Exploding the Myths about the Windsor Building and the WTC Towers
On Feb 12, 2005 a raging, intense fire swept through the 32-storey Windsor Building in Madrid, completely gutting it. The outermost portions of some
upper floors of the building collapsed from the fire, but the building itself did not collapse, pancake, wedding cake, or caramel pudding to the
ground. The building did not explode outwards in high-energy expulsions of neatly snapped beams, nor did the concrete of the building completely
explode into pulverized 10 micron powder. And most important of all, the core
of the building remained solid and stable as the day it was made,
with a smug construction crane still neatly perched on the top. After the events of September 11, 2001, most around the world expected the building to
collapse in on itself. The world watched in anticipation...but the expected collapse never came. The building remained solid.
Some people would like you to believe the myth that this building can not be compared to the WTC towers. Well, let's see if we can't place some of
the C4 of truth
along the trusses and beams supposedly supporting their myths and blow them to kingdom come. Who knows, maybe we can even make
some cash by selling the pieces of their lies to China as scrap. The Chinese are well known for buying into myths propagated by government.
MYTH #1: The Construction of the Windsor Building was completely different to the WTC towers
According to the reports from government agencies FEMA and NIST, the WTC towers were constructed with a majority load-bearing steel central
consisting of 47 vertical box and 'I' columns, the floors were constructed of steel trusses
running North-South and East-West
covered by a metal corrugated deck, onto which was then poured concrete. The trusses were then connected to the outer perimeter which consisted of
236 steel columns
designed to bear lateral load and a portion of the vertical load. We could go into more detail on this, but that's all we need
to know for this point.
WTC Towers floor layout
The numbered dots in the center are the core columns, although this picture provided by the government is deceptive in their actual size. This picture
will give you a better idea.
In fact, we may never know the true design of the towers, since the U.S. government refuses to release the blueprints of the buildings'
. What are they trying to hide...? In fact, I've found what they're trying to hide, but more on that later...
Now the Windsor Building does differ slightly in its construction, but not where it matters. The government's theory of the WTC collapses hinges on
the "truss theory" whereby the trusses' connection to the core and outer perimeter columns was weakened by extremely high temperatures and
excessive load, eventually snapping and pancaking down 95 floors at virtually free fall speed. The Windsor Building was also constructed in a
load-bearing central core
, trussed floor
design, with the trusses spanning onto a shell of outer composite beams
, just like the
WTC towers, except that the Windsor Building truss system consisted of reinforced concrete (concrete slabs reinforced with thin steel rebar inside,
which is weaker than steel), whereas the WTC towers had thick, steel trusses covered with a layer of concrete. Also the Windsor Building outer columns
were widely spaced apart. Compare this to the WTC towers with outer columns spaced very close together.
The typical floor slab construction [of the Windsor Building] was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams
in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by RC columns on two sides below 17th Floor
So, the design was conceptually very similar: strong core, trussed floors, steel column outer wall.
MYTH #2: The Windsor Building was stronger in its construction than the WTC Towers.
The Windsor Building's exterior perimeter consisted of thin steel columns unconnected to each other, 15 along the shorter side and 25 along the
broader side., approximately 1 - 1.5 meters apart.
Compare this to the WTC towers with 236 columns spaced 2ft-2in (0.66m) apart, and connected to each other by steel spandrel plates.
Both buildings had a criss-crossed truss floor design, however the WTC towers had all steel covered in concrete, whereas the Windsor building's truss
was reinforced concrete (concrete with thin steel rebar inside). Again, steel has a higher compression strength than reinforced concrete and about the
same tension strength.
The core of the Windsor Building consisted of reinforced concrete columns. The core of the WTC towers consisted of steel columns. No material is
stronger than steel in compression. Reinforced concrete and steel have similar strengths in tension. The core of the Windsor building consisted of 10
columns spaced in a rectangle, simplified like this:
Compare this to the WTC core:
Remember, the dots are not indicative of size. They are only location and number indicators. It also does not show the diagonal beams connecting the
columns. Draw your own conclusions about which is stronger.
At The Core of What FEMA Didn't Tell Us
There is one more thing about the WTC core that FEMA and the government don't want you to know. The details of the structure released to the public,
and to NIST, tell only of the steel core columns. What they didn't tell us is that the entire core was also filled with a box pattern concrete
reinforcing inner core attached to the steel outer core. You will not see mention of this in the NIST report:
[NIST report, pg8
A second structural subsystem was located in a central service area, or core (Figure 1–5), approximately
135 ft by 87 ft, that extended virtually the full height of the building. The long axis of the core in WTC 1
was oriented in the east-west direction, while the long axis of the core in WTC 2 was oriented in the
north-south direction (Figure 1–3). The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using
primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size at the higher stories. The four massive corner
columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns. The core columns were
interconnected by a grid of conventional steel beams to support the core floors.
Here is an altered diagram to show what the core structure should
People have reported seeing this on the WTC construction documentary. Don't believe them? After the outer floors and steel of the core were blown off
the South tower, a portion of the concrete inner core could be seen still standing. The smoke obscures it a little, so I've altered the contrast to
enable you to see it clearer.
You can also see the dust clouds coming off the remaining core here:
As can be seen, the WTC towers' construction was similar in concept, but much stronger in design than the Windsor Building. The WTC core was claimed
to have a 600% redundancy, meaning that it could hold 6 times the load that it was under from the towers. Add to this the deception regarding the
concrete inner core and what do you have? A theory that is a fallacy and an outright lie. The core stands for a number of seconds, but then it too is
pulverized.Under gravity alone, with no "pancaking" floors left to compress it, the core should have stood standing, or fell over sideways,
because as much as the government would like you to believe, the steel and concrete construction cannot magically compress itself. The buildings'
major load-bearing element was the core. This is why they will never release the construction blueprints, even to poor old NIST.
For more on the inner core deception, go here
MYTH #3: The Fires in the WTC Towers burned much hotter, longer, and further than the Windsor Building fires.
Firefighters battle Madrid inferno -
The concrete skeleton supported temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius during the fire, which burned for 18 hours.
Look at these fires. THIS
is an intense, extreme high temperature fire, ladies and gents. The entire building is a gargantuan torch.
Do you see any windows intact? When a fire reaches temperatures over 700degC and of this ferocity, windows will shatter and the fire, fed by the
incoming air will burst out of the windows.
"Oh, but the WTC towers' sprinkler systems failed, so the fires were out of control"
Flashover is the transition to the point at which all of the fuels in the room are fully involved, heat fluxes and temperatures are at a maximum
throughout the room, the most intense fire is no longer linked to location of fuel packages but instead is taking place where the
ventilation-driven mixing of air and pyrolysis gases are best. Such fires are not survivable. Time to flashover is often the same as time to detection
since fires are detected in many cases only as they go to flashover, as windows shatter, flames vent from doors and windows, and the shudder and
rattle of the turbulent combustion makes their presence known to people inside and outside the building.
, the government tells us. Well, the Windsor Building
didn't even HAVE a sprinkler system
, and the building was inadequately fireproofed:
The Madrid regional code unusually does not require sprinkler protection for buildings with an evacuation height of less than 100m so active measures
were limited to automatic detection and alarm, fire hose reels and a dry riser system.
The lack of sprinklers was a significant factor as these help to limit possibilities for fire spread via the facade.
Now compare the WTC fires.
This famous photo depicts the woman standing by the edge of the destruction caused by the plane crash. This is the region where the government claims
the collapse from weakened steel began. Why isn't this woman burnt to a crisp from the supposed intense heat? Look into the building beyond her. Does
it look hot to you? In the upper left you can see fires that have spread to the floors above. They are of medium intensity, and compared to the
Windsor Building fires, they are comparable to a camp fire. But it's not even important how hot the fires are on those floors, because the
government's story says that the collapse from weakening steel began at the point where the planes had damaged the outer columns and core
Look at this picture of the Windsor Building again. Do you see any people standing in the windows looking down at the ground?
The government claims that all of the materials in the WTC towers were burning and contributing to make the fires reach "intense heat" capable of
warping the steel to the point where it completely failed. This is a lie. The flames that were visible in the towers were nowhere near the
intensity of the Windsor Building fires
- There were few, to no windows shattering.
- Observed flames were of relatively mild intensity.
- There were survivors visible and unhurt in an area which supposedly was experiencing temperatures nearing 1000degC.
- The smoke from the fires at the time of collapse was dark indicating an inefficient, oxygen and fuel-starved, low-temperature fire.
- WTC1 burned for longer and hotter than WTC2 and sustained a direct impact to the center of the building and the core, and yet, WTC2 collapsed
- The majority of the jet fuel from the plane that hit WTC2 burned outside the building.
- The plane that hit WTC2 struck across the corner, slightly hitting, or completely missing the core.
- WTC2 collapsed only 56 minutes after impact, at a stage when no fires were visible and only dark smoke was drifting out.
- People jumping from the buildings were not scalded or burnt. They jumped to avoid dying from agonizing smoke inhalation.
- Recorded radio communication from firefighters at the level of collapse testified to isolated pockets of fires.
- No steel-framed building, weak or strong, old or new, has ever collapsed from fire in the history of mankind. The only three buildings EVER to do
this are WTC 1,2 and 7 - the three buildings in the complex owned by Larry Silverstein, and three of the strongest buildings in the world.
- There was no heat shimmer visible in the air around the openings or the towers themselves.
- There were survivors who placed emergency calls from the upper levels up until the time of collapse. They did not report intense heat.
- Steel is a good conductor of heat. Concrete is a poor conductor. Steel will conduct heat away from the hot spots into the larger structure and
will retain temperatures lower than the fire itself.
- Because concrete has water in it, it will "spall", crack and erode, as the water in it is turned to steam. Steel does not do this.
- Etc, etc, etc...
There is no way that you can conclude that the WTC fires were intense enough to weaken steel to the point that the government claims.
MYTH #4: Floors with truss design will pancake each other down when they collapse, sending pieces of the building flying out hundreds of
Sections of the Windsor Building DID collapse. However, they collapsed in stages and pieces as the fire spread to different parts of the building.
Here are pictures of collapsing sections:
Notice how the outer, trussed sections collapse, but the core holds strong? Notice how only the burnt sections collapse, while the lower floors,
despite having all that debris crashing down on them, do not continue to collapse at near free fall? Do you see pieces of debris and beams being
exploded out hundreds of feet? Do you see a great cloud of concrete nano-dust from this concrete
building? The reinforced concrete floors in
the Windsor Building, weaker than the steel and concrete floors in the WTC towers, collapsed because concrete does not conduct heat and will spall and
Here is the aftermath:
In the left photograph, you can even see a few floors still hanging off the core. This is how a building will collapse if it is gutted and weakened by
fire; in accordance with the principle of minimum resistance and kinetic (motion) energy transference. Even if an airplane crashed into this building,
the end behavior would have been the same. If one accidentally crashed into it after it was burnt, can you imagine that it would collapse all the way
to the ground in a pile of rubble and pick-up sticks? Weakened areas will collapse and sheer off in sections. Intact, unburnt sections will hold.
Collapsing debris will fall over the edge or land on top of lower floors and stay there. Debris will not shoot out for hundreds of feet. The
load-bearing core will hold. The above photographs shows what the WTC towers should have looked like after a collapse that even if it happened would
only be partial. And such a PARTIAL collapse would have occurred only if the buildings had experienced ferocious, intense fires
[edit on 2005/7/9 by wecomeinpeace]