixture of physical properties such as vapor pressure, temperature, etc determines the speed at which a fuel burns.

If you had an open bucket of kerosene and lit it on fire, you would not expect the fuel to burn up all at once would you? Of course not. As the fuel vaporizes over the pool of liquid, it burns. But it takes time for the pool of liquid to vaporize. Now if you were to kick that bucket over, the fuel would spread out in a flaming pool across the floor. The thinner layer would have a much greater surface area and burn up much faster. But, if there are cracks in the floor, the liquid fuel would have time to seep into those cracks before it flashes into flames. The heat of the fire would then cause the fuel vapors to emanate from the crack at a much slower rate than if it was an absolutely smooth floor.

8,000 gallons spread across an area 150 feet by 150 feet would be about 1/2 inch thick.

But even there the combustion of the fuel is often times not complete. One of the main tools used by arson investigator is an organic vapor analyzer. This is a portable instrument that is sensitive to very small quantities of hydrocarbon vapors in the air. There are a few people who have wound up in jail because they assumed that the fire would burn off all of the traces of the accelerant.

quote:

---

You do not refute the seismic explosions present before each building's collapse, either. How do you explain that?

---

The chart that I posted a couple of pages ago does not show any "sharp spikes." At any rate, I would like to see a statement from a qualified seismologist stating that there is evidence of an explosion preceding the collapse. The only source for this so-called fact that I have found is a cut and paste page with a bunch of quotes taken out of context. I will not accept as a fact anything put out on Rense.com without it being verified by at least three other non-partisan sources. Most of the sources and links for this so-called fact simply quote each other in a circular fashion.

quote:

---

Just to say "I think" this and "I believe" that are pretty flimsy refutations.

---

I will admit that I don’t know everything. There are limits to my ability to interpret evidence. But I also know the extent of my limits and will defer to expert opinion on those matters. I do, however have the ability to judge who is an expert and who is a bullshit artist. Experts are willing to post up their credentials. Experts have a verifiable background, training and knowledge of a subject. B.S. artists (SAPs) hide behind anonymous pages that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

quote:

---

Weakening of intersections of beams through low heat could be a good theory if all steel beams were weakened at the same time on all floors. But the fire was localized and the heat from the jet fuel burned off immediately.

---

The fire was not localized. Look at all of the pictures and videos of the collapse, the fire had involved almost the entire tops of both buildings before they collapsed.

quote:

---

The rest was office equipment and other substances which again, even if they could melt the jumctions, were only localized on a couple of floors. Many firemen have testified that fires in high rises do not cause pancaking. So just through common sense, you know the pancaking had to have help and strong help indeed.

A pathetic try, but at least a try!

BC

---

Again, most high rise fires don’t also involve the impact of fully loaded jet planes traveling at speeds of 400 mph. If it was just a jet fuel fire, then maybe the buildings would still be standing. But when you factor in the obvious damage caused by the impacts and the intense heat produced by the fire, you have a recipe for disaster.

posted 10-06-2003 11:13 PM            

The second one is from a guy in Denmark, don't know if he's a scientist, but he's selling uncut versions of the tapes.

Here's a great link from the third link above: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

It offers a pretty convincing argument on the subject of steel and heat with engineering articles to support it. Check it out, Larson.
******************

quote:

---

......This explanation is patently false. A perusal of video footage showing the initial collapse of the North Tower, clearly reveals the communications mast located atop the North Tower collapsing vertically downwards. The mast was mounted on top of a central service column which housed the elevators. This central service column in turn was supported on massive box-sectioned columns attached to the bedrock, which were fabricated from steel four inches thick. In order for the communications mast to fall vertically downwards, the steel columns supporting the entire central service column must have been severed, down in the basement area of the structure. Severing the steel columns would have caused the entire central service column to drop, thus rupturing the floor beam attach-ents and precipitating the collapse of the entire tower. In other wrds, the twin towers did not collapse due to aircraft impact, but because a highly skilled demolition team severed the steel columns in the basement of each tower.

Is there a smoking gun which validates the writer’s claim? There certainly is; in fact more than one. After the calamitous disaster, it was found that the steel columns at the base of the elevator shafts had melted. A temperature of 2800 degrees Fahrenheit is necessary in order to melt structural steel. Even with an ample supply of oxygen, burning jet fuel only attains a temperature of a little over 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Moreover, burning plastic and furnishings inside the towers generated a great deal of black smoke, which was quite evident as it poured from broken windows. Soot particles in such smoke absorb a great deal of high energy free radicles which are liberated during such conflagrations. This chemical reaction is known as the “wall effect” and drastically lowers the temperature of the fire to about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is why it was physically impossible for burning jet fuel to have melted the steel columns, especially since falling debris from the collapsing floors would have resulted in the basement region of the towers being an oxygenstarved area.

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is situated some twenty one miles north of the World Trade Center. The laboratory’s seismometers registered very minimal activity at the moment that the aircraft impacted the twin towers, yet recorded major seismic spikes at the commencement of each tower’s collapse, before the falling debris began to impact the ground. Simultaneously, people evacuating the towers reported hearing explosions, and all cell phones in the vicinity momentarily went dead. These are additional smoking guns indicative that the central service columns of both towers had been deliberately severed.

The temporary interruption of the cell phone transmissions is a clear indication that a localized electromagnetic pulse was generated at the commencement of each tower’s collapse. The seismic spikes occuring prior to the falling debris impacting the ground, are the characteristic signature of a ground-coupled nuclear explosion, the explosions heard as the towers collapsed are attributable to the high-explosive detonators used in the initiation of the nuclear reaction. The intense heat generated by such a thermonuclear explosion would not only melt the steel columns, but could also account for the large quanties of finely pulverized concrete, an anomaly not normally encountered when a large building is demolished.

There you have it, dear reader, the above smoking guns are a clear indication that nuclear explosions, not aircraft, collapsed the World Trade Center structures. In 1975, prolific writer John McPhee, who was educated at Princeton and Cambridge Universities, wrote the book “The Curve of Binding Energy.” The book title is derived from a nuclear physics term for the mass which is converted into released energy during nuclear reactions. The book cites physicist Theodor Taylor discussing the miniaturization of nuclear weapons.

Taylor disturbingly and very prophetically predicted that some-time in the future, terrorists could destroy the World Trade Center towers with nuclear weapons the size of a stick of chewing gum!

The early 1960’s saw the introduction of the W54 class of micronuke. About the size of a coffee can, this class of micro-nuke had a yield equivalent to ten tons of TNT explosive. The 1970’s hailed the development of an even smaller micronuke possessing yields of up to 100 tons of TNT. Known as Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADM) this micronuke was specifically developed to be used for the demolition of large buildings behind the enemy lines, by Special Forces teams.

---

Article about Dr. of engineering from Berkeley who planned on a computer study of the WTCsupports your theory, but would like to know his conclusions)
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

Apparently, this engineer's research was hampered by secretiveness and he pulled out of his research grant:
http://www.courierpostonline.com/91102/m090902pp.htm

Here is the Dr's testimony at the 9/11 hearings. Do you still wonder why he pulled out of his investigation?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

STATEMENT OF DR. ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

Dr. ASTANEH-ASL. With your permission—Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to use the projection.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Can we have the lights dimmed, please, so we get a better—I thank you.

Dr. ASTANEH-ASL. Chairman Boehlert, members of the Committee, families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, it is a great honor for me to testify here today.

My involvement in the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged World Trade Center buildings and to collect the structural engineering perishable data. The main objectives are to document failure modes, learn as much as possible from the collapse, collect material samples for future testing, and conduct a realistic failure analysis of the towers subjected to impact and ensuing fire in order to understand the causes of the collapse.

Our project was funded by the National Science Foundation as one of the eight Quick Response Research Awards a few days after the World Trade Center collapse. The other seven NSF grants are in the areas of fire engineering, social sciences, and response and recovery. I started my studies almost a week after the collapse and since then I have been able to investigate the structural elements of the World Trade Center and have collected data on failure modes, fire and impact damage, and have identified and saved sections of the structure that appeared to be impacted by the planes or have collapsed under an intense fire. I have also investigated the quality of construction.

Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

Here are some samples of my work. I was not able to access Ground Zero, so I have done my investigation at the scrap yard, looking into important failure modes and collecting important items from the recycling plant.

We will, and still are, planning to build a realistic computer-based, structural model of the World Trade Center and towers, subject the model to a realistically simulated impact of the planes, and ensuing fire, and conduct a detailed stress analysis. However, since we have not been able to obtain drawings, even now, and other data, we are unable to proceed with our study.

I would like to show you the results of one such analysis of a generic building and what type of stress analysis we can do on the World Trade Center to understand its collapse.

Here is an example of a steel structure subjected to the impacts of a fully loaded, fueled 747 airplane. This is not artistic rendering or animation of the impact. This is the result of a mathematical analysis of stress.

Here is the plane approaching that building at 450 miles per hour. It impacts the building and damages the columns and enters. Close up here, you can see the damage to the structures while we have eliminated the plane and made it invisible. Here is the damaged area.

Here is the—to the right bottom is the plane and you are seeing the stresses developed in the plane and how a plane breaks. We have made the structure invisible. Notice the wings in this case clipping and dropping, but the plane breaks because the stresses are so high.

Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

After plane enters the building, we can analyze the heat effects, in this case, the damaged structures subjected to the heat effects. And you can see the spread of temperature and weakening of steel and the final collapse. This is what we would like to do for the World Trade Center.

The impediments to our studies were not having access to Ground Zero and surrounding damaged buildings, not having enough time to inspect the World Trade Center steel before it was recycled, not having the drawings, videotapes, photographs, and other data on the building to conduct our analysis of the collapse.

On the subject of research needs, there are pressing needs for short-term, as well as long-term research, related to the World Trade Center collapse. In the short term, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, in-depth, and scientific study of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Due to the unprecedented nature of the collapse and its complexity, a broad-based team of experts from academia, government agencies, and the private sector needs to be assembled to conduct such research-oriented investigations within the Federal entities such as NSF or NIST.

In the long term, there is a need for major and sustained funding to conduct basic and applied research on various aspects of terrorist attacks. Such research programs can be directed by the National Science Foundation, among others, which, over the last few decades, has directed so successfully the research and technology development in the area of earthquake hazard mitigation, among many others.

Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As for the fire research, NIST traditionally has been the leading research and development agency. Also, a significant amount of research has been done in academia. Such research activities supported by the Congress can result in the development of scientific methods and technologies that can be used to assure life safety in the event of future terrorist attacks, and minimize the impact of such attacks on the national security, economy, and quality of our lives.

I would like to take this opportunity and thank Chairman Boehlert and Members of the Committee on Science for inviting me to testify. I will be available to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Astaneh-Asl follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL

It is a great honor for me to testify here today and address specific questions listed in your letter (in Italic below) regarding my involvement in the post disaster investigation of the World Trade Center.

What role did you play in the investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings and what do you expect to produce from your effort? How did you arrange NSF funding for your work, and how was that arranged so quickly?

My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings and to collect the perishable data. The main objectives of the reconnaissance are to learn as much as possible from the actual collapsed structures and to document the failure modes and performance of the members and connections as well as quality of the construction. The purpose of collecting the perishable data is to collect material samples, photographs, videotapes, drawings and data on design, construction and collapse. Using the information collected and by conducting the necessary analyses and research, we try to establish probable causes of the collapse and most likely scenario for such collapse.

Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

Our project was funded by the Directorate of Engineering of the National Science Foundation as one of the eight Quick Response Research Awards in the aftermath of the WTC collapse. These projects focus on structural engineering (our project at UC–Berkeley), fire engineering, social aspects and response and recovery. More information on these projects can be found at www.nsf.gov. We prepared and submitted our proposal to the National Science Foundation three days after the 9/11 events and it was reviewed and funded by the end of the week. The credit for such a fast preparation, submittal, review and funding of these research projects should be given equally to the staff at the universities involved as well as the Program Directors and staff of the National Science Foundation. The use of ''Fastlane'' electronic submittal process of the NSF also expedited the process tremendously.

So far, I have made three trips to NYC and spent a total of about 25 days there conducting field investigation and collecting data. Upon arrival to NYC on September 19, and after visiting Ground Zero and paying my respects and prayers to the victims, I started my reconnaissance and collection of the perishable data. I have collected some data on design and construction of the WTC and have met and discussed the case with the structural engineers who have designed the WTC Buildings. Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling. I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects. Figures 1 through 4 show examples of inspected structures. These critical pieces are saved as perishable data and can be used in future research.

77747ww.eps

Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
77747xx.eps

Please describe the impediments that you encountered during the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings, such as the loss of material from the WTC site and any effects of such impediments on your work.

I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAoNY and FEMA–BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.

2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research. Figure 5 shows an example of analysis of performance of generic steel high-rise structure subjected to the impact of a 747 jetliner and the ensuing fire. The example demonstrates the power of advanced technology developed in aerospace and mechanical engineering that can be brought to bear on this problem. We plan to use the drawings and the data and the software used in the example to build a computer based realistic model of the World Trade Center towers and analyze their response to simulated impact of the 767 planes that crashed into them on 9/11 and the ensuing fire.

Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

77747yy.eps

Should the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Congress develops a more comprehensive protocol—for how to conduct investigations in response to natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks?

The earthquake engineering community has conducted post disaster investigations very successfully and systematically within the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and funded by NSF and FEMA for several decades. As a result of such post-disaster investigations, the lessons learned and the continued research and technology developments, great advances have been made in mitigating earthquake hazard. The approach taken in earthquake engineering can equally be applied to investigation of damage due to terrorist attacks as well as to minimizing consequences of such attacks. Due to criminal nature of terrorist attacks and higher priority placed on criminal investigation over engineering investigation, it appears that there is a need for a protocol to govern the availability of information and access to the site as well as interaction of the crime investigators and researchers investigating the scientific and engineering aspects of the terrorist attacks.

What areas of research into the WTC collapse still need to be addressed, and what is the most appropriate way to handle these needs?

There are short-term and long-term research needs into the WTC collapse. In short-term, there is a need for a comprehensive, in-depth and research-oriented study of the WTC buildings from the time of plane impact, through the ensuing fire and the final collapse. Such studies not only should focus on structural and fire engineering aspects, but also social and human aspects of the tragedy as well. A broad based team of researchers and engineers from academia, government agencies and private sector, with expertise in various aspects of the problem need to be assembled to conduct such studies. In my opinion, such studies need to be directed by federal entities such as National Science Foundation (NSF) and/or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that are involved in directing and conducting scientific and engineering research. In December, the National Science Foundation sponsored a workshops organized by the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems of the New York University to identify research needs for future research related to WTC. A list of workshop recommendations can be found at www.nsf.gov. I participated at the workshop and feel that funding research in those areas will result in learning many valuable lessons from this tragedy and will result in significant improvements in the structural design, construction, fire protection, evacuation, fire fighting, rescue and recovery efforts, debris removal and many other aspects of protection of buildings and occupants against terrorist attacks.

Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

In the long-term, there is a need for major and sustained finding to conduct basic and applied research on various aspects of terrorist attacks. Such research activities can result in development of scientific methods and technologies to assure life safety, prevent catastrophic collapses and massive loss of lives and minimize the impact of such attacks on the national economy and security. Last months, NIST held a workshop to identify research needs related to evaluation of performance and protection of buildings during intense fires. I also participated at this workshop and feel that the research areas identified at the workshop are very important in providing engineers and architects with the technologies to protect tall buildings, their occupants and firefighter and rescuers against catastrophic fires and resulting collapse.

In the aftermath of 9/11 tragedy and the hazard posed by terrorist attacks to public safety and the economical well being of the U.S. is not much different than the hazard posed by other ''extreme events'' such as major earthquakes three or four decades ago. In the case of seismic hazard mitigation, Congress, by providing sufficient funding to the National Science Foundation and other agencies involved, has enabled research and engineering community to develop efficient and economical technologies to mitigate seismic hazard and to prevent catastrophic loss of lives. To prevent catastrophic consequences of terrorist attacks, we need to develop and fund a long-term plan of research, perhaps modeled after seismic research programs developed and supported over the years by NSF and FEMA, and in the field of protection of built environment against terrorist attacks.

Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?

Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2

I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.

I have been the Principal Investigator in conducting research on damage and collapse of several major buildings and bridges in the aftermath of earthquakes. I understand and respect the concerns of owners, designers, builders and those who are responsible for safe operation of these structures for possible legal ramifications of findings of our research investigations. However, the main objective of our research is to understand how the WTC buildings failed and learn lessons that can be used to prevent such collapses in the future. Never before my research results have been used in any legal proceedings. However, to allay any concerns that any findings of our research project might increase the liabilities of the City, Port Authority or Silverstein, the data on these structures could be provided to the Principal Investigator (myself) on a propriety basis. The Principal Investigator would keep the data and provide the other members of the research team with the information on a need-to-know basis. I have followed similar procedures to the satisfaction of parties involved in conducting research on major buildings and bridges subjected to earthquakes and blasts due to terrorist attacks.

I would like to take this opportunity and thank Chairman Boehlert and members of the Committee on Science for inviting me to testify. I would like now to welcome any questions that you may have.

Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL

77747zz.eps

Ph.D., P.E., Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 781 Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–1710; e-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu; Phone: 510–642–4528

EDUCATION:

M.S.E. (1979) and Ph.D. (1982) from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

CURRENT POSITION:

Professor, University of California at Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP:

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC), Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC), Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), Advisory Committee AC4 and Technical Committee TC8 of Eurocode Europe, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, (SEAONC), Structural Steel Educational Council, (SSEC), Committee on Design of Blast-Resistant Steel Structures (AISC)

Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION:

Registered Professional Engineer, P.E. (California)

MAJOR AWARD:

Winner of 1998 T.R. Higgins Award, American Institute of Steel Construction

TEACHING:

Has taught courses since 1982 on Engineering Mechanics, Static, Design of Steel Structures, Advanced Steel Design, Design of Steel and Composite Structures, Inelastic Behavior and Plastic Design of Steel Structures, Comprehensive Design of Structures. He has also taught a number of short courses to professionals on design of structures and earthquake engineering particularly on bridges to Caltrans engineers and others.

MAJOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DURING LAST FIVE YEARS:

1. ''Tests of Critical members of the Golden Gate Bridge,'' (Funded by Golden Gate Bridge), 95–96.

2. ''Shake-table Tests of Computers with and without Support Restrainers,'' 96–97.

3. ''Cyclic Behavior and Seismic Design of Steel Piles,'' (Funded by Caltrans), 96–98.

Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
4. ''Nonlinear Analyses of the Suspension Spans of the Bay Bridge,'' (Funded by LLNL & UCB), 95–98.

5. ''Seismic Behavior and Design of Shear Connections,'' (Funded by FEMA/SAC), 97–98.

6. ''Cyclic Tests and Seismic Design Provisions for Steel Shear Walls,'' (Funded by GSA), 99–101.

7. ''Cyclic Tests of Traditional and Innovative Composite Shear Walls,'' (Funded by NSF), 98–present.

8. ''Testing and Studying Blast-Resistant Structures,'' (Funded by GSA and AISC), 97–present.

9. ''Studies of Collapse of the World Trade Center,'' (Funded by NSF), 01–present.

PUBLICATIONS

Has published more than 150 papers, reports and other publications on the behavior and design of steel structures subjected to seismic, gravity and blast loads.

77747a3.eps

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Astaneh, and I especially appreciate your very specific recommendations. Dr. Bement. Doctor, microphone, please.

*******************

Larson, please read all the testimonies of that hearing if you like to get an idea of just how secretive FEMA was on this investigation. Why? Why all the secretiveness of having investigators sign confidentiality contracts? Why, if we were attacked by an outside enemy?

OK, I got side-tracked, but there were engineers working on this and I found a very credible one. Remember, this man counts on government grants to make his living and pursue his research in structural engineering.

***************

Here's one you can agree with:
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/nova.htm

***************
Here's another you might consider:
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

********************

SO, I have given you information on a couple of engineers, some common sense approaches, and a glaring fact, that one of the main investigating engineers quit his investigation -- do we smell a pay-off maybe? Maybe a threat? Perhaps just frustration that information he needed for his computer simulation was not forthcoming from the Feds? Hmmmmm? Why would that be?

You decide. I'll look for more info., just like the surviving wives of 9/11 are doing right now!

Until later .... Larson !

posted 10-07-2003 02:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:

Furthermore, look at the video of the collapse a couple of pages back. Notice the flames shooting out of the building at least 10 floors above the impact site. This does not look like it was burned out by any stretch of the imagination.

I dispute the notion that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes. I believe that the fuel managed to soak the carpets and penetrated into the floor cavities, cracks, furnishings, fireproofing, ceiling tiles etc. Thus the fuel burned for quite some time.

In addition, I think that the edges of the fire and the fire in the core areas were quite well ventilated. The stack effect in such a large building would have fed those fires oxygen like a blast furnace. (not to mention the tremendous burst of heat that must have been generated by the rushing air at the moment of the collapse itself.

---

I have my own videos of the collapse.
(which I taped that morning)
also the website i gave on the last page has links to
engineering reports and videos of the 'collapse'.
Several of those show explosions on lower floors prior to the collapse.
(FLSC's cutting supports would show the same effects)

The fire burning in the towers gave off black smoke.
Fires which produce black smoke are oxygen deprived.
Oxygen rich fires are virtually smokeless.

Oxy acetelyne or oxy propane will melt or burn through tempered steel.
(like the structural members of WTC towers)
Leave the oxygen valve shut off and the same torch will barely melt lead.

Assuming the impossible:
that tempered steel yielded to insufficient heat
Softened steel columns will bend sideways
(like a limp noodle) but will not collapse into themselves.

The bush/lies are obvious
to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of metallurgy
or engineering/construction experience.

posted 10-07-2003 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
On the top link in my above post, there are two evidences for a seismic jolt before the collapse of the building, one was a recording of seismic activity at a university and the other is a video camera shot showing the camera shaking. It also mentions pools of melted steel at the bottom of the wreckage.

---

The “Molten Pools” is another issue that I have previously addressed.

Lets get back to the seismic data shall we?

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

---

Nowhere in any of the reports on the seismic data does anyone suggest this. The only one suggesting this is Christopher Bollyn, the author of the AFP article.

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

---

OK, were the recordings unusual?

From http://misternet.org/nerdcities/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm

quote:

---

The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake.

---

Here is some more information that might help you understand the nature of the seismic waves associated with the collapse.
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf

Note also that that article also has the detailed seismograph traces for the collapse event, at corrected scales. No “spike” at the beginning of the trace is visible.

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

---

OK, Now I see what the problem is. The author of this article assumes that the seismic trace is a direct one to one correlation from the start of the collapse to the end of the collapse. I would not assume this.

From http://misternet.org/nerdcities/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm

quote:

---

Thus, we conclude that the pulse duration at those four stations reflects mainly that the generation of seismic energy from the collapse was delivered over 5-6 s. A portion of the pulse duration probably results from the dispersion of Rg waves.

---

Note that the trace that you should be looking at is the red trace in the inset

quote:

---

Figure 1: Seismic recordings on E-W component at Palisades for events at World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, distance 34 km. Three hours of continuous data shown starting at 08:40EDT (12:40 UTC). Data were sampled at 40 times/s and passband filtered from 0.6 to 5 Hz. The two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) is UTC minus 4 hours. Expanded views of first impact and first collapse shown in red. Displacement amplitude spectra in nm-s from main impacts and collapses shown at right. Sampling is done for 14-second time windows starting about 17 s after origin time. Note broadband nature of spectra for collapses 1 and 2. Their signals are similar with a correlation coefficient of about 0.9 as are those for two impacts.

Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations. Local magnitudes ML, like those defined originally by Richter for southern California but with distance correction factors appropriate for eastern North America [Kim, 1998], were computed for the two impacts and the three largest collapses. For collapses 1 and 2, values of ML determined from E-W components are 2.1 and 2.3. ML is 0.1 to 0.2 units smaller on the vertical, an observation that we associate later with multipath propagation.

Amplitude spectra for PAL data are shown at the right of Figure 1 for the impacts and the collapses of the twin towers. The spectra of collapses 1 and 2 are above the noise for frequencies from 0.2 to 10 Hz. The two spectra are similar, but the second shows a more pronounced peak near 1 Hz. Seismic signals from both impacts are characterized by relatively periodic motion and their spectra are above the noise only for frequencies from about 1.3 to 1.6 Hz. Those frequencies are more than 10 times the frequency of the lateral fundamental mode of each tower.

---

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

---

No. The spike is the trace of the tower hitting the ground.

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

---

Again, you need to look at the trace in red, not the raw data.

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

A “sharp spike of short duration” is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

---

But, did Lay say that the trace from the collapse resembled a nuclear blast trace? NO!

From the American Free press site:

quote:

---

“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”
Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage—but not causing significant ground shaking.”
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?

---

Does anyone else see how backassward that logic is? The scientists determined the energy released into the ground by the magnitude of the seismic motion. Yet somehow this clown has twisted that to imply that he energy released was a lot lower than it actually was.

Based on the trace,

quote:

---

“Collapses of the two WTC towers generated large seismic waves, observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3.” . . .
“The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2 x 109 J. That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly 1012 J, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower. Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves.

---

This is pretty simple to understand. The collapse cased a seismic wave. The scientists measured the energy of that wave and determined that the local ground movement was ML 2.3. Based on the potential energy of the collapse, they determined that a large portion of the potential energy was used in the disintegration of the structure.

Nowhere in here is there any data that indicates anything else.

posted 10-07-2003 05:22 PM            

Some of us just want to make our arguments, and present evidence upon which those arguments are based;
and let others decide for themselves what to believe or disbelieve.

Boomer Chick's cornucopia of material will take a while to read and respond to.

I'll be generous and assume that you have never seen either a normal collapse due to fire damage, nor a controlled demolition.
I've seen both.
I posted a link to a site with videos of the actual collapse.
Failure to visit that site and view those videos gives me reason to discount your arguments.
I visit the pro-bush links and view the official version of events.
Why do you not visit our links and view impartial evidence?

posted 10-07-2003 06:45 PM            

Larson, you really did a good job on that one aspect, but like your own criteria for accepting a theory, you might try more links to support your seismic theory. One link and one graph from I-can't-tell-who-it-is IS NOT ENOUGH !

You asked for this one and it is one of the links I posted:

***************************
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete 3,300
Steel 450
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 3,300 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

************************

If you have any arguments with this theory on the jet fuel -- fire away! I admit the name is missing on this, but it was a page out of a whole piece by someone and I found the page itself through a search. Perhaps the logic of it will attract your logical mind?

BTW, you didn't even answer my question as to why the good Dr. from Berkeley quit the investigative project! Isn't this an indication of something wrong? Does your mind not compute any of this aspect? Just asking!

BC

Thinking requires objectivity.

posted 10-07-2003 08:20 PM            

According to the AFP, there was a short high energy spike followed by the seismic trace of the building collapse. This is not true, as you can see by looking at the above copy of the seismic chart.

Before I go on, let me point out that the black line on the chart is time compressed. In other words, the seismic energy of the building collapse only lasted for about 6 seconds. The black line on the chart represents 30 minutes of data. 6 seconds out of 30 minutes is 1/300 of the time represented by the chart. Furthermore, it represents a very sensitive setting. The actual seismic energy is about 20 times greater than the background noise.

The red line on the chart is the same data, spread out over a 35 second interval, and with the amplitude of the waves dialed down to a more appropriate scale.

In fact, if you look at the red line, you will see that the highest energy reading came toward the end of the seismic event.

The other claim by AFP that a seismic event was recorded that was greater than the energy of the recorded collapse of the building makes no sense whatsoever. The seismologists used all of the seismic energy that they recorded to compute that amount of energy released to seismic waves. This calculation yielded a value of 2.9. This is lower than the potential kinetic energy that was represented by the buildings before the collapse. That is the basis behind the seismologists statement that much of the potential energy was used up by the destruction and deformation of the building structure as it collapsed.

Based on this, it is quite clear that the APF article’s claim that the seismic data indicates a "underground blast" before the building collapse is false.

posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM            

Link about the Dr. from Berkeley:
http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column94c.html
******************
Seismic articles:

This one gives the graph Larson posted plus interviews with scientists about the graph
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

********************* http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0111160082nov16.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed

Another book on the subject by Cornell researchers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030530082357.htm
*********************
Common sense:

PROOF THE TWIN TOWERS WERE DELIBERATELY DEMOLISHED.

EVIDENCE: BOTH OF THE TOWERS FELL IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS.

PROOF: http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/proof.htm

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.

Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).

The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.

Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.

The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).
***********************
Structure of the WTC buildings:
http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

***********************
Collection of 2002 essays for civil engineers:
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php

************************

NIST research -- a government-funded research
findings will be presented in June 2004 After perusing some of the acrobat files, it is glaringly evident that information needed from federal authorities has still not been given.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_mtg_aug_03.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/

******************************
American Society of Civil Engineers is conducting their own research:
http://www.asce.org/emerg_document.cfm

*****************************
I e-mailed this man who was on a chief investigator on the Berkeley Dr's team and asked him about the investigation:
http://www.nyu.edu/icis/Recovery/prjct05.html

*******************************
A step in the right direction:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993354

***************************
Excerpt from a survivor:

"....Now, Ronnie, who I told you had gone up to the 91st floor and later told me he panicked and went down, when he exited the building it was at the very time when Tower Two was starting to fall. So the moment I was watching the building from Trinity Church was exactly the moment he was coming out of the same place I did, and he was caught in an explosion. He heard the explosion, swirled around, and a fireball was rushing at him from right at the doors where he was about to leave the building.

He put his hands up in front of his face and got blown many, many yards across Liberty Street, which I'd run across earlier. He was severely burned in the arm, he had head wounds, cracked vertebrae... "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Explosion? Hmmmmmmm!

*************************

After several hours of research I've come to the conclusion that the university researchers are so dependent on government funding for their research that they probably dare not ruffle the feathers of the FEMA fascists! It makes sense.

The one glaring fact remains, that mainly who are conducting research are complaining that they need more documents and blueprints on the building and other information that the Feds are not even to this day coming forth with. It makes no sense if there is no guilt. All the academians involved have to sign confidentiality agreements anyway, so why the secretiveness?

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!

THIS IS IT !

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

I have saved this on my favorites and will print it out in case it gets jammed or something! So far, this is the BEST explanation I have ever read, and believe me, it was hard to find. The original site has been destroyed for some reason!

MECH *** Shatoga **** SWAMP GAS

PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I beg you! I don't want to be the only one on this board who has read this!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

The truth will set us free to know more than we've ever known before!

God help us all!

Peace,

posted 10-07-2003 11:52 PM            

They also are being manipulated IMHO.

I lost the link two destroyed (hacked) computers ago.

There was a car bombing undertaken by saudi intelligence and the cia.
It killed many innocent people and injured the Muslim leader targeted.

Saudi Intel faked evidence to blame Israel.
the cia was complicit in the fraud.

It was before the car bombs, by arabs, which followed.

posted 10-08-2003 05:32 AM            

Lets go over some of the assumptions in that jet fuel post of yours

Assumption 1: The entire floor was heated evenly.

No, just the exposed and damaged steel structure needed to reach a criticle temperature. In fact, the lightweight concrete probably provided some insulating affect thus trapping and concentrating the heat energy near the ceiling.

Assumption 2: Heat is the same as temperature

No they are two separate things. I can go into this, or you can look it up and figure it out on your own.

Assumption 3: Office fires never exceed a few hundred degrees F.

Do me a favor, do a google search on the terms "flashover Fire temperature" and read some of the hits.

From http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ezekoye/rsch.dir/firesite/science_behavior.html

quote:

---

"A study was performed on the effect of the ignition characteristics of secondary fuel packages in a compartment with a burning bunk bed. It was found that fuel packages for which heat release is slower can consume the oxygen in a compartment and lead to an oxygen-starved situation before flashover occurs, while fuel packages which release heat more quickly are more likely to lead to flashover in a room before oxygen depletion smothers the fire."

---

Now I think that jet fuel releases it’s heat quite quickly don’t you?

Hey look at this, maybe there were a bunch of bunk beds on the impact floor?

EDIT: That doesn't show up too well. You are just going to have to follow the link to see and read the report

quote:

---

" While free ignition of the dressers has little effect on the time history of the burn, igniting the dresser at time zero, either alone or with the bunk bed, leads to substantially different behavior from the flashover above. The significant, but not large, heat release slowly heats the room, but also depletes the oxygen in the room. The simultaneous burning case reaches an oxygen concentration below 10%, which is considered low enough to smother the open flames, at 190 seconds, when the room temperature is 1050ºF. This is very near to the flashover temperature, but does not in fact cross that threshold, so that the room is left filled with hot gases. The room's contents include 120 ppm of carbon monoxide and 6.7% carbon dioxide. The hot layer reaches the floor at 105 seconds. The case where one dresser burns alone heats more slowly, reaching a temperature of 1030 ºF at 270 seconds before the oxygen concentration drops below 10%. The gases in the room also contain 6.8% CO2 and 103ppm CO. When only one dresser burns, the hot layer reaches the floor at 150 seconds. In no case when at least one dresser is lit at time zero does flashover occur. The room is left in a dangerous, oxygen depleted state, with a hot atmosphere that may explode if further oxygen is allowed to enter."

---

Here is a report on a house fire where temperatures were estimated to have reached 1500 degrees F, and they didn’t even have to use jet fuel!!!
http://www.fire.nist.gov/6510/6510.htm

Another one 1100 degrees
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/duplex/duplex.htm#fire_simulation_temperature

Some more information on how things burn:
http://fire.nist.gov/fire/fires/fires.html

posted 10-08-2003 10:20 AM            

You do have a logical mind.

Black smoke? You say it doesn't mean oxygen starved. OK. How about high carbon content representing the jet fuel burning off, essentially, including perhaps carbon based combustibles? I'm not focused on the black smoke and there are some varied interpretations. Fire experts would know and there seems to be 3? explanations now of the black smoke 1) jet fuel 2) jet fuel with little oxygen 3) jet fuel and combustibles
About the oxygen? Wouldn't the fire element, actual flames and visible burning = heat, be more evident to an onlooker if the oxygen had been higher? Perhaps if the day had been super windy, the amount of heat and flame burning would have also increased? As far as I know, the more intense the heat, the brighter the flame until blue flames. But then I'm no expert on fire physics!

Seismic graphs? I've seen various graphs on the internet about this same event. How can one deal with the various graphs themselves, let along the various interpretations? In terms of seismic activity, I feel the only way to get an accurate graph and a scientific explanation of it is to buy a book on the subject with verified seismic records. On one graph I saw a spike BEFORE the collapse, which (the ground impact) was a much less severe shaking, and on others I saw a build up to a spike and then a tapering off. Perhaps collecting all the of graphs we can find online would be in order?

Eye-witness accounts on the explosions and testimony from firemen?

This may be another strong piece of evidence to support the explosion in the underfloors of the hit area.

Speed of fall: It is sound logic that the falling occurred too fast to allow for the resistence of the lower floors since they did not receive equal amounts of heat -- no matter how you look at it -- this is one of the strongest arguments for demolition, yet. Remember, universities depend on federal funding for their very lives and existence. This is what they do for a living -- research, based on federal grants. Only those research facilities that are independently funded, and I did provide a link for one, will be able to research without fear. The NIST, after perusing some of their pdf files(which was a pain in the tush)shows a long research timeline (too long in my opinion! How damn long does it take?) and AGAIN they are hamstrung by lack of essential information. So I take traditional university explanations with a grain.

Fireproofing: There are academic arguments ongoing on about the steel fireproofing in the two buildings -- between experts. Some say the two buildings have differing layers of fireproofing on their individual steel components. Why that would be is odd. In the link I gave on the building of the towers, the fireproofing was up to code and quite sufficient to stave off super heating for a period of time, especially of those floors below the impacts. Because the buildings were standing for so long doesn't it make sense to conclude that the structure in those minutes was solid and could continue to stand on its own? The evidence of increased fire in that amount of time is not visible. A New Mexico engineer from a university commented in the first week after the collapse, that he suspected strategic demolition due to what he saw. He then later retracted his statement. Why? I gave a link on that and the articles in which he made his statements are given in the link -- made it to the press. Plasticity of the steel could have occured but much more unevenly than what we saw.

Central structure failure: The point that the central tower began collapsing first is also a good one. If the building had truly pancaked from the two or so floors that were engulfed in high heat and plasticized their side trusses, probably heated unevenly as you said, wouldn't the collapse and varied weaknesses of those two floors collapse less uniformly? How come it came down so perfectly straight visually from the center? It doesn't make sense with the information given, even if the jet fuel DID melt the floor trusses it could not have done so as evenly and uniformly as we saw -- and you take into account the second tower and the corner impact and it holds true for that building even more so AND that building was the first to fall!!!! And I agree its upper load was heavier, but what caused those upper floors that were not as oxygen laden and consumed evenly by heat to collapse so perfectly?

Tell me something else: if the heat was so high to melt the trusses, how come the outer facade of the building remained intact at that time? Wouldn't such a high level of heat have affected the outer wall in some way? Logic does not compute the explanation of FEMA or some university federally funded researchers. Surely as well, the more oxygenated outer areas of the affected floors would have greater heat levels as well -- no evidence of it !

Try to look at an uncorrupted, unedited version of the event -- if you can -- and just look at it over and over again, like Shatoga has. It will come to you that there is no evidence of severe structural buckling of the outer walls at all! When you consider the heat element it doesn't make sense. Even when you consider the weight element, the eveness of the pancaking itself does not make sense as there would be strength in some floors of varying degrees even with the load of the top floors falling, especially in the north tower as the impact point was higher therefore the top load much lighter. Would have been much messier. No Larson, the uniformity of the collapse itself and its speed is evidence to the most logical of minds that the process was aided by demolition.

Let's continue this thread with expert testimony and articles to substantiate the following:

1.Heat and fire - steel

2.Video -- smoke, direction of fall, speed

3. Witness testimony

4. Independent research

5. Witholding of evidence from the Feds and building owner

6. Documented seismic evidence from books (internet is too iffy)

KNOW THIS: If the experts can't seem to agree and the researchers can't get to the documents and blue prints they need, and the academic debate is ongoing, how do you expect US to come up with definitive answers? Please!

Larson, keep searching as others are and in the next six months more will come to light. But for me, the evidence is already obvious.

I'll continue to post when I find something relevant.

In truth,

BC