9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

I'm sorry, you appear to be a little confused.

YOU claimed that evidence had been deliberately destroyed or suppressed.

In order to make such a statement, you MUST know what said evidence is. And yet the only items you identify is this.

Before I answer such a laughably easy question, what other evidence do you believe was so obscured?

We've already discussed the Fire Engineering magazine article which bemoaned the destruction of evidence. Do you want me to quote from it again?

It's obviously the biggest catch-22 ever if I am expected to name all the evidence which has been thrown away!

 

[Jazzz]

No, you're trying to twist the facts. YOU implied that the FE article cast doubt upon the NIST report and findings when in actual fact a trye reading of the various FE pieces paints a quite different picture.

Show me the quote where I implied that, or stop lying.

 

[MikeMcc]

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

If it was thermite I'd expect a ragged edge, not such a clean cut. You would have to tamp the mixture against the metal work, and (especially on a slope like that the molten mixture would run downhill and pool...

Looks more like something cut with cutting torch, perhaps from removing a section of debris? It's not like there's any sort of time and date associated with that image.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

Oh for fuck's sake, not this shit again.

But no! Wait! Last time that image was posted it was a reference to cutting charges!

 

[WouldBe]

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

Here we go again.

1. That beam is leaning over for starters so the 'cut' would be horizontal which won't make the steel fall.

2. Thermite produces molten steel at 2000C which will react very fast with any water from the firefighting to produce rust which will funnily enough be rust coloured and not black. IF that is melted iron around the edges it was caused after the firefighting had finished.

3. That picture also shows some of Jazzz's dust sized particles of concrete in the background that was, apparently, all that was left of the building.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Free and Easy with Facts

Jazz, here is what you actually said:

Here's a description of the investigation from 'Fire Engineering' - which I hasten to add is not a conspiracy publication, nor was it entertaining the possibility of Controlled Demolition. Yet it is still a scathing criticism

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

Whiilst you make clear that FE don't support controlled demolition, you have deliberately chosen cherry picked quotes which suit your assertion that the investigation is bodged. In actual fact if we read the full text, and other linked articles, we find it to be nothing of the sort. Yes, there are criticisms about certain aspects of the investigation however these are focussed in a number of clear areas.

As I said before, let's look at what FE say in a proper context:

The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes

Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.

His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."


http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/artic...ICLE_ID=184582

THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING

In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.

City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...ION_NUM=1&p=25

Just to be quite clear: Manning is crystal clear that his concerns with the investigation are not of the type which you suggest. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on.

I put it to you that you have culbably misrepresented the FE piece and are more than happy to play free and easy with the facts where it suits. The true hallmark of the CT lobby.

 

[editor]

Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on.

And there's the real conspiracy.

I bet the guilty parties are truly grateful for the conspiracy nutcases providing a handy smokescreen to take the heat off them.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Free and Easy With the Facts (Part II)

Now, Jazz, just to continue in this vein - and as you seem to have quitely turned away from it - I'd like to remind you of one of your more recent claims:

The fire in the South Tower was unremarkable and soon to be fully extinguished - thousands of tons of steel provided a huge 'heat sink' for any fire, so the steel columns could only have risen a few degrees in tempature - other skyscrapers have endured infernos utterly dwarfing those of the WTC and not collapsed

When asked for evidence, you responded thus:

Let's take these two together. The NIST fire modelling assumes, because it has to in order find validation for a fire-induced collapse theory, that there were blazing infernos in both towers. All very well, but if one looks at the South Tower in particular, there's no evidence of an inferno whatsoever. The available evidence suggests that, at the time the tower collapse, there were simply a few isolated pockets of fire. I remember watching it happen on TV, and seeing that black smoke had pretty much ceased coming out of the building, and the commentators saying the same. It was thought that firefighters hadn't been able to get very far up the tower, but when their tape was released it transpired that they had got all the way up to the impact floors, and instead of reporting any infernos they were talking about how they were going to put out some isolated pockets of fire

Now of course, there's a little problem with this. Basically, it's a half truth. Let's remind ourselves what really happened.

(i) The South Tower, WTC2, was hit by flight 175 - a Boeing 767 carrying about 9000 US gallons of fuel, travelling at around 540mph at impact. In addition to the plane itself, it carried around 9 tons of cargo.

(ii) As those of us who have seen the television pictures know, it was banking heavily when it hit. The centre of the aircraft hit the 81st floor, with the bulk of the aircraft hitting 79 to 83. Wingtips extended as far as 78 and 85.

(iii) The 78th floor suffered damage to 9 perimeter columns, and significant damage to the interior linings (including partitions), but no damage to the cor itself. Occupants are known to have survived,

(iv) The severity of damage on the floors above is not in doubt; floor slabs were broken in some areas and sagged elsewhere, core structure was compromised, and fire protection dislodged by the impact. A significant proportion of the plane's fuel (around 15%) exploded within the building itself, igniting the contents.

(vi) Firefighters made it as far as the 78th floor, reporting:

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fir...e-excerpts.htm

(vii) These firefighters did not, however, make it above the 78th floor and the report of light fires is entirely consistent with the comparatively modest damage which occurred at this level.

(viii) If we look at the WTC modelling of the fire, this is quite clear; the greatest temperatures are found at 81 and 82, where the main impact occurred, and an area which firefighters never reached.

Your response to this was NOT to apologise for getting the whole 78 thing wrong, or to correct yourself in suggesting the NIST fire modelling was wrong. No, instead your response is:

Originally Posted by Jazzz
No, but I would claim that no flames and hardly any smoke is a sign of a weak fire. Like with the South Tower just before collapse.

So that's it. There were no flames and little smoke. Well, I've bad news for you mate:

http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

Now call me pernickety if you will, but the one thing that is quite clear in that photograph - and the gallery linked to it - is the large quantity of smoke and flame.

Tell me; how do you square that with your claim?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

And there's the real conspiracy.

I bet the guilty parties are truly grateful for the conspiracy nutcases providing a handy smokescreen to take the heat off them.

similar to 7/7 fantasists taking the heat off (among other things)

MI5 for not focussing on Khan/Tanweer

Met police for inadequate radio systems.

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility some 9/11 & 7/7 cultists are actually 'tasked' by the state precisely to divert attention from real mismanagement/negligence. Certainly, as regards 9/11, there is big money to be made/lost by the airlines re proper security--how fortuitous for them indeed are claims there were 'no planes' on 9/11....

Perhaps Agents Machon & Shayler can answer such questions--after receiving instructions of course

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Free and Easy with Logic Too!

And just to continue with our recap, you will all recall that Jazz claimed:

In fact not only has the evidence which runs counter to it been ignored (more on that later), but evidence which would have settled the issue has been destroyed, and not analysed at all! You should say, "what we do not do is start with a hypothesis, destroy all evidence which may disprove it where possible, and then out of what remains cherry pick to suit"

I then challenged Jazz for more details:

Jazz, please provide us with a comprehensive list of any evidence you feel was suppressed together with any additional tests you feel might - should - have been carried out.

After a gentle reminder, you responded thus:

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

So that's it folks. Jazz knows that there's missing information and suppressed information - but doesn't actually know what it is, with the possible exception of these black deposits (and one therefore assumes the suggestion of thermite).

Long on rhetoric, short on substance if you ask me.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, here is what you actually said:


Whiilst you make clear that FE don't support controlled demolition, you have deliberately chosen cherry picked quotes which suit your assertion that the investigation is bodged. In actual fact if we read the full text, and other linked articles, we find it to be nothing of the sort. Yes, there are criticisms about certain aspects of the investigation however these are focussed in a number of clear areas.

...

I put it to you that you have culbably misrepresented the FE piece and are more than happy to play free and easy with the facts where it suits. The true hallmark of the CT lobby.

Absolutely not. And I thank you for reproducing my original quote - it shows I was being perfectly fair.

What I said that that Fire Engineering piece was a scathing criticism of the investigation, and that is indeed exactly what it was.

No more, no less.

I thank you.

 

[editor]

Absolutely not. And I thank you for reproducing my original quote - it shows I was being perfectly fair.

What I said that that Fire Engineering piece was a scathing criticism of the investigation, and that is indeed exactly what it was.

No more, no less.

I thank you.

Naturally, you also find yourself in full agreement with Fire Engineering who made absolutely no mention or even a teensy weensy hint that explosives were involved, or is this another of your cherry picking exercises?

 

[Jazzz]

So that's it. There were no flames and little smoke. Well, I've bad news for you mate:

http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

Now call me pernickety if you will, but the one thing that is quite clear in that photograph - and the gallery linked to it - is the large quantity of smoke and flame.

Tell me; how do you square that with your claim?

I stand corrected - there was still some flame. But looking at the pictures reminds me of exactly what I saw that day - before the South Tower collapsed, the smoke had changed from black, billowing out substantially, to a gray wispiness. It seemed as if the remaining fires were quite controllable. You can see a dramatic lessening of the smoke just in the picture gallery you link to. But here's an instructive picture - just before the collapse you can make out that there is no substantial cloud of smoke coming from the South Tower - it's all from the North Tower. I find that impossible to reconcile with any idea of an 'inferno'.

Let's remind ourselves what one of those looks like.

That was of course, the Windsor building, which burned like that for over 20 hours!

Here's a good picture showing no inferno in the North Tower either:

"If an 800°C fire was burning at the core of the the building then the visible core area should be glowing bright cherry red through heating"

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I stand corrected - there was still some flame. But looking at the pictures reminds me of exactly what I saw that day - before the South Tower collapsed, the smoke had changed from black, billowing out substantially, to a gray wispiness. It seemed as if the remaining fires were quite controllable. You can see a dramatic lessening of the smoke just in the picture gallery you link to. But here's an instructive picture - just before the collapse you can make out that there is no substantial cloud of smoke coming from the South Tower - it's all from the North Tower. I find that impossible to reconcile with any idea of an 'inferno'.

Let's remind ourselves what one of those looks like.

That was of course, the Windsor building, which burned like that for over 20 hours!

Here's a good picture showing no inferno in the North Tower either:

26, but then again you've never been obsessed with accuracy.

Grey wispyness? I see plumes of black smoke. What the hell are you talking about?

Now, please tell me how a concrete building burning has relevance to a steel building that's been hit by a plane?

A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.

So that would mean that steel, not protected by heatproofing like say... concrete, would be damaged by the fire!

"If an 800°C fire was burning at the core of the the building then the visible core area should be glowing bright cherry red through heating"

The worst load of shite you've come up with today. What inbred reject from fashion college thought that quote up?

 

[TheArchitect]

I stand corrected - there was still some flame. But looking at the pictures reminds me of exactly what I saw that day - before the South Tower collapsed, the smoke had changed from black, billowing out substantially, to a gray wispiness. It seemed as if the remaining fires were quite controllable. You can see a dramatic lessening of the smoke just in the picture gallery you link to. But here's an instructive picture - just before the collapse you can make out that there is no substantial cloud of smoke coming from the South Tower - it's all from the North Tower. I find that impossible to reconcile with any idea of an 'inferno'.

Let's remind ourselves what one of those looks like.

That was of course, the Windsor building, which burned like that for over 20 hours!

Here's a good picture showing no inferno in the North Tower either:

"If an 800°C fire was burning at the core of the the building then the visible core area should be glowing bright cherry red through heating"

Jazz,

You seem to be encountering some difficulties here, what with having to climb down from all your wild assertions.

(1) WTC2 collapsed at 9.59am, 56 minutes after the crash. Immediately prior to this, you claim that the black billowing smoke had been replaced by a grey whispiness.

(2) Unfortunately, this just isn't true. If we look at the undernoted pictures, particularly the last two which were taken just a minute or so befor ethe collapse, we can clearly see large quantities of dark smoke and.....wait for it.....flames:

http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

(3) In addition to this incredible oversight, however, you also omit to mention that the east perimeter columns between the 79th to 83rd floors had bowed inward due to floors sagging within 18 minutes of the crash. Following this the fires burned for a further 37 minutes before failure occurred.

(4) Then you return to the Windsor Building, something I dealt with before:

There are major differences between the Windsor fire and WTC. No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning. It was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys.

Most significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was wholly different to that of the WTC. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Check for yourself:

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. Photos confirm that the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire confirm? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and that’s about it.

So what does this all tell me, Jazz?

Well, principally I think it's quite clear that you're claims of a minor or spent fire in WTC 2 are unfounded, as is your criticism of the NIST report's fire modelling.

 

[TheArchitect]

Absolutely not. And I thank you for reproducing my original quote - it shows I was being perfectly fair.

What I said that that Fire Engineering piece was a scathing criticism of the investigation, and that is indeed exactly what it was.

No more, no less.

I thank you.

I'll be quite frank Jazz; you worry me. When presented with facts, there seems to be quite a gulf between what you claim to have said and what actually came about.

Let's look at 4 simple examples:

1. Fire Engineering. You claimed that they produced a damning account of the NIST report, and implied that this undermined the entire investigation. However you failed to place the FE quotes in context, and when we did it it became clear that they had a number of very specific areas of concern, primarily relating to co-ordination of the firefighting effort and the installation of the original fire protection.

2. Destruction of Evidence. You claimed that NIST had deliberately destroyed or at the very least supressed important evidence. However when pressed, the only item you can identify is the supposed evidence of thermite/ate to the steelwork.

3. Intensity of Fires. You claimed that the fires were minor, based on a single report from the 78th floor - despite the fact that the main impact and fires were around 80 to 81, which was immediately clear from photgraphic evidence. You then claimed that the fires were going out immediately prior to the collapse. This was again proven wrong.

4. Free Fall. You have claimed (repeatedly) that the towers fell at near free fall speed, and that the resistance offered by the lower structure would have slowed the collapse significantly. Yet we know that free fall time for a 471m structure would be around 9.22 seconds, and most CT accounts of the collapse put actual time at between 12 and 15 seconds. This is a difference of between around 30 and 60%, which is considerable.

We've not yet dealt with the detail of your other claims, but I think it safe to assume that we're going to encounter the same kind of discrepancies and misrepresentations.

So let me ask you a question. As you sit, convinced that the towers were brought down by the evil American government, doesn't it worry you that your "evidence" (and I use the term in the loosest sense) is being so readily debunked? Does it not worry you that so many of your "facts" turn out to be wrong, or misrepresentations?

I put it to you, Jazz, that you have begun with a predetermined point of view and cherry picked evidence to suit. You have never read the NIST report (even the summaries) or appraised yourself of relevant issues, instead taking as gospel the likes of Jones and Fetzer.

In short, you are a fraud and if we continue to disect your arguments we will only confirm their flimsiness further.

 

[TheArchitect]

Yes of course I consider the central steels would hold up by themselves. Are you going to say otherwise? Please keep it brief.

Yes.

I'm going to say that the central core was not designed to be free standing and that such a slender structure would be incapable of doing so.

I'm going to further remind you that the core was damaged by the initial impacts.

Then I'm going to point out that collapsing debris would have further undermined core integrity (ie big bits of building hit it on the way down)

And finally, I can provide you with pictures which show part of the lower core standing for about 15 to 20 seconds after the main collapse before finally succumbing to gravity.

(1) Is that brief enough?

(2) Are you ever going to tell us, in technical terms, why the core - regardless of the number of columns - should have stood on it's own?

 

[TheArchitect]

Now if you can just explain to me where the evidence is for the dust and debris cloud scalding people alive in its path, demolishing buildings, and so on then we can discuss this part of your theory a bit further.

Still waiting for your response on this, Jazz.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

And the prosecution rests it's case!

Well done Architect, hats off to you for having the patience.

 

[TheArchitect]

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

There is no way that a building falling down due to gravity will fling steel beams weighing hundreds of tons out horizontally like cannon shot, in my humble opinion.

[sigh]

Where to begin.

1. You will recall that I asked you for more specific evidence or details of the material you claim had been ejected such distances. This has not (yet) been forthcoming, so in the interim I'm going to assume that you mean larger elements and not the minor ejecta we see comming through the windows.

2. Well firstly, we know that the individual steel beams did not weigh "hundreds of tons". In actual fact core columns were no longer than around 30ft/10m, and the facade sections smaller. Similarly the floors rested on lightweight trusses.

3. Secondly, there is no evidence that the core columns were ever found substantially outside the immediate area of the buildings, likewise the floor trusses broke into sections, hence you must be talking about the facade.

4. Next, we need to differentiate between the lightweight aluminium cladding - which was the same profile as the steel, of course - and the actual structural work. There is every reason to believe that dislidged lightweight cladding would travel a considerable distance.

5. Now let's look at the collapse mechanism. Following the loss of the internal floor trusses, the external structural envelope buckles so much that we can see it. Obviously this will be placing the steelwork under considerable stress. Then the joints fail. Now we know that steel is, in fact, actually quite elastic (or else springs wouldn't work, eh?) and indeed you confirm that yourself in another post. So there is every reason to assume that when these loads are released, there will be a degree of movement.

6. However this is not the only potential means by which movement might occur. Most obviously, sections of facade moving downwards would hit lower work and - shock - be deflected (ie bounce) outwards. If an object has already fallen a hundred or two hundred metres, then it's going to be moving at a fair rate.

7. Similarly (and I have to say I don't hugely buy this one myself, but throw it in for completeness) once the floors collapsed, the facade was unrestrained. Given the staggered joints it is perfectly possible that some sections would have swung out by a few metres prior to collapse, which combined with several hundred metres of air resistance could easily translate into a larger horizontal movement.

Just to back all this up, I'm going to quote another source:

How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour.



In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.

Now it seems to me that these all rather explain the potential mechanism in a bit more detail than your own "how did it go that far" argument, and if you plan to rebutt it it would be quite reasonable for us to expect to see something quite detailed.

I shall, as ever, await your response with interest.

 

[Jazzz]

I'll be quite frank Jazz; you worry me. When presented with facts, there seems to be quite a gulf between what you claim to have said and what actually came about.

Let's look at 4 simple examples:

1. Fire Engineering. You claimed that they produced a damning account of the NIST report, and implied that this undermined the entire investigation. However you failed to place the FE quotes in context, and when we did it it became clear that they had a number of very specific areas of concern, primarily relating to co-ordination of the firefighting effort and the installation of the original fire protection.

2. Destruction of Evidence. You claimed that NIST had deliberately destroyed or at the very least supressed important evidence. However when pressed, the only item you can identify is the supposed evidence of thermite/ate to the steelwork.

JESUS CHRIST. I am rarely driven to such exhortations.

I used the Fire Engineering quote to say exactly what it said - that the investigation was a sell-out, evidence was destroyed, and that without the proper investigation any theories about the collapse would by hypotheticals.

And that takes me on to point 2, which is that the Fire Engineering quote, WHICH YOU DO NOT CONTEST, takes care of that all by itself. I added that the steel was not tested for 'twinning', or explosives in any way, and can further add that it was all shipped to China (as Fire Engineering tells us). But I don't have to - because I've already shown that crucial evidence was ignored and destroyed. I don't have to name what it was!

3. Intensity of Fires. You claimed that the fires were minor, based on a single report from the 78th floor - despite the fact that the main impact and fires were around 80 to 81, which was immediately clear from photgraphic evidence. You then claimed that the fires were going out immediately prior to the collapse. This was again proven wrong.

What I said, Mr Twisty, was that there is no evidence of an inferno from accounts at the scene and that is indeed one account giving no evidence of an inferno. It is the same with witness reports. Try and find one which mentions one. You asked me what criticism I had of NIST's fire modelling and my point is that assumptions of the fire are made by the need to get their model to collapse. To do this, they played around with the variables. I was wrong to imply that all fire was out in the South Tower but anyone looking at the pictures will surely find it difficult to see any inferno there - and what fire there were was surely lessening.

4. Free Fall. You have claimed (repeatedly) that the towers fell at near free fall speed, and that the resistance offered by the lower structure would have slowed the collapse significantly. Yet we know that free fall time for a 471m structure would be around 9.22 seconds, and most CT accounts of the collapse put actual time at between 12 and 15 seconds. This is a difference of between around 30 and 60%, which is considerable.

You're twisting my words again. What I said was that ANY resistance provided by the lower structure would slow the collapse significantly, and my argument was - because the effect is compounded from floor through floor - that it would add a degree of magnitude to the collapse time, not something like 30%. I didn't say this was proof of CD - but the collapse time is very easily explained by it. Like many of the other observations of the collapse.

We've not yet dealt with the detail of your other claims, but I think it safe to assume that we're going to encounter the same kind of discrepancies and misrepresentations.

So let me ask you a question. As you sit, convinced that the towers were brought down by the evil American government, doesn't it worry you that your "evidence" (and I use the term in the loosest sense) is being so readily debunked? Does it not worry you that so many of your "facts" turn out to be wrong, or misrepresentations?

I put it to you, Jazz, that you have begun with a predetermined point of view and cherry picked evidence to suit. You have never read the NIST report (even the summaries) or appraised yourself of relevant issues, instead taking as gospel the likes of Jones and Fetzer.

In short, you are a fraud and if we continue to disect your arguments we will only confirm their flimsiness further.

'I am a fraud'? Good god. That implies someone who is knowingly deceitful. I'm not sure what your mindset is that is producing comments like that.

Let me say that you are perhaps the most pompous and tedious debater I have ever come across. You repeatedly accuse me of saying things I haven't and misrepresenting me generally. When challenged you simply repeat exactly what you said before, and in such dry and tedious fashion that is it an utter pain in the arse to keep challenging it.

 

[TheArchitect]

Incidentally, Jazz, at the risk of doing your research for you, you might want to watch this:

 

[editor]

Let me say that you are perhaps the most pompous and tedious debater I have ever come across.

I'd say he's simply doing what you're incapable of, and that's giving direct answers to questions and providing solid, credibly-sourced counterpoints to your claims.

I'd wager every impartial observer here would say that he's torn your conspiracy obsessed claims apart with solid reasoning and good science, while you're reduced to desperately cherry picking quotes out of context and linking to laughably inaccurate sites like prisonplanet..

But I do hope that you won't run away from this debate. In fact, I hope you'll learn something from it.

 

[Crispy]

"Dry and tedious" is what careful explanation with reference to facts, maths and science reads like.

 

[TheArchitect]

JESUS CHRIST. I am rarely driven to such exhortations.

No Jazz, let's be honest here. You rarely encounter someone who actually takes you to task for the half truths and willful misrepresentations which dot your posts.

All I have done is hold your claims up to the light and show that your evidence is no more than substantial than an election promise.

It is particularly telling that you have chosen not to respond with technical arguments, but rather by way of a rant and complaints of misquotes.

Let's look at a classic example - again. YOU claimed that NIST had deliberately obscured, supressed, or destroyed evidence. Yet cou can't actually tell us what this evidence is other than a vague statement about bombs and thermite.

I've already shown that crucial evidence was ignored and destroyed.

But you've not shown that evidence was so treated. In fact, you've refused to tell me what this evidence is! Tell me. How do you know evidence is missing if you don't know what that evidence is? How did you arrive at your conclusions?

What I said, Mr Twisty, was that there is no evidence of an inferno from accounts at the scene and that is indeed one account giving no evidence of an inferno. It is the same with witness reports. Try and find one which mentions one. You asked me what criticism I had of NIST's fire modelling and my point is that assumptions of the fire are made by the need to get their model to collapse. To do this, they played around with the variables. I was wrong to imply that all fire was out in the South Tower but anyone looking at the pictures will surely find it difficult to see any inferno there - and what fire there were was surely lessening.

With the deepest respect, you did NOT imply that the fire was out in the south tower. You STATED that it was out. Yet a simple review of photgraphic evidence, which would have taken you no more than 10 minutes, proved you to be wrong.

So tell me. How did you miss this simple evidence? After all, the adequacy of the fire modelling was a major plank of your case. I assume that you looked into all the evidence before reaching a conclusion? Or - and let's be honest here - did you just pick the stuff that suited your predetermined view?

You're twisting my words again. What I said was that ANY resistance provided by the lower structure would slow the collapse significantly, and my argument was - because the effect is compounded from floor through floor - that it would add a degree of magnitude to the collapse time, not something like 30%. I didn't say this was proof of CD - but the collapse time is very easily explained by it. Like many of the other observations of the collapse.

So a 30 to 60% (based on CT figures) increase in free fall time isn't substantial in your book?

Tell me, Jazz, how long do you think the collapse should have taken? How did you calculate the resistance of the lower structure, and can we see the calculations?

Again, be honest Jazz. You have absolutely NO structural training, do you? What expertise do you bring to your view that the collapse should have taken substantially longer?

'I am a fraud'? Good god. That implies someone who is knowingly deceitful. I'm not sure what your mindset is that is producing comments like that.

Jazz, it was you that stated your case. You were asked to do so in detail. Each of the "facts" you have paraded have been shown to be wrong. So which is it - have you not bothered researching your case, or have you deliberately misrepresented the facts?

Let me say that you are perhaps the most pompous and tedious debater I have ever come across. You repeatedly accuse me of saying things I haven't and misrepresenting me generally. When challenged you simply repeat exactly what you said before, and in such dry and tedious fashion that is it an utter pain in the arse to keep challenging it.

Jazz, looks like you're getting ready to run off in the huff. Do you always do this when you lose an argument?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

"Dry and tedious" is what careful explanation with reference to facts, maths and science reads like.

Unlike jazzz's sources that generally read like bad science fiction. More interesting, pity about the plot.

Jazz, looks like you're getting ready to run off in the huff. Do you always do this when you lose an argument?

Yes, he does.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Let me say that you are perhaps the most pompous and tedious debater I have ever come across

Yeah, I mean god forbid anyone should trouble you wish such sillyness as facts, calculations, credible sources and knowledge.

If they did they'd make you look rather silly, wouldn't they?

 

[Jazzz]

Yes.

I'm going to say that the central core was not designed to be free standing and that such a slender structure would be incapable of doing so.

I'm going to further remind you that the core was damaged by the initial impacts.

Then I'm going to point out that collapsing debris would have further undermined core integrity (ie big bits of building hit it on the way down)

And finally, I can provide you with pictures which show part of the lower core standing for about 15 to 20 seconds after the main collapse before finally succumbing to gravity.

(1) Is that brief enough?

(2) Are you ever going to tell us, in technical terms, why the core - regardless of the number of columns - should have stood on it's own?

The central core was the main load-bearing structure for the tower. It comprised fantastically thick steels at the base. The 47 columns were latticed together to make a fantastically sound structure. Of course they would hold up by itself! And for a damn good reason too - there is absolutely no way that they could support up the rest of the tower if they were not able to do so, this is just mind-bogglingly obvious. Are you really suggesting otherwise?

I assume that if you are indeed an architect, you have other people helping you make sure your buildings stand up!

 

[Crispy]

The central core was not the main load-bearing structure. It shared that duty with the outer skin. Second, it was not designed to take lateral forces, that job was almost entirely given to the outer skin. So, although it may well be able to hold its own weight against gravity, it had little or no lateral stability. This means that without sideways support, it will collapse. Which it did. I am an architect, I'm in a room full of architects and they all agree with me.

 

[TheArchitect]

The central core was the main load-bearing structure for the tower. It comprised fantastically thick steels at the base. The 47 columns were latticed together to make a fantastically sound structure. Of course they would hold up by itself! And for a damn good reason too - there is absolutely no way that they could support up the rest of the tower if they were not able to do so, this is just mind-bogglingly obvious. Are you really suggesting otherwise?

[sighs yet again]

I can see that we're going to have to cover some basic structures here.

The WTC structural frame comrpised three interlinked elements; an outer loadbearing facade, the floor structure, and the inner core. These three elements acted together in order to provide overall structural stability.

If it makes things simpler for you, think of the entire building as a big space frame or a girder. If one element is compromised, then the whole structure is compromised.

Now of course the inner core did not "support the rest of the tower". At the very least, it's obvious that the outer edge of the floor (and hence half the load) was supported by the outer facade.

To suggest that the central core was designed to act as a freestanding structure is absolutely ludicrous. It shows your limited understanding of structural issues, and it is telling that you fail to provide any technical justification for the argument.

I also note with some amusement that you failed to pick up my point about the portions of the core standing for 15 to 20 seconds after collapse, ordamage caused to its structural integrity by the remainder of the building collapsing around it. Is there any particular reason for this?

I assume that if you are indeed an architect, you have other people helping you make sure your buildings stand up!

Oh I am indeed an architect, working on tall buildings, and yes we have an expert team for such projects; structural engineers, fire engineers, surveyors, and contractors. Why so many? Because it's all very complex, and very technical, and more than anyone is ever likely to pick up by reading Jones or Feltzer's woo woo rubbish.