posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:03 PM
impact and exit sides of the building, putting the building inside of the 50% redundancy for loading. We know the building handled this fine, as it
remained standing for 57 minutes.
Whilst parts of the floors were unsupported this shouldn't have been an issue as the structure was designed to reload in the event of multiple truss
* Fire. Assuming for a moment that there was no fire proof covering on the steel in the WTC, the fire was distributed such that the heat would be
concentrated under a small area of the floor. In addition, the central core couldn't be exposed to 3000 °F for 6 hours due to the fact that they are
aligned vertically, and present a small area to any fire that would occur next to them. If that isn't enough, the rest of the column would act as a
huge heat sink, so the steel columns making up the core couldn't get thoroughly heated up enough in order to melt in the first instance.
We know that after the initial fireball, very little fuel was left in the building. Of that, and the office fires that were started as a result, we
also know that they were starved of oxygen. Billowing black smoke is a sign of incomplete combustion and a cool burning fire (in this instance cool =
~800 °F - far short of the 3000 °F the steel was rated to).
The implication is that the steel simply couldn't have got hot enough for long enough, in order to weaken, and thus collapse due to the forces acting
THERE IS ALSO A FUNDAMENTAL OVERSIGHT HERE.
The vertical columns are under COMPRESSION, taking the loads.
The trusses supporting the floors, adn primarily under TENSION, as the outside walls attempt to bow outwards. The trusses attach the outer wall to the
core, preventing this from occurring. There is vertical loading on them, putting them under STRAIN (if memory serves correctly), but they will have
been pre-stressed for this. The majority of the load would be transferred to the core column, and the rest to the external columns.
What does this mean in the event of the steel weakening? In the case of the floor trusses, they would have a tendency to PUSH the columns OUTWARDS.
As they bow, the floor might shift a bit. NOTE THAT CONCRETE WILL NOT SAG! I'm not sure if it would break under its own weight into multiple
pieces???? Need a concrete expert here.
Assuming the floor "broke its back" as it is now only being supported at the edges (at the central core, and the outer wall), it will be resting on
the truss in the center. This will put the truss into TENSION, as well as STRAIN. At the same time, this will put the central core into STRAIN, as
well as the outer wall. Note that the structure was already designed to be put under this type of load. In a wind, these loads increase. On 9/11,
apart from an increased static loading due to missing exterior columns, and the fact that there was only a light wind, and as far as I can tell, the
building would still be inside of its design limits.
* Incremental truss failure. The first points of failure would have to be trusses. This is where any natural loading would have to come from. As
trusses fail, this puts the loading onto a smaller number of trusses, adn into more concentrated areas of the exterior and internal columns. There
will be a point of criticality where the exterior and/or interior columns can not take the load, The exterior wall will start to pull inwards, whilst
the core pulls outwards, then across its lattice structure, against the opposite trusses, and against the opposite wall.
If the opposite trusses have failed however, this is going to produce unequal loads on the core. It might even result in a slight twisting action at
that point in the structure.
If we assume the trusses are still failing, we require a Super Truss to remain intact, or multiple trusses to fail simultaneously, with the weight of
the floor on them, in order to pull in the external columns sufficiently to cause a collapse due to failure. As this can't happen simultaneously
naturally, there will be an instant tilt as a result of partial failure. At this exact moment, kinetic energy will be added to the system, resulting
in eventual failure of the trusses ON THAT SIDE. The killer blow to the Official Story is that the core can't bend easily. Assuming at this moment,
on one side (as was witnessed in the videos) the exterior wall collapses, it will break the trusses on that side. The floor won't have anything to
support it, and that part of the floor will break off with a rotational action. This can be seen in the first 1 second of the collapse of the North
Tower. The KE will build up, and it will fall.
As it falls, it will contact the floors below it. Now remembering for a moment that the central core won't have collapsed in totality or at the same
time, the floors below will still be intact. This will have the effect of causing the falling floor to hit it, bend it downwards suddenly and thus
cause a failure of that floor. It will likely break off at the central core again due to the design of the core and the fact that it is this lattice.
As it does so, it will deflect the falling floors, which already with a large amount of KE, will be rotating in the direction they fell. As it
collapses, this should keep rolling, eventually getting to a point where it misses the lower part of the building completely, before crashing to the
I would still expect the majority of the building to still be standing.
As we know however, this did not occur (although the first 2 seconds show what should have continued).
What happened next could not have occurred naturally, and is why NIST did not investigate the actual collapse. The reason is that multiple,
simultaneous failure of all the core columns would have to occur for the collapse, as we actually saw it on 9/11, to occur.
If it wasn't a natural collapse, it had to be man-made. If it was man-made, something more than a couple of aircraft had to do it. We know they
didn't strike the core; the angle they went in and came out is testament to that.
If that isn't enough, the second killer blow to the Official Story is in the fact the buildings collapsed totally to the ground. Given the
approximate physics as I described above in a natural collapse, a total collapse just wouldn't occur. 50% of the building (i.e. the building away
from the side on which the building started to collapse towards) would actually be free of any damage. This side would be put initially under tension,
then under compression, as the floors on the opposite side were hit. I would expect the floors to fail before either the core or the opposite exterior
columns failed due to transient loads caused by the collapse on one side.
Whilst I'm not in a position to be able to put figures to the description of what I reasonably think would occur, I don't expect to be too far off
the mark, either.
In summary, given the seismic recordings of the collapse, and of the above, it is inconceivable that the building would have just naturally collapsed
as per the official story. I think NIST knows this, and were either told not to investigate, or started to and discovered the truth, and were told to
stop investigating. I doubt we will ever know.
There are two posts due to post-length limitations.
Thanks for reading! I look forward to any comments.
[edit on 15-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]