The Collapse of the World Trade Center:The first thing I will begin to discuss will be the amazing and unique designs of the actual towers. The Word Trade Center was actually designed and built around the mid-1960’s all the way through the early 1970’s. They were believed to show a new and inventive approach to skyscrapers, in that they were very light in weight and incorporated new modular construction methods to reduce the time of construction, and to reduce the total costs of the towers. Both of the towers stood four hundred and eleven meters above the ground level and twenty-one meters below the ground surface. The buildings were both square, and measured sixty-four meters. The design was dominated by wind loads instead of gravity loads, and the total weight of the structure was somewhere around five hundred thousand tons. Being in the sense that skyscrapers take on heavy wind forces. It was designed to resist two hundred and twenty-five kilometer per hour hurricane winds, and a resist a wind load of 2kPa which is a total lateral load of 5,000 tons.
Designing a building of this magnitude formed as a difficult task for architects and engineers. The best way to look at the idea for the design of this building would be to look at it like a giant egg-crate. The construction allowed the structure to be composed of approximately ninety-five percent air, which was somewhat apparent when the towers collapsed because the height of the rubble was merely only a few stories above ground. This was manly used to make the towers more cost affective and consume less construction time. The architects used a light in weight perimeter tube that had consisted of two hundred and forty-four exterior columns that were made of thirty-six centimeter square steel box section on one hundred centimeter centers. This design allowed the windows to be more than one-half meters wide, and still be able to give the proper structural support. Inside of the outer tube the design was a twenty-seven meter by forty meter core to allow the support of the weight of the tower. There were web joists that were eighty centimeters tall that had connected the inner core to the perimeter of each individual story, and there were concrete slabs produced on top of these to form the different floors. This was a new technique in the building of skyscrapers because there were usually formed with columns on five centimeter centers and contained lots of masonry to accept the loads formed by the structure. This lightweight design allowed the possibilities that if few columns were lost; the loads of the structure would shift to the adjacent columns to help keep the structure standing. This was shown and demonstrated during the initial impact of the airplanes. This is why the World Trade Center has been labeled as “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers ever built even to this day.
The next topic of discussion will be the actual impacts of the airplanes into the sides of the towers. If any of you watched the news reports that first covered the incident you would notice that the structures took the initial impacts very well. This is very true in the fact that the structures were more than one thousand times the mass of the aircraft and able to resist wind forces of up to thirty times the weight of the airplane. On the day of September 11, 2001 there was no heavy wind force so the building was only stressed to approximately one third of its allowed stress allowable from the two hundred MPa design. The structure wasn’t exactly designed for airplane impact collisions, but when you do the math it should have been able to withstand the initial collision. So if this wasn’t the cause of the collapse, what was?
The only component of the airplane that can be compared to the strength of the boxed perimeter of the World Trade Center is the keel beam location at the bottom of the planes fuselage. When the loads shifted as the columns were taken out by the aircraft, the aircraft left approximately ninety thousand liter gallons of jet engine fuel that was ignited. This obviously would create a major problem in any building. This is clearly the key factor in the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center. A thing as simple as a fire is considered the most misunderstood part of the collapse of September 11th. Many scientists and reporters believe that the “steel melted” due to the immense amounts of jet fuel burning so hot inside the towers, but when you compare thoughts of thermodynamics and combustion science, this is simply not true.
It is said that a main part of the problems is that some engineers and the average man confuse the concepts of temperature and heat, which is understandable. These two terms are very similar and sometimes it may be hard to distinguish the difference between these two concepts. These two concepts are related, but they are not the same. According to thermodynamics, heat contained in materials is directly related to the temperatures through the heat capacity and the density of the medium. When you compare the definitions of these two terms you will find that; temperature is an intensive property that does not vary with different amounts of material, while heat is an extensive property, varying with changes in the amounts of different materials. I found a very good analogy that can help us better understand this concept. If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center, was not an unusual fire, and did not possess the capabilities to melt steel. We can also take a look at combustion science to see for a fact that the steel did not actually melt.
When we talk about combustion science we get the concepts of three basic types of flames. Jet burners are generally described as mixing the fuel and the oxidants in stoichiometric proportions and igniting them in a constant-volume chamber so they are not allowed to expand and exit with extreme velocities. This creates enormous amounts of pressure which is why it results in such extreme velocities. This is the most intense heat produced, and is what happens to occur in a jet engine. The next type of flame is called a pre-mixed flame. Bunsen burners are considered pre-mixed flames; they are very similar to the concepts of jet burners but travel at much slower velocities. Since the size of the chamber is non existent and the mixing occurs at the last possible second, the velocities cannot be as high due to a lack of high pressure. The flame that creates the lowest intensity of heat is called a diffuse flame. In this flame the fuel and oxidant are not mixed before the ignition. These two materials are left to flow uncontrollably and will ultimately combust when the ratios reach ranges to cause a flame. Another simple way to look at this would again be a fireplace, which is a diffuse flame exactly like that of the World Trade Center.
Numbers will prove that the fire did not cause the steel to melt, but that the steel was softened and its strengths cut in half due to the temperatures of this fire. It is said that when burning fuels at room temperatures you can define a maximum temperature for the flame. When you burn carbon with pure oxygen the maximum intensity is said to be three thousand two hundred degrees Celsius, while hydrogen burns at a maximum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty degrees Celsius. So if you but them together the maximum of three thousand degrees can be agreed as the maximum temperature of any hydrocarbons burning in pure oxygen. As we have come to discover that the air is reduced by two-thirds that of pure oxygen. When you burn pure oxygen you only need to heat its two molecules; carbon monoxide and water, but when you heat air you not only need to heat these two molecules but also four molecules of nitrogen that are also in the air. This is where you get the result that oxygen has one-third the burning intensities of pure oxygen. This means that burning jet fuel in pure oxygen; the maximum temperature possible is approximately one thousand degrees Celsius, which is not enough to melt steel whose melting point is found to be roughly one thousand five hundred degrees Celsius.
Another reason to support this concept is also that diffuse flames are also found to be very difficult to reach there maximum temperatures. There are many left over fuel molecules that must also be burning to be mixed with the best ratios. If we yet again look at a fireplace, notice that when you blow on the fire the intensity and size of the fire increase. This is a result in extra molecules that need to be burned. This concept yet again lowers the ratios of heat found in the fire in the World Trade Center. It is said that most common house fires are approximately found to be around five and six hundred degrees Celsius. The soot and black smoke confirms the ideas that I have just suggested since they are evident in fires that are fuel rich. Even with all this evidence against the idea of the steel melting, the fire was the reason for the collapse of the towers. Evidence shows that the collapse of the towers was caused by the loss of strength of the steel due to softening, and the damage to the structural integrity due to the distortion of the steel. It has been determined that the fires inside the towers were approximately around seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred degrees Celsius. It has also been determined that steel begins to soften around four hundred and twenty five degrees Celsius and loses approximately half its strength around six hundred and fifty degrees Celsius.
When both of the structures were hit there was a loss of more than one important structural member. This caused the towers to have a somewhat domino affect when collapsing. The main assumption that we can use to determine this collapse has to the with the angle clops between the outer walls and the structural core. When the fire had weakened the structural integrity of the above floors, they began to bow outwards and fall on top of each other. This in result was too heavy of force for the lower levels to support. Which in result was the reason why neither tower tipped over, but they just crumbled directly towards the ground. There was not enough lateral velocity created in the short amount of time that it took for the towers to crumble. This was a major reason why the building was created and approximately ninety-five percent air. This is why engineers have come to the conclusion that the design of these towers was very sufficient.
Ok now you have some information about the World Trade Center, and the unlikely-ness that a fire caused the building to collapse. However some skeptics will argue that point. So to insure that they are wrong lets view other sky-scaper fires and then compare them to this event.
The One Meridian Plaza FireOne Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
skyscraper didnt collapse
The First Interstate Bank fireThe First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.
skyscraper didnt collapse
The 1 New York Plaza Fire1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.
skyscraper didnt collapse
Caracas Tower FireThe tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.
Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8
skyscraper didnt collapse
Ok did you hear about "secondary devices going off"?Firefighter Schroeder -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... osions.htm9/11 NBC News broadcast -
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.wmaWhat about Building 7?Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Nor could the fires had reached a tempture that would have damaged the structure to cause a collapse in the amount of time.
The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.
Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7Just Pull it -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&MIT Engineer Jeff King -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peUB03Qjk7g&Other interesting facts and documents to look atA interesting quote from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Everyone is familiar with this quote...
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."go take a look at the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and review whats inside that document.
wiki link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... s_DefensesU.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With CubaBook: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W* Y O R K, May 1, 2001* In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
Actual Document -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdfSeismographs that support demolitionSeismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
where was NORAD on 9/11, when 4 commerical air planes were hijacked in the most defended air space in the world?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw_XDxnciGsHere are a few video's that also support the truth about 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0886411718http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0296169386
