It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why was there no rescue helicopters?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Yep. A bulldozer, or other equipment, could have been used to clear — if even necessary — a landing site for helicopters on the WTC towers. That’s exactly what this here clown — me — is saying....... This is a possible example of where ‘ideology’ (or agenda?) gets in the way of a person’s thinking.


You're suggesting that the fact that no one dropped a bulldozer on top of the WTC to "clear debris" is solid reasoning to support a conspiracy!?

But you can just write off the fact that the rescue pilots on that day are saying it was impossible to even land on the roof. And if you watch that video you can see how utterly choked with smoke they were.

Just because some theory brought forth to "support" a conspiracy doesn't hold water doesn't mean that no conspiracy happened that day. There could still have been "bombs in the building". This theory just doesn't hold water. And it's blatantly obvious.

Who's the one that's ideology is getting in the way of their thinking?



I’m not sure if “captain drew” is for real or not. But if he is, then he is a prime example of a how easily people are manipulated. Having “tens of thousands of flight hours” he still insists anybody could have flown those 9-11 planes. And do what those “monsters” did (to us). I’m certain John Lear would disagree.


Because John Lear disagrees anyone else must be wrong? Who's the one being manipulated?




posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PistolPete
 


Look, I mentioned John Lear’s name because A) he is someone everyone here on ATS is familiar with and B) because he has never, ever said anything but smart things about aviation topics.
Captain Drew says it would have been child’s play to fly those planes into the WTC’s. And that statement’s a big red flag. Either he’s not what he says he is (an experienced aviator), or he’s lost his marbles, or he’s under the influence of an agenda/ideology. The pick is yours.

I mentioned dropping a “bulldozer” on the twin tower rooftops as an example of what extremes we might have gone through to rescue lives on 9-11 had it been a real terrorist ‘attack’. No one tried anything. That’s a fact. There were no rooftop rescue attempts. At the very least, in a not-purposely-self-inflicted crisis we would have dropped commandos on the roofs to bust open the doors. If anything just to allow official personnel to assess the situation as directly as possible, to explore all options to save lives. Nothing was done. And that’s not normal. That’s not American. We always try (to save people). It’s our IDEOLOGY.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Let me break this down
BIG plane hit tall building.
Caused massive structural damage.
Fire additional weakened structure.
Building collapsed.

WTC conspiracies are as bad as the flat earth and moon landing conspiracies .


No conspiracy just facts.

The NIST, FEMA and 911 commission reports all state the the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

NIST and FEMA, and fire chiefs reports also state the fires did not get enough or burn long enough to weaken the steel needed to cause collapse.

As for the moon landing, we have lots of real evidence of the moon landing. We do not have very much real evidence about what happened on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

The NIST, FEMA and 911 commission reports all state the the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

You're making an assumption here. Yes, the buildings did not fall down the second the planes hit BUT, the planes and fires caused massive, terminal structural failure. You need to understand the heat can and does weaken steel, stress weakens steel and so does time.



NIST and FEMA, and fire chiefs reports also state the fires did not get enough or burn long enough to weaken the steel needed to cause collapse.


I'm not sure what the exact quote that gave you this information but YES the fire could have easily been hot enough for long enough to weaken the steel. If you don't believe me, you can google this information fairly easily..

I think 9/11 was a tragedy but not a conspiracy. Our government dropped th e ball because they didn't think it could happen. We as citizens didn't think it could happen either so it's no surprise they thought the same thing.

I haven't seen any evidence regarding a conspiracy that has not been debunked.

SORRY.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

It is not my intent to insult anyone in our armed forces. My grandfather’s brother was a medic at Omaha beach on D-day. But I have a real problem with us going after (killing) people who didn’t do anything. If 9-11 is false flag event, then WE are the monsters!


I agree that killing innocent people is wrong.

I am tired of hearing the term "False Flag" thrown around as it is a meaningless, made up, conspiracy term designed to make someones "OPINION" sound more official.


Someone had brought up the fact that the only reason helicopter pilots didn't try to rescue people is because they were ordered not to do so.
OK here are a few questions
1. Have any of them come forward (civilian, local authorities, military, etc.) to state this? If not what you are saying is just speculation.
2. If pilots WERE ordered not to attempt rescues because the government did it then, why did all those police, fire & rescue, etc... personnel attempt rescues?? That would be a MASSIVE contradiction to your hypothesis.

I'm really not sure why captain_drews voice of reason is being either ignored or insulted. Keep in mind everything he is telling you can be substantiated. If you don't believe him, look for yourself.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[I'm not sure what the exact quote that gave you this information but YES the fire could have easily been hot enough for long enough to weaken the steel. If you don't believe me, you can google this information fairly easily..

I think 9/11 was a tragedy but not a conspiracy. Our government dropped th e ball because they didn't think it could happen. We as citizens didn't think it could happen either so it's no surprise they thought the same thing.


NIST report that states the fires were did not last long enough or were hot enough to cause collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.


If the government dropped the ball why wasno one fired? The people at NORAD involved were given promotions and medals even though they let 4 hijacked planes fly around for over an hour without being escorted.

Also NORAD should have never let a plane fly near or into restricted airspace.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
maybe I missed something. Where in the report does it say that the fire temperature was not hot enough to weaken steel?


Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



If the government dropped the ball why wasno one fired? The people at NORAD involved were given promotions and medals even though they let 4 hijacked planes fly around for over an hour without being escorted.

Unfortunately, this happens alot in government.


Also NORAD should have never let a plane fly near or into restricted airspace.

Planes fly into restricted airspace all the time.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
maybe I missed something. Where in the report does it say that the fire temperature was not hot enough to weaken steel?

Unfortunately, this happens alot in government.

[Planes fly into restricted airspace all the time.



1. You missed quit a lot of things in the report that stated the fires were not hot enough to weaken the amount of steel needed for the builidngs to collapse.

A. " Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector "

B. " These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time. "

C. " Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers. "


2. Proffessional gruops like NORAD do not dorp the ball often, if ever.


3. Hijacked planes do not fly into restricted airspace all the time.



[edit on 22-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
again, where does it say that the fire was not hot enough to WEAKEN steel?

When the plane flew into restricted air space, did NORAD know it had been hijacked?

Show me evidence that NORAD hasn't made mistakes please.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
again, where does it say that the fire was not hot enough to WEAKEN steel?

When the plane flew into restricted air space, did NORAD know it had been hijacked?

Show me evidence that NORAD hasn't made mistakes please.



1. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

2. No evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

3. limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

Yes, NORAD had known that Flight 77 was hijacked when it flew into restricted airspace.

Show me anytime before 9/11 that NORAD let a hijacked aircraft fly around unescorted.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Also,
What would you expect NORAD to do regarding the hijacked flight?



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.

Also,
What would you expect NORAD to do regarding the hijacked flight?




www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things



NORAD should have done what they have always done, that it escort planes that lose contact or are thought to be hijacked.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by ULTIMA1] extra DIV



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things


Were these buildings also struck by a 767 flying at close to the speed of sound? Was the ignition source jet fuel in any of these buildings?


NORAD should have done what they have always done, that it escort planes that lose contact or are thought to be hijacked.



On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The above news article may answer your questions regarding NORAD'S response.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
also, please review this article


In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Were these buildings also struck by a 767 flying at close to the speed of sound? Was the ignition source jet fuel in any of these buildings?



Why does it matter? The towers withstood the impacts of the planes. The majority of the jet fuel burned off outside the building causing no structural damage. The jet fuel that was left burnt off quickly so you basically had a normal office fire in the towers.

The builidngs in the site i posted burned a lot longer and had more structural damage then the towers and builidng 7 and still did not collapse.


www.cooperativeresearch.org...

NORAD gives the command to scramble fighters after Flight 11 after receiving Boston’s call (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; Filson, 2004, pp. 56; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Upon receiving this authorization from Larry Arnold, NEADS orders the scramble and then calls Canadian Captain Mike Jellinek at NORAD’s operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, in order to get NORAD commander in chief approval for it (see (8.46 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Yet, according to the 1st Air Force’s own book about 9/11, the “sector commander [at NEADS] would have authority to scramble the airplanes.” Military controllers at NEADS are only a hot line call away from the pilots on immediate alert. [Filson, 2004, pp. 50-52] Why NEADS calls the CONR headquarters at Tyndall, then NORAD’s Colorado operations center, to get authorization to launch fighters after Flight 11, is unclear.




[edit on 22-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Why does it matter? The towers withstood the impacts of the planes.


Obviously it matters alot. The impact caused alot of structural damage.
The fire heated and weakened the steel further until stress caused complete failure.
Fires continued to burn long after the jet fuel was burnt off. Steel weakens when heated.
Then the floors started collapsing on each other. The force of one floor collapsing onto the next caused the floors to pancake down on each other.

Did you read the NEWS articles I posted? They also explained your questions.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

NORAD gives the command to scramble fighters after Flight 11 after receiving Boston’s call (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; Filson, 2004, pp. 56; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Upon receiving this authorization from Larry Arnold, NEADS orders the scramble and then calls Canadian Captain Mike Jellinek at NORAD’s operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, in order to get NORAD commander in chief approval for it (see (8.46 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Yet, according to the 1st Air Force’s own book about 9/11, the “sector commander [at NEADS] would have authority to scramble the airplanes.” Military controllers at NEADS are only a hot line call away from the pilots on immediate alert. [Filson, 2004, pp. 50-52] Why NEADS calls the CONR headquarters at Tyndall, then NORAD’s Colorado operations center, to get authorization to launch fighters after Flight 11, is unclear.


Assuming this is true, as it says... its unclear. So what? somebody F'ed up.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Obviously it matters alot. The impact caused alot of structural damage.
The fire heated and weakened the steel further until stress caused complete failure.
Fires continued to burn long after the jet fuel was burnt off. Steel weakens when heated.
Then the floors started collapsing on each other. The force of one floor collapsing onto the next caused the floors to pancake down on each other.

Did you read the NEWS articles I posted? They also explained your questions.


I guess you have seen the latest video from Purdue that shows the ALUMINUM airframe being shreded by the steel beams causing little structural damage. Remember the plane that hit the South tower went through the side of the builidng at an angle causing little structural damage to the interior core.

Fires may have kept burning for a little longer but was not hot enough or burn long enough to cause enough steel to weaken.

The latest NIST report also has changed to state their was no pancake of the floors.


irvingshapiro.tripod.com...

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT

CHIEFS OF STAFF

INSTRUCTION

Enclosure A

A-2

c. Military Escort Aircraft

(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in

conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,

NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to

determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the

Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15,

paragraph D.7 (reference d).

(2) Pursuant to reference j, the escort service will be requested by

the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the NMCC. Normally,

NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the

purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any

military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can

provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator of

the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort

aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and

the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will

coordinate through the appropriate Air Defense Sector/Regional Air

Operations Center.

The FAA has a detailed hijacking manual: Supervisors are notified. The FAA command center near Washington and the FBI are put on alert. Military jets are scrambled to follow the plane. Air-traffic controllers try to figure out where the hijacker wants to go and, if necessary, clear an air space of other traffic.

If it fails, an emergency is declared and all air space in the area is secured. In the course of such an emergency, procedures are followed to determine whether the airplane was hijacked or out of control. Because the time factor is so crucial, these emergency procedures are well defined and exercised, to be implemented as rapidly as possible. In certain emergencies, especially hijacking, US military resources are drawn on as a matter of routine.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Here are some facts:


On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So until ATC called NORAD, they didn't know there were hijackings.

So, why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights?

When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
Here's a simulation showing the damage the jet caused.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
Here's a simulation showing the damage the jet caused.


Remember the plane the hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building. Also the aluminum airframe is shreded by the steel not causing a lot of damage.

Also NIST report states building withstood the planes impacts.

www.nist.gov...

Factors that Enhanced Building Structural Performance on Sept. 11, 2001

The unusually dense spacing of perimeter columns, coupled with deep spandrels, that was an inherent part of both the architectural and structural design of the exterior walls, resulted in a robust building that was able to redistribute loads from severed perimeter columns to adjacent intact columns.

The wind loads used for the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, which governed the design of the perimeter frame-tube system, significantly exceeded the prescriptive requirements of the New York City building code and selected other building codes of the era (Chicago, New York State), including the relevant national model building code (BOCA).

The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.

The composite floor system with open-web bar joist elements, framed to provide two-way flat plate action, enabled the floors to redistribute loads without collapse from places of aircraft impact damage to other locations, avoiding larger scale collapse upon impact.

The hat truss resisted the significant weakening of the core, due to aircraft impact damage and subsequent thermal effects, by redistributing loads from the damaged core columns to adjacent intact columns and, ultimately, by redistributing loads to the perimeter walls from the thermally weakened core columns that lost their ability to support the buildings’ weight.


NIST report stating planes impact did not cause collapse.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join