Controlled Demolitions in Action

Originally posted by esdad71
First, did I state 4/5 of something, or can you give me the link

that states this so I can investigate it. Thanks.

NIST has given the safety factor rating of 5 for the perimeter columns. If you're familiar with ANY engineering then you should be able to do that math.

If the Towers got down to the last 1/5 of perimeter columns on any given floor, spaced as evenly as possible, it's likely that there would have been redistribution problems in the given situation, but the point is that an equivalent amount of perimeter failure would nonetheless be required by those figures to get a whole floor of perimeter columns to fail, and it would also be required instantly and simultaneously across a whole floor, to get a whole floor to collapse as we've seen.

The other point is that we saw nothing even approaching the amount of buckling required, to be equivalent to the loss of 4/5 of perimeter columns, to require each perimeter column to bear the maximum amount of load possible without failure. We saw a handful on each floor, if that.

So where is it, Esdad? I want to see it.

Can you give me examples of cahnging angle, for I thought that

175 did tilt prior to impact. The impact hit 6 floors in total I

beleive. Also, Close to half of the colums were severed or

damaged ( If I recall it was only 7 or 8 destroyed) .

Flight 175 hit WTC2 at a significant angle. Ever seen a video of that impact, by chance? NIST's model assumes a centered impact.

If you've done all of the research you claim, then why are you asking me questions like this?

This I cannot provide, but many SE's worked on this through ACSE with FEMA.

Structural engineers are not metallurgists, which is why so many of them came out to the media, openly accepting the theory that the fires melted the actual columns to initiate the collapses right after 9/11.

If it proves too difficult, I can even provide you with webpages full of examples of the above, sources and all. 9/11 Research hosts such a page.


Edit: Quick correction, NIST apparently asserts 225% redundancy for the core columns, not 335%. So over half of the columns could be totally severed without catastrophic (global) failures, according to that figure, but not over 2/3.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Aware and agree are two different things, don't get into a pissing contest about sentence structure or spelling, becasue that shows you are reaching.

I went to college in Florida and did graduate work in NY and FL.

You are using a picture to explain away the use of thermite, yes, I am laughing. Can you please explain how weeks after the thermite was still burning. Now, if you are talking about a thermite 'reaction' caused by the iron oxide released from the heated steel that remained under the collapse you may have something, but they are 2 different things. You are trying to say thermite bought it down, right?

You were speaking of columns, not safety ratings. Sorry about that. See, I feel like the questions are to trip me up which is why in other posts I never mentioned my background. I am not claiming to be an expert, or in the filed currently, but I have studied it. This give me insight as to how it may have occured. I still do not believe they actually fell, but I have tried to understand within the bounds of the evidence that we have been given, and I feel there is no sufficient proof of demolition and I choose a theory that some do not go along with. That is what I must bear.

Yes, i have read where the structure did what it was supposed to and based on the initial impact the towers should not have fallen. I agree with this. It did what it was supposed to do. However, it was not designed to withstand column failure AND a fire that engulfed multiple floors. Design is generally to give enough time for occupants to escape, and I beleive now that is only 2 hours. The fire in the 70's shows that I think.

So You then have 2 choices, implosion or the ensuing collapse.

Originally posted by esdad71
I still do not believe they actually fell, but I have tried to understand within the bounds of the evidence that we have been given, and I feel there is no sufficient proof of demolition and I choose a theory that some do not go along with.

And I'm asking for proof of sufficient buckling. This is very straightforward. The columns did not have to severe, but you would still need an equivalent of 4/5 total loss (via buckling or what-have-you -- which could have actually been impossible given those numbers, and how badly the columns would have to be buckled) to initiate a complete, global failure, vertically, starting symmetrically enough with one floor.

If all of that buckling occurred on any floor, it would have all been staring us in the face before a collapse began. Yet, what NIST points to amounts to a handful of columns per floor, if that.

However, it was not designed to withstand column failure AND a fire that engulfed multiple floors.

The evidence I'm asking for is in relation to heat-related failure, and not the impacts.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by esdad71
Aware and agree are two different things,

Yes, and you said them both...

Originally posted by esdad71
Second, I have read the entire Jones article, and I am well aware
of the facts that he presents. However, I do not agree and you
do. It is a difference of belief.

Originally posted by esdad71
don't get into a pissing contest about sentence structure or spelling, becasue that shows you are reaching.

I have been trained with professional interrogation techniques, and just by listening to the words you use, the way you express your thoughts, and how you structure you sentences, I can learn a lot about your personality. I am trying to figure out exactly who you think you are, and why you believe the official story of 9-11. I have come to the conclusion that you are LOST, and the only reason you stick to the official story is because you are too afraid to think the US government could do such a thing. No matter what evidence is provided to you, you will stick with the official story because you are either a scared old patriot, disinformation agent, or you some how are affiliated with the whole cover up. I'm not reaching, just practicing one of many ways to break someone down, and peak into their minds.

Originally posted by esdad71
I went to college in Florida and did graduate work in NY and FL.

What college did you go to? Does that mean you do not have a degree in civil or environmental engineering?

Originally posted by esdad71
You are using a picture to explain away the use of thermite, yes, I am laughing. Can you please explain how weeks after the thermite was still burning.

First off, in previous posts, I didn't say WEEKS, I said DAYS. Although, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, the company assigned to clean up the WTC, has said on film with their own mouth that as they were digging to the bottom of the debris, the debris were getting hotter and hotter more towards the bottom. This was a few weeks after the collapse. And on film, they were pulling out pieces of metal that were still red hot, and dripping molten metal. It is possible with the right amount of thermite/thermate and the correct mixture of ingredients, you can make thermite/thermate burn for a long period of time. Even more so, if it is surrounded by other burning hot debris from the initial fires.

Originally posted by esdad71
See, I feel like the questions are to trip me up which is why in other posts I never mentioned my background. I am not claiming to be an expert, or in the filed currently, but I have studied it. This give me insight as to how it may have occurred.

Why did you say the following quote then?

Originally posted by esdad71
Look, this is the first time I have said this in as many time as I have posted, but I have been involved in the engineering and architecture industry since I was in high school. I was using CAD in 86 at age 13, and designed my first home at 19. I then moved onto commercial structure and development, so I am well aware of how things are designed(blueprints), created (modeling)and what it takes for a project(building). I just never wanted to openly say it here because I did not want to be marked as a 'wanna be expert' like they try to tear apart Howard. I am familiar with a lot of the things we talk about with this case.

I think you are really exaggerating your knowledge in the structural engineering field. Just because you can make shapes with AutoCAD, doesn't mean you can design a structurally solid building. If you don't have a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering, you pretty much don't have any more knowledge than the average Google search.

How can you be familiar with how heat from fire reacts to the structure beams under stress, and tension? How can you be familiar with the changes in the stress and tension on a structure beam, when other beams fail? Most importantly, how on Earth can you say you have knowledge in the engineering field, and then say that a steel vertical structure can collapse so perfectly (referring to wtc7)?

WTC 7 "collapsed" like a wooden building only held together by tape. It did not "collapse" like a steel structure held together with rivets and welds. Steel buildings tilt and fall like trees being cut down. They do not naturally sink into the ground from the bottom, unless they are professionally demolished.

Originally posted by esdad71
I still do not believe they actually fell, but I have tried to understand within the bounds of the evidence that we have been given, and I feel there is no sufficient proof of demolition and I choose a theory that some do not go along with. That is what I must bear.

The following pictures are hard evidence that WTC 7 was demolished, this isn't "Professor Jones' evidence", this is 10000+ or more peoples evidence. I'm not giving in to anyone's beliefs, this is just so common sense that many people have thought of the same thing from different parts of the globe.

WTC info from NIST

Compared to a REAL controlled demo.

Originally posted by esdad71
However, it was not designed to withstand column failure AND a fire that engulfed multiple floors. Design is generally to give enough time for occupants to escape, and I believe now that is only 2 hours.

You are a joke. No structural engineer would ever design a building without the thought of a column failure AND a fire. The designer himself said that he and his partner designed the WTC to withstand earthquakes, fires, a Boeing 707 crash, and storms. No engineer on the face of the planet will ever design a building that cannot stand with multiple column failure. That is simply unheard of.



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Dam this topic just keeps going and going.....

But in all fairness must say.....when we discuss the "official" story....we get balmed from knowing nothing or did not read something etc. etc..

First I personaly feel we should talk about WTC 1 and 2 NOT No. 7......
No.7 maybe different in nature...would not surprise me at all if they did use TNT to bring it down at the end of the day.........so no more Fire Firghters be hurt or killed......enough of them sacraficed there life that day.....and why save that building esp. if it prob. had to come down anyway (due to major structural damage from above and below)....so again WT7
would def. be a sep. case all together, maybe we should try to stick with 1&2.

Please keep in mind I am here to help and discuss this topic with open eyes' just like others here with way more logic and education then me....so come on guy's let's stop insulting one another on here.....at least for the people that died that day....if something fishy happened that day......we will find out (esp. with all the education between everyone on here alone-exluding me of course the geto-engineer) and i do believe our (everyones) conversations are sincere in nature....but if we don't discuss we never find the truth.... so lets' just keep going without the insults cause does not help.

As always y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

[quoteYou are a joke. No structural engineer would ever design a building without the thought of a column failure AND a fire. The designer himself said that he and his partner designed the WTC to withstand earthquakes, fires, a Boeing 707 crash, and storms. No engineer on the face of the planet will ever design a building that cannot stand with multiple column failure. That is simply unheard of.


You're appearently incorrect.

www.nae.edu...

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Vushta]

Ok got' an idea......

Between "esdad71" and I we got over 40years experience in CAD ( I started in 1984 age 15)....so why don't we draw our own model....i would def. dev. time to this...I now people have made "plan" views but now with Autocad 2007 (omg the 3D so good now...prob. my mom could do...esp with 3D grip or funny name "HOT" grips)

But realy why not have a web site or ftp that have the DWG's of the structure we can
work on and anyone have time can contribute to the drawings?????
We can use my ASMEIL system def. help...just like helps for any project at any stage.

Plus with autocad having for FREE DwgTrue Convert and DwgTrue View...everyone
even ones without cad can view and print drawings no prob. (esdad71 def. download those programs for your use for work and home ...hope it helps)

Just an idea.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by esdad71

You are using a picture to explain away the use of thermite, yes, I am laughing. Can you please explain how weeks after the thermite was still burning. Now, if you are talking about a thermite 'reaction' caused by the iron oxide released from the heated steel that remained under the collapse you may have something, but they are 2 different things. You are trying to say thermite bought it down, right?

I suggest you read this thread. It was started as a debunk of thermite but actually answers some questions that we (CTers) couldn't answer before. For one, how could the thermite burn for weeks. Answer, it can't, but steel at high temperatures can oxidize, heating the steel as it does. This might explain how the thermite was used but the steel continued to oxidize for weeks with the thermite expended.

BTW, natural thermite reactions are almost impossible I think.

[edit on 8/25/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by svenglezz
Ok got' an idea......

Between "esdad71" and I we got over 40years experience in CAD ( I started in 1984 age 15)....so why don't we draw our own model....i would def. dev. time to this...I now people have made "plan" views but now with Autocad 2007 (omg the 3D so good now...prob. my mom could do...esp with 3D grip or funny name "HOT" grips)

But realy why not have a web site or ftp that have the DWG's of the structure we can
work on and anyone have time can contribute to the drawings?????
We can use my ASMEIL system def. help...just like helps for any project at any stage.

Plus with autocad having for FREE DwgTrue Convert and DwgTrue View...everyone
even ones without cad can view and print drawings no prob. (esdad71 def. download those programs for your use for work and home ...hope it helps)

Just an idea.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

This idea would be great. I could assist in some CAD work (not the 3D rendering though). The only thing wrong with this idea is that the construction documents aren't anywhere to be found. We can only go by what NIST and others have put out, but for some reason, even in the NIST report, they aren't completely clear of dimensions etc. It would be a complete waste of time until the construction documents are put back in the public view.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by esdad71
Aware and agree are two different things,

Yes, and you said them both...

Originally posted by esdad71
Second, I have read the entire Jones article, and I am well aware
of the facts that he presents. However, I do not agree and you
do. It is a difference of belief.

Originally posted by esdad71
don't get into a pissing contest about sentence structure or spelling, becasue that shows you are reaching.

I have been trained with professional interrogation techniques, and just by listening to the words you use, the way you express your thoughts, and how you structure you sentences, I can learn a lot about your personality. I am trying to figure out exactly who you think you are, and why you believe the official story of 9-11. I have come to the conclusion that you are LOST, and the only reason you stick to the official story is because you are too afraid to think the US government could do such a thing. No matter what evidence is provided to you, you will stick with the official story because you are either a scared old patriot, disinformation agent, or you some how are affiliated with the whole cover up. I'm not reaching, just practicing one of many ways to break someone down, and peak into their minds.

Originally posted by esdad71
I went to college in Florida and did graduate work in NY and FL.

What college did you go to? Does that mean you do not have a degree in civil or environmental engineering?

Originally posted by esdad71
You are using a picture to explain away the use of thermite, yes, I am laughing. Can you please explain how weeks after the thermite was still burning.

First off, in previous posts, I didn't say WEEKS, I said DAYS. Although, Controlled Demolition Incorporated, the company assigned to clean up the WTC, has said on film with their own mouth that as they were digging to the bottom of the debris, the debris were getting hotter and hotter more towards the bottom. This was a few weeks after the collapse. And on film, they were pulling out pieces of metal that were still red hot, and dripping molten metal. It is possible with the right amount of thermite/thermate and the correct mixture of ingredients, you can make thermite/thermate burn for a long period of time. Even more so, if it is surrounded by other burning hot debris from the initial fires.

Originally posted by esdad71
See, I feel like the questions are to trip me up which is why in other posts I never mentioned my background. I am not claiming to be an expert, or in the filed currently, but I have studied it. This give me insight as to how it may have occurred.

Why did you say the following quote then?

Originally posted by esdad71
Look, this is the first time I have said this in as many time as I have posted, but I have been involved in the engineering and architecture industry since I was in high school. I was using CAD in 86 at age 13, and designed my first home at 19. I then moved onto commercial structure and development, so I am well aware of how things are designed(blueprints), created (modeling)and what it takes for a project(building). I just never wanted to openly say it here because I did not want to be marked as a 'wanna be expert' like they try to tear apart Howard. I am familiar with a lot of the things we talk about with this case.

I think you are really exaggerating your knowledge in the structural engineering field. Just because you can make shapes with AutoCAD, doesn't mean you can design a structurally solid building. If you don't have a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering, you pretty much don't have any more knowledge than the average Google search.

How can you be familiar with how heat from fire reacts to the structure beams under stress, and tension? How can you be familiar with the changes in the stress and tension on a structure beam, when other beams fail? Most importantly, how on Earth can you say you have knowledge in the engineering field, and then say that a steel vertical structure can collapse so perfectly (referring to wtc7)?

WTC 7 "collapsed" like a wooden building only held together by tape. It did not "collapse" like a steel structure held together with rivets and welds. Steel buildings tilt and fall like trees being cut down. They do not naturally sink into the ground from the bottom, unless they are professionally demolished.

Originally posted by esdad71
I still do not believe they actually fell, but I have tried to understand within the bounds of the evidence that we have been given, and I feel there is no sufficient proof of demolition and I choose a theory that some do not go along with. That is what I must bear.

The following pictures are hard evidence that WTC 7 was demolished, this isn't "Professor Jones' evidence", this is 10000+ or more peoples evidence. I'm not giving in to anyone's beliefs, this is just so common sense that many people have thought of the same thing from different parts of the globe.

WTC info from NIST

Compared to a REAL controlled demo.

Originally posted by esdad71
However, it was not designed to withstand column failure AND a fire that engulfed multiple floors. Design is generally to give enough time for occupants to escape, and I believe now that is only 2 hours.

You are a joke. No structural engineer would ever design a building without the thought of a column failure AND a fire. The designer himself said that he and his partner designed the WTC to withstand earthquakes, fires, a Boeing 707 crash, and storms. No engineer on the face of the planet will ever design a building that cannot stand with multiple column failure. That is simply unheard of.



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

This is why I never mentioned the courses I studied in school. I studied structural engineering and architecture but did not recieve a degree in that field. I decided to take another route in life. However, people can retain the knowledge of what they study. I have not stated that I am an expert, only I have knowledge of the field itself and know people in the industry.

You have been trained in interrogation techniques so you feel you can psychoanalyze me and state that I am in denial. How do you friends in the service feel about you serving a country you do not trust or beleive in? Can you tell us what unit you are/were in or is it top secret? An old scared patriot huh, no, actually a young patriot who does beleive in his country who may be a disinfo agent or maybe just someone who does not mind reading some books and researching things that are interesting to him or maybe i am a 10 year old kid using his Dad's account. Tell me, what can you derive from that? Tyring to break me down, man, I got to laugh again.

I graduated from college in Florida, and did graduate studies there and in NY. That is all you need to know. I mean, have you never met someone who changed a major, or had dual majors? This happens, and it happens quite often.

You didn't say weeks, the official story did. The fires burned for months. Of course it was smoldering and it was hot. It was like a metal compost pile if you think about it. It is rare for a natural thermite reaction, but it could have occured. This however does not prove use of thermite to bring the towers down.

Look into the code and what is required when creating a large superstructure. It has been changed post 9/11. A structure is designed so in case of catastrophic fire or such, that the occupants will have enough time to get out. I all publications I have read, it is generally 2 hours as a guidline to make sure the structure can survive. Fireproofing is a large part of this, and that is why the new WTC 7 building is actually built better than code so something like the collapse on 9/11 does not happen again. When the WTC was built, it did not need to adhere to code in this day and age would have never been approved to be built. Changes were implemented after the bombing in 93 for safer exit.

ALso, The designer never made that statement, it was a WTC worker, and he stated it months prior to 9/11 in an interview that it could withstand a strike from a plane. His name was Frank DeMartini, and he died on 9/11. You can read how he called the PA and FDNY to tell them to evacuate everyone becuase the floors are collapsing in the book 102 minutes.

www.freepressinternational.com...

There is the interview.

Let me ask you a question LAES YVAN, where do you get the background to assert the claims that you do and to tell me that i am not correct in my beliefs?
Remember, Einstien was a patent clerk so the job does not make the man, the man does.

Hey Esdad, I suppose World Trade Center 5 and 6 were built up to spec as their fires were more raging than World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 and they managed to have their steel endure it.

WTC 5 and 6 were much smaller buildings that garnered much of their damage from debris. Please note the FEMA report for some more information if you would like too. Read 4.2.2, and this might give you some insight as to the fire damage.

Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 5 and 6 were much smaller buildings that garnered much of their damage from debris.

That's the whole point. They also suffered massive fires, moreso than WTC7 at least.

Smaller buildings are built less redundantly. They had thinner columns, too. So why didn't they collapse? Severe debris damage, severe fires. Steel buildings. Only suffered very localized collapses. Hm.





[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Considering how bad their fires were and how they were engulfed in flames Edad, and only some beams were twisted and weakened, it tells of story of the durability of the steel, look at the rest of the buildings the photos as well. You have debris damage and you can see the fire damage, how much does the steel look like it contorted and "buckled", resulting in some sort of collapses.

Did you read the report? Stop looking at pictures and read something for a change. It references 2 other buildings that susteained the same type of damage from fire alone, without impact of debris and mulitple floor failure in parts. Are you bringing them into this discussion about "controlled demolitions"?

I read 4.2.2.

But do you discredit pictures completely? If the fires completely engulfed World Trade Centers 5 and 6, why not major fire damage to the facades i.e. heavy warping.

I'm not saying the building DIDN'T SUSTAIN any damage from fires in the like of twisted steel and such but what's it to say of the facades?

4.3.1.

The debris from the towers caused damage to the outside wall steel framing of WTC 5, but this damage did not cause any additional collapse of the floors. In fact, the steel pipe facade supports (mullions) provided structural redundancy to the floor framing and redistributed some portion of the cantilevered floors to other levels.

As illustrated in Figure 4-17, there was local buckling of interior columns. This buckling was most likely due to a combination of fire-induced reductions in strength and a possible increase in stress due to restrained thermal expansion. A detailed explanation of these issues is presented in Appendix A, Section A.3.1.4.

But the building didn't manage to collapse due to weakened steel correct? See the point here is the REDUNDANCY of the steel, was it good at doing its job or not? Then apply it to the stance of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, but not as severe.

So with building harnessing less redundancy than that of both World Trade Centers 1 and 2, how did World Trade Centers 1 and 2 manage to collapse so quickly, especially with the case for World Trade Center 2.

If you want to bring the aircraft damage into the equation, that was just localized damage, just as World Trade Centers 5 and 6 experienced localized collapses and damage but they withstood the fire and you see the buildings still standing.

[edit on 8/25/2006 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by esdad71
Did you read the report? Stop looking at pictures and read something for a change. It references 2 other buildings that susteained the same type of damage from fire alone, without impact of debris and mulitple floor failure in parts. Are you bringing them into this discussion about "controlled demolitions"?

You can if you want, because the point is that fires will only result in localized collapses. This will always be illustrated. The low-rises in the WTC, again, had much smaller columns, and were no doubt less redundant in regards to the loads they carried. Do you understand what this means?

Skyscrapers are not houses of cards. Even low-rises are not houses of cards. They are built very strong in proportion to how much they weigh.

Thansk for the explanation bray, I do understand, and to be honest, I have not looked to much into the WTC 5 and 6. I know what I have read, but not really reasearched it to deep. The comparison to the twin towers is understandable, but they were 10x the size, and not L shaped. I read a book about the complex itself and its history but I do not recall the name. It was kind of boring but the facts about the invlovement of the Rockefellers is cool.


side note- I in no way believe that the steel in the WTC 1 and 2 melted to cause the collapse. The collapse was not dut to melting, but weakening.

It's alright, I think it's safe to assume no one had those thoughts in this thread in the first place that it was a result of melted steel but looking at the melted steel found in the basements of World Trade Centers 1 2 and 7 and as they all looked to of been controlled demolitions, it raises suspicion.