A Review of the Jones 'Paper' Part 3

3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7

As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen).

So, considerable smoke was seen, but that means that there were no fires?
In fact, there were several floors that were fully involved in fire.
There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).

Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof. Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris.

What this drawing fails to convey is that this building had an unusual structural design. Because the lower part of the basement spanned an existing electrical substation, the building was built with large transfer trusses over this area. While it is true that the actual mechanism of the initial failure in the building is unknown, one can not just overlook the fact that the building was non-typical in design. A failure related to one of the transfer trusses could very well have resulted in a disproportionate number of secondary failures that would have resulted in the building collapse. Since this is an issue for qualified strucutral engineers to determine, I will defer to thier judgment, not Professor Jones's

WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

but it was hit by debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper).

At this point Jones, a professor of physics is making an engineering assessment. I question his qualifications to make that assessment. Furthermore, it is interesting that he mentions the Bazant & Zhou paper, since this paper specifically details how a buckling failure can with small changes in the geometry of a building structure, cause the entire structure to fail.

The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely.

Again, this assessment is apparently NOT shared by structural engineers.

If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing.

One might expect that, yet one should also evaluate the response of the particular structure to the change in the loads.

For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

If Professor Jones were an engineer, he would understand the folly of trying to compare two dissimilar structures.

Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings when due to random causes.

OK, I'd like to challenge any of the CT theory believers to come up with a valid reason for why Professor Jones has included that photograph in this paper.

Is an earthquake a random cause? Is he implying that there is a similarity between the situation that caused that building to collapse and the WTC 7 collapse? Was there an earthquake in Manhattan that day? What WTC 7 a concrete structure like the one pictured above? Was the building above, built in Taiwan, in an earthquake zone, built to the same codes and standards as WTC 7?

What is Professor Jones implying here?

L'Ambiance Plaza collapse (right) shows how pancaked concrete floor slabs are largely intact and clearly reveal stacking effects with minimal fine dust, as expected from random progressive collapse. By contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust -- as is common in controlled demolitions using explosives.

But look! It's a symmetrical collapse!

On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using cutter-charges/explosives is the complete and straight-down-symmetrical collapse of buildings. The reader may wish to review controlled-demolition examples at www.implosionworld.com... for examples of complete symmetrical collapses due to carefully pre-positioned explosives. (The videos of the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses are particularly instructive.)

The intent is to avoid damage to the adjacent buildings. In any case, gravity being what it is, there is no where for the building to go, but straight down.

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

We may never know the precise mechanisms involved in the collapse, but there are plenty of indications that the building was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. Certainly the FDNY realized this early on and pulled off any attempts to fight the fires in that building.

That is precisely the point: further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

Some research is still going on in relation to WTC 7, but I doubt that Professor Jones will ever accept anything that doesn't fit into his personal world view of evil government plots.




[edit on 20-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, considerable smoke was seen, but that means that there were no fires?

Other WTC buildings were experiencing severe fires behind WTC7 after the Tower collapses, and the Towers' footprints were also still smoldering heavily -- just as they would continue to do for months.

The fact that you see smoke around it, therefore, is not surprising. What is surprising (more like idiotic) is that you pin the smoke directly onto WTC7 without there having been any large fires photographed in the building.

In fact, there were several floors that were fully involved in fire.

Post some photos and show us.

WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.

but it was hit by debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

So were many other buildings in the region, none of which suffered even localized collapses.

Again, this assessment is apparently NOT shared by structural engineers.

Structural engineers don't study demolitions.

And you forget Judy Wood of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, as well as our own Valhall and Griff.

OK, I'd like to challenge any of the CT theory believers to come up with a valid reason for why Professor Jones has included that photograph in this paper.

To illustrate that electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity.

He is not saying WTC7 should have failed the exact same way, but in that ballpark. Rather, WTC7 is in the ballpark (more like a textbook example) of rather conventional demolitions.

I challenge the logic used in most all of the rest of your post. Non-sequiturs ('but look!'), "over"-generalizing ('only this is what demolitions are for'), feigning ignorance ('we may never know for sure!'), ad hominem on Jones, etc.

Due to research and teaching commitments, I rarely have time to read and respond in the various forum discussions regarding 9/11.

In this case, I was invited to say something -- I will be brief.

Many of the questions raised above are answered here:

www.physics.byu.edu...

In particular, we (3 physicists and a geologist) have obtained new results regarding the solidified metal which provide compelling evidence for the use of thermate. You may wish to review these data.

I would also like to call your attention to the peer-reviewed papers published in the
Journalof911Studies.com .

Comments on the papers by Prof Kenneth Kuttler, Dr. Frank Legge and Gordon Ross would be particularly welcomed. Please address these papers...

Sorry Doc,your Scolars for truth is neither.Why do continue to lie to people?There are lots of out of context nonsense in your "peer reviewed paper".Why not give the paper to a review board in the field,you claim to research.The worst thing about you is you claim to be a truth seeker.Why then do you go out the way, to out right change it, with Simili and out of context lies.Your science is pathetic.