Fire Could Easily Have Been Cause of WTC Collapse

I just wanted to let you guys know that I spoke with the lady at BFD and the Captain I've been waiting to talk to has been teaching a training course this week. She said she expected he would call me Monday. If I don't hear from him Monday, I'll try again. I think it is important to get the times down on this, just to make sure we have all the information.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You shouldn't talk about "basic engineering". Pick up a structural engineering textbook some time and thumb through it. You know what you're going to see? A lot of statics, columns at different angles, their sines, cosines, etc., and in different configurations.

Nowhere will you find anything on how to analyze a dynamic environment like a collapsing building. This isn't something a structural engineer would have expertise on. All the theoretical collapse models that have been presented are speculative and have not been backed up by any actual mathematics or testing or modeling or anything else, especially from structural engineers, because, again, this isn't their relevant field.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Are you telling us that structural engineers design steel frame structures w/o a thorough understanding of how they must be constructed to in order not to fail?

That they don't consider and design for
a) live loads from occupancy, wind, precipitation?
b) effects of earthquake?
c) the effects of partial structural failure due to:
1) metal fatigue?
2) fire?
3) corrosion?
4) negligence during construction?
5) bolt/weld failure?
6) unusual sheer force?
7) unusual tension?
8) unusual torsion?

Be careful sir, you don't know whom you're addressing behind the annonymity of the internet.

And if a structural engineer can't understand and explain the structural failure of a steel and concrete structure, who can? And who shall we rely on to vet these speculative models that in your words.... "can't be backed up by mathematics, or testing, or....models"? Internet bloggers?

If the Loizeaux's can bring down a building exactly the way they want, I'd say it's a good bet the guys who designed and built the building can grasp the same concepts

[edit on 11/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 11/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 11/10/2006 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Are you telling us that structural engineers design steel frame structures w/o a thorough understanding of how they must be constructed to in order not to fail?

That they don't consider and design for
a) live loads from occupancy, wind, precipitation?
b) effects of earthquake?
c) the effects of partial structural failure due to:
1) metal fatigue?
2) fire?
3) corrosion?
4) negligence during construction?
5) bolt/weld failure?
6) unusual sheer force?
7) unusual tension?
8) unusual torsion?

Be careful sir, you don't know whom you're addressing behind the annonymity of the internet.

And if a structural engineer can't understand and explain the structural failure of a steel and concrete structure, who can? And who shall we rely on to vet these speculative models that in your words.... "can't be backed up by mathematics, or testing, or....models"? Internet bloggers?

If the Loizeaux's can bring down a building exactly the way they want, I'd say it's a good bet the they guys who designed and built the building can grasp the same concepts

Straight out answer. No. All that can be done is to learn from past failures and to try to incorporate that into new designs.

Has anybody seen the interview with the Loizeaux's where they state that they don't believe that they could have dropped the towers like what happened on 9-11. The Discovery Channel had an interview with them a few years ago about this. I believe it was part of their Blastmaster's series.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Are you telling us that structural engineers design steel frame structures w/o a thorough understanding of how they must be constructed to in order not to fail?

You can design a structure not to fail/to resist those items without having to come up with a bunch of vector sums on where this beam should go if pulled in this direction by this amount of force, or what chemical reactions are taking place to produce this corrosion and under what circumstances exactly this reaction is encouraged or hindered, etc.

They build structures to stand safely, yes, but they can't tell you how they would fall in any given circumstance. If they can, then they're not relying on structural engineering experience in general, but experience with dynamic structural systems or general physics or etc.

And if a structural engineer can't understand and explain the structural failure of a steel and concrete structure, who can? And who shall we rely on to vet these speculative models that in your words.... "can't be backed up by mathematics, or testing, or....models"? Internet bloggers?

There are are no models or etc. that establish the "official story" here, as provided by NIST and the others. NIST has all the info that's needed but won't release it (ie structural drawings).

Who could do it? There's a structural dynamicist with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Without knowing his exact profession, the title suggests there exists a field in which structural engineering professionally incorporates a lot of movement. Physicists, and maybe mechanical engineers, or whoever can present the relevant info (not as though anyone's ability to do this rests solely upon their license or degree or lack thereof, you know).

If the Loizeaux's can bring down a building exactly the way they want, I'd say it's a good bet the guys who designed and built the building can grasp the same concepts

Then why aren't structural engineers and demolition engineers interchangeable positions?

[edit on 10-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Bsbray

Us structural engineers have already told you how the buildings collapsed, and we can tell you exactly how they would collapse given any criteria.

But you will never believe what any respected structural engineer has to say to you. You've already made up your mind.

Im wondering how much math and analysis would it take to convinve you that the collapse was not caused by explosives?

Train

You have voted JIMC5499 for the Way Above Top Secret award.

I read all 6 pages of the posts on this thread and there were several GREAT points on both sides. However somone HAS to be wrong. I have been looking into 911 CT's since the POD people. The burden of proof has to be from the accuser, and I have seen mostly specualtion. When a resonable explanation is given as to what something could be, someone is there to say "NO WAY". For instance, the molten steel "pouring" out of the window. If this was steel...what caused it to melt? A heck of alot of explosives! How did those planting those charges know exactly where the plane was going to hit? I dont claim to be an engineer, or that of superior intelligence, but come on. MIT professors have agreed with the NIST findings. Are they in on it too?


Does anyone realize the AMOUNT of people involved here for a cover up? Lets start with the Bush Administration....The NIST, USA Today Staff, other media,MIT Professors, the entire 911 commision, controlled demolition experts..etc...etc... Bill Clinton couldn't get a little oral without someone telling on him. Thousands would have to have planned this. Not ONE whistle blower? Hey ..maybe im wrong.

My belief however is that the Bush Administration was aware of what was going to happen. This is based on the only questions I want answers for:

1. Why did GW wait over 400 days to investigate?
2. Why was Kissinger assigned to chair the 911 Commision?Then resign after beign questioned by the Jersey 4
3. Why did Bush refuse to be questioned unless Cheney was present?
4. Why was the budget for the 911 Commission so small? 3 million$ original budget compared to a 50 million dollar budget for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.
(Bush gave this 50 million less than a month after the Shuttle exploded.)

CameronFox...

In all honesty... I seriously hope you are joking. For the love of god:

A) Thanks for throwing this topic completely "off-topic"
B) I expect to see responses in support of your "Amount of people it would of taken" comment by Howard etc to support you. AS well as critique of your comments about the molten material pouring out of window issue.


Don't.


[edit on 11/11/2006 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by BigTrain
Bsbray

Us structural engineers have already told you how the buildings collapsed, and we can tell you exactly how they would collapse given any criteria.

But you will never believe what any respected structural engineer has to say to you. You've already made up your mind.

Im wondering how much math and analysis would it take to convinve you that the collapse was not caused by explosives?

Train

Don't try to throw off the thread, these are already issues discussed at length.

Why do you keep asserting that you've established things already, and not actually presenting any actual substance? And don't say it's because I won't accept it. I'd also like to know where your expertise in analyzing building collapses comes from, or ANY dynamic physical systems like a building collapse.

Originally posted by CameronFox
When a resonable explanation is given as to what something could be, someone is there to say "NO WAY".

And usually this is followed by a reason.

For instance, the molten steel "pouring" out of the window. If this was steel...what caused it to melt? A heck of alot of explosives!

Or thermite. It produces molten iron, is very quiet, and doesn't produce explosive visuals as it works.

How did those planting those charges know exactly where the plane was going to hit? I dont claim to be an engineer, or that of superior intelligence, but come on.

They use modern electronics systems, and it would not be hard at all. You just rig a section of floors and have them all "wired" up (which doesn't mean there would have to be wires coming out, going down the halls, etc.; remote controls exist for these things just like they exist for your TV set).

When you're ready to collapse a building, you initiate the collapse from whatever floor you'd like, because it's a computer that's sending the signals to each device or set of devices to tell it to go off in any given intervals of time. If you've seen any modern demolition by companies like CDI, you'll realize that an actual person hitting a button for each explosive in the right order and at the right time becomes an impossibility. Instead, it could be as easy as plugging in a floor number and hitting "Enter" or whatever button is equivalent, and letting a computer do the work for you, with a degree of exactness that people can't match manually.

MIT professors have agreed with the NIST findings. Are they in on it too?

A MIT professor also came out after 9/11, agreeing with the then-mainstream that the columns were actually melted by the fires. How much do these guys actually know what they're talking about, or how much are they actually interested in an objective investigation? Btw, engineering departments are federally funded, and funding CAN be pulled.

Does anyone realize the AMOUNT of people involved here for a cover up? Lets start with the Bush Administration....The NIST, USA Today Staff, other media,MIT Professors, the entire 911 commision, controlled demolition experts..etc...etc... Bill Clinton couldn't get a little oral without someone telling on him. Thousands would have to have planned this. Not ONE whistle blower? Hey ..maybe im wrong.

What's wrong with this is you get to pick and choose who you think would have had to have been in on it without properly justifying why.

NIST is a large organization. The whole institution's personnel were not employed for the WTC Reports. Only some of them. And out of those, how many are actually doing the research, and how many are modeling, or collecting information, Autocad, secretary-type work, etc.? It wouldn't be efficient to be getting analytical input from a whole division or etc. when you could just the same have a small handful of people. And finally, the NIST director had complete control over the investigation, with power awarded him by Congress to pick and choose who he wanted to do whatever was needed. Really, I don't think more than a few people at NIST would have had to have known a damned thing.

USA Today Staff, I don't even understand what makes you think they would've had to have been in on it.

If you watch the documentary "Outfoxed", you'll get an idea as to how major media can be directed fairly easily by the guys who actually run it. Unless somebody goes media-Rambo with a death-wish for their career, the anchors follow memos and etc. issued on which stories should be covered and in what light (which is what the documentary Outfoxed shows of FOX News, among other things).

And these media corporations, not surprisingly, are often owned by other corporations that cause huge conflicts of interest to be presented, like General Electric owning a large portion of major media outlets, and also producing arms for our military and making tons of money from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They may not care if people don't like the wars, but don't think they wouldn't use a little psychology to keep enough people in approval of what's going on. Noam Chomsky, even if unreliable on other topics, is a brilliant analyst of the major media, and he has several books out that detail how closely major media follows in-step with America's foreign policy psychologically. They set up 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' viewpoints, but there is no room between them for major dissent on the major issues, like no criticisms of the "War on Terror" in general, but just bickering on how it should be carried out.

Entire 9/11 Commission? Some of them might have had some idea, but not one of them would have to be briefed on a damned thing, and I think at least one is either writing a book now or has already written one on corruption experienced while on the commission.

You could go on, naming organizations like FEMA and NORAD, but those two organizations were subject to terrorism drills / wargames that got them into useful positions without having to brief anyone. For example, FEMA was stationed in Manhattan on Sept. 10 for TRIPOD II, and so the only person that would've had to have been "in on it" there was whoever ordered the drill take place then and there in the first place. Same with NORAD, which was too confused and tied up with wargames to be of much use on 9/11, thus eliminating a lot of other people that might've otherwise had to have been "in on it".

Really, it would not have taken THAT many people. Even the people that were involved would not necessarily have to be fully briefed, as it would be totally asinine to tell a guy EVERYTHING when his job is only some sort of damage control or etc. In fact, you could just lie to someone to get what you want from them, and they would never have to know a damned thing.

If some of you guys were in charge of this operation though, then I wouldn't doubt a lot of people would know about it and leak it, because you apparently don't understand how to head-off leaks like that in the first place. But from the above maybe you can begin to get a vague idea, right? And either way, you're making a LOT of assumptions in the first place to even claim that all of those people would have had to have been involved.

The towers did not collaps of fire, people who say so just blindly ignore all the explotions heard and caught on tape inside he building at the buttom etc. this makes bit kinda hopeless for you people.

Every expert and structural engineer OUTSIDE of the official news media interview (which is a manipualtion source) says it's impossible the twin towers could collaps of the fires. Demolition people OUTSIDE of the offical news media interview says it was controll demolitioned seens it could not collaps without it. Do you really think something so massive structualy dence ass the twin towers could collaps like powder right into the ground?

It was a big coverup, ALL of it. They controll the media, if you believe the media your under ther controll, but you think that is impossible now don't ye.. christ.

I'm very glad some people have woken up. But many others haven't.

[edit on 11-11-2006 by InSaneTK]

Originally posted by InSaneTK

Every expert and structural engineer OUTSIDE of the official news media interview (which is a manipulation source) says it's impossible the twin towers could collapse of(from -bb) the fires. Demolition people OUTSIDE of the offical news media interview says it was controlled demolition seems(feel/think - bb) it could not collapse without it. Do you really think something so massive structually dense as the twin towers could collapse like powder right into the ground?

It was a big coverup, ALL of it. They control the media, if you believe the media your under ther control, but you think that is impossible now don't ye.. christ.

hey, insanetk. i hope you don't mind i cleared up some grammar stuff when i quoted your post. i suspect english isn't your first language.

anyway, sweeping statements like 'EVERY ENGINEER OUTSIDE MEDIA INFLUENCE', and 'DEMOLITION PEOPLE' need to be referenced in this heated debate.

otherwise, i agree. there most certainly are demolitionists and structural engineers right here on ATS who don't buy the official crap. griff is a strucutral engineer. the banned member, 'mcmerdin' was, too. insolubrious(name right?), is a bomb guy. the highly referenced finnish military expert believes a NUKE was used(and frankly, i don't doubt it, either, despite stephen jones' current opinion on the matter). valhall is an engineer. bsbray and wecomeinpeace certainly know their stuff, and could easily become engineers. gordon ross is a mechanical engineer. judy woods is a mechanical engineer. all these engineers don't buy the official CRAP.

but, watch out for making sweeping statements, unless they are so far out they can be neither proven nor disproven, and then, (it's wise to) state it as opinion.

do you have any specific links to demolitionists or structural engineers who question the official story? they are a big stick in the info war.

and, big train, 'plaguepuppy''s jeff king is from MIT. he is a major force in uncovering the lies of 911.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by InSaneTK

Every expert and structural engineer OUTSIDE of the official news media interview (which is a manipulation source) says it's impossible the twin towers could collapse of(from -bb) the fires. Demolition people OUTSIDE of the offical news media interview says it was controlled demolition seems(feel/think - bb) it could not collapse without it. Do you really think something so massive structually dense as the twin towers could collapse like powder right into the ground?

It was a big coverup, ALL of it. They control the media, if you believe the media your under ther control, but you think that is impossible now don't ye.. christ.

hey, insanetk. i hope you don't mind i cleared up some grammar stuff when i quoted your post. i suspect english isn't your first language.

anyway, sweeping statements like 'EVERY ENGINEER OUTSIDE MEDIA INFLUENCE', and 'DEMOLITION PEOPLE' need to be referenced in this heated debate.

otherwise, i agree. there most certainly are demolitionists and structural engineers right here on ATS who don't buy the official crap. griff is a strucutral engineer. the banned member, 'mcmerdin' was, too. insolubrious(name right?), is a bomb guy. the highly referenced finnish military expert believes a NUKE was used(and frankly, i don't doubt it, either, despite stephen jones' current opinion on the matter). valhall is an engineer. bsbray and wecomeinpeace certainly know their stuff, and could easily become engineers. gordon ross is a mechanical engineer. judy woods is a mechanical engineer. all these engineers don't buy the official CRAP.

but, watch out for making sweeping statements, unless they are so far out they can be neither proven nor disproven, and then, (it's wise to) state it as opinion.

do you have any specific links to demolitionists or structural engineers who question the official story? they are a big stick in the info war.

and, big train, 'plaguepuppy''s jeff king is from MIT. he is a major force in uncovering the lies of 911.

I really don't want to digg up all the videos right now, the important thing is that non of them believe that the fire collapsed it. And i believe so too, I looked totaly unrealistic how the building call fall apart which has a so strong structural skeleton, the building was made to withstand anything, they where overengineered, reinforced. They where suppose to never fall! If other steal buildings in the world have been on fire for more then 20 hours without collapsing i will not accept the twin towers (which are a lot stronger then the other buildings) to collaps in just +1 hour.

Watch this video, it composes the event with audio from different location synced, and even radio synced. This will give you a clear picture of how stuff happend.

video.google.com...

This video is more important then loose change and it is VERY accurate.

Go to section 5.3 of this NIST document.

wtc.nist.gov...

should be page 133 of the pdf; numbered page 97 of the report.

There were 10,000 visco-elastic dampeners used in each tower. Study Figures 5-4 through 5-6 carefully.

The visco-elastic material (a 3M elastomer - basically rubber) used in these dampeners would not have held up to the fires on the upper floors. The floor trusses at the points of these dampeners are a flimsy design even with the dampeners intact, but when those two slabs of rubber melted away, leaving a combined gap height of almost an 1/8 of an inch, things would have really been in a bind at that point. Also, the entire dampener connection now is being torqued (think of the plate running between the two rubber slabs wanting to jack-up on it's end near the exterior columns) and that moment is being fought by nothing but two 1/4" bolts.

Could rubber have brought down the towers? hmmmm

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Except that a bridge is designed to allow for thermal expansion. Ever see those metal plates that go across the width of a bridge? Those are called expansion joints. Guess what their purpose is?

Yes, bridges have expansion joints. The problem is that the expansion joints are designed for regular temperatures. Not 2000F temperatures. Big difference.

Good point Valhall but I question this. Wouldn't ANY office fire in the towers have brought them down then?

Well, I guess any widespread fire that affected enough of the perimeter column floor connections could have caused at least a partial collapse if given the exposure time to melt the dampeners away.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I guess any widespread fire that affected enough of the perimeter column floor connections could have caused at least a partial collapse if given the exposure time to melt the dampeners away.

Bolded by me. All the bolded parts didn't happen on 9/11. I see where you are coming from but why would they design the dampeners with regular rubber knowing that this could happen?

Well, I think they did happen, Griff. I mean we'd have to agree (just based on the videos and photos) that the fires were fairly widespread (mainly because they had temporary fuel via jet fuel to spread them and then they could proceed on with other fuel). I'm not sure this can explain all the weirdness of how the towers collapsed that day, but in my mind this might be a manner in which at least partial floor collapses occurred.

I just think it's a factor we need to keep in mind.

As to your question about why they would do that, well, I have no answer for that. I guess they didn't design those connections with a fire in mind.

Originally posted by Valhall
I just think it's a factor we need to keep in mind.

I agree. I'm not trying to dispute this. I just had a few questions about it. It would be nice to see what the dampeners were actually made of. I can see fire alone collapsing a few floors or more myself. Again, I do agree that this could have happened.

I did a crude callculation of expansion and what the floors would have sagged. I came up with around 10 inches expansion if the steel got to 1000C. Again, this is very crude because the trusses were not one solid piece of steel. This would bow the floors around 37 or so inches at the middle....again just a crude calculation. I used a triangle for simplification instead of a curve.

[edit on 11/12/2006 by Griff]