The typical floor structural configuration for the World Trade Center Towers spanned from the exterior wall columns to where the inner columns and a welded cage of steel formed support for the elevator shafts, stair towers, air shafts and mechanical systems, as well as, transferring floor and roof loads to the reinforced concrete foundation/footing structure sitting on bedrock some 70' below grade. Leasable floor areas typically terminated at the service core, where individual floor sections began again according to the floor plan layout. Yes, the individual floors acted as a unified structural 'diaphragm' to stiffen the structure laterally, but the steel composition of each floor was constructed in smaller units of open web trusses spanning between steel reinforced concrete�beams and topped with a steel deck and lightweight concrete. Thus, each floor was NOT a monolithic slab and structural system spanning across each tower from one exterior wall to the other three, as we are led to believe.
Each floor, in fact, terminating at the contiguous inner structural service core, resembled a square 'donut', with the core area being the 'donut hole', so to speak. Failure of floor structural support in any quadrant of the building plan, or even in any half, thus, would have failed asymmetrically. And at the time of failure would not, could not, have 'pancaked' symmetrically as the misleading NIST and commission reports indicate (diagrams shown in these reports are graphically out of scale, and do not accurately represent the building's massive, in fact, over designed, internal structure).
Original WTC Construction Drawings: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html
Floor Plan, 35th to 40th Floors, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-58_0.png
Building Sections http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/tvmast/CD_ARCH/A-A-177_0.png
How do I know this? What is my personal technical reference? From 1970 to 1972 I was a young design development draftsman for the firm of Minoru Yamasaki Associates, the design architectural firm for the WTC. I was part of the team that detailed the complex aluminum cladding fenestration details for similar building and also worked, in part, on detailing the WTC Executive Floor interior paneling and updating the WTC plans to reflect various 'as-built' construction changes. Based on actual project experience, I was, and am, quite familiar with the structural system at work on the towers, both at a technical and intuitive level.
From many videos it is clear that the initial devastating floor overloading was uneven, and then, suddenly, floor by floor, the destruction became uniform as the buildings seemingly demolished themselves. I would have expected a random destructive overload to cause only a portion of the building floors to fail at a time. This did not happen. The failure, thus, appears controlled and suspicious.
For the floors to 'pancake' uniformly, the first floor to fail would require all perimeter connections to fail almost simultaneously on each floor. The towers could not possibly have collapsed in this way as we have been told in the official reports. One floor, coincident, on top of another to start a demolition-like sequence, without powerful external forces at work, forces other than the plane crash--and the relatively low temperature jet fuel fires which burned away quickly--would not lead to a symmetrical, uniform collapse of all the floors. What other external forces could there be? Explosives? It is my view, knowing what I know, that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished.
R H Nigl July 18, 2008
N.B. Where are the structural drawings? They still have not surfaced available for public review. I know they are available, there must be many copies in archives. Certainly the Port Authority, the City of New York, the architects and the steel shop fabricator's have copies.
Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc.
Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these 'explosive' sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse. The undamaged exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have had to have happened with controlled demolition.
When the undamaged south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. This bowing was witnessed and video taped by the Police Aviation Unit. In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when some floors apparently collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these 'explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe practically all the supposed 'explosive' sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and sagging floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive 'explosive' sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors after the top of the building began falling. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.
Initial Collapse Cause
Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration.
It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses that buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and this also helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. Differential thermal expansion of the concrete and steel has also been shown by NIST to disconnect the knuckles (knuckles are the steel tops of the bent over bars in the trusses which are imbedded in the concrete slab) from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors. All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (400 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of sagging trusses or ‘I’ beams after the fire ‘burns out’ or dies down can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns and core columns due to the contraction of the steel trusses or ‘I’ beams. Once the exterior columns buckling spread, along an entire wall removing support on one face, the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and the towers began to tilt and with all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have began falling straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the effectively cantilevered top building section pulled the core over to the south. The South Tower's top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. With the tower top tilting all the columns would be out of alignment.
Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. This coupled with the fact that the falling top section’s momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section's acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts were increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing in amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.
In order for a column to support the loads it has to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. The fact is, columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists affecting floor truss stability. The sagging floor trusses gradually pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall in each tower and the column walls eventually buckled removing support on one side.
There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than 'free fall' times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building's tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and plumb and this was impossible with the top of the building leaning causing eccentric angles of impact. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the east wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. Because of the weight of the accumulating collapsing floors, there was a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars.
Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana after the building top began to impact the floors, these wall columns may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns. In other words these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than 'free fall' times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.
The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (500 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesn’t break up as it falls outward it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls, however, did break at the weak splices as they fell.
The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of the air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards sideways from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC openings in the side of the building.
The lightweight aluminum cladding's breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive 'squibs'. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.
After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity to the fire until the steel is glowing red, orange or yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer The deep seated fires which occur in the rubble are supplied with air because natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its bouyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draws in more air. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed. This temperature, however, is still incapable of melting steel.
These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen.
Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards.
Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn't last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed. Thermite is hard to control and can’t be held against the columns because it would burn down through any material used to support it against the columns.
Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.
About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says "the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range." http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.
Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 5 of their buildings collapsed from fire? (Building 5 had a serious interior multiple floor collapse due to fire.) Do you know that the Port Authority of NY, NJ didn't have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on most of the exterior column, bolted splices. The long span truss floors were never tested for fire resistance at their design length. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings after they collapsed while the building engineers had them all along? I would think the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth would be accepting any excuse to divert attention from themselves even the wild idea that explosives or thermite was involved.
About the eye witnesses; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. Most of the people in tower 2 did not know tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and felt the impact. There can be smoke explosions particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. There were extensive fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. The one elevator shaft that extended into the cellars had a fuel explosion from the jet fuel spilling down the shaft. Most of the people in tower 1 did not know that tower 2 had collapsed but they all heard the noises and even felt the rush of air up the stairs as the air was compressed in the cellars. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Explosives produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf of blow out eardrums and usually blow out all the windows on the particular floor. This kind of sharp piercing crack was not heard. The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The reports of "explosions" in the cellars were also probably from such column or floor displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you imbed a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit.
In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse, - remember most of the people in Tower 1 did not know Tower 2 had collapsed and attributed the sounds of that collapse to be happening in the building they were in. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced explosive sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.
Its amazing to me how the 'controlled demolition' people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse area, just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some bird brained radio talk shows babble as gospel. The BBC report utilized the top experts in the field. Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene and examining the steel. Four years later without inspecting any steel the Architect Richard Gage is listening to some lame brained Professor and has an enlightening experience and from then on he knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How do you know all the columns failed at the same moment? These lower columns were out of sight of the cameras. The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend but there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns had failed. Building 7 took 13 seconds to collapse not 6.
These are top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth without any research or fact checking. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted for being in on the conspiracy.
Posted by: Arthur Scheuerman | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 08:53 AM
Hes not saying that they couldn't have collapsed. He's saying that they couldn't have collapsed in the manner that they did, that it would have been a leaning collapse, not a pancake collapse.
Posted by: Schenn | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
And hundreds of other controlled demolition specialists say it was a controlled demolition. As well as 350 non-american physicists who just signed a petition for a new investigation.
Posted by: schenn | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
You people amaze me. You've obviously never heard of Occam's Razor.
Tell you what. I'm starting a cult and I'm looking for followers - are any of you gullible unthinking drones interested?
Posted by: Brett | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Steel from the wtc building was evaporated and it takes temps of 5,000 f to cause steel to boil away.
When i was in the wtc i noticed that the floors were made of separate large sections. Each floor is made up of around 20 floor panels, each panel was carpeted and a 2" steel border ran the width of the edge, there was a gap between each floor panel of maybe 1/4" to 1/2". SO to say the floors pancaked is of course impossible anyone who parrots this claim is ignorant knowingly or unknowingly. Conservation of energy dictates that as the top fell it would have slowed down due to the resistance of an entire undamaged building below, which was built of steel beams which got thicker and stronger on the way down.
Unless the building moved out of the way as the top fell.
For the layman to "conservation of energy" you may want to watch Project "A" in this movie Jackie Chan falls from a clock tower about 40+ feet and lands on his head, he did this three times. The reason he did not die is because he fell through several cloth awnings on the way down which slowed his fall. Each one he hit slowed him down enough that a fall which would have killed a man resulted in only a sore back and head.
To the dis-info agent who made that large post, tell your masters that their gig is up and even a child can see that the wtc's were destroyed with explosives.
Posted by: grafdog | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 05:48 PM
If the authorities actually believed the official story, the steel would have been preserved at the landfill on Staten Island where it was taken during the cleanup. The focus would have been on "what went wrong" and "how can we prevent it from happening again." It didn't happen!
Both sides agree that the steel was sent for recycling with unseemly haste.
Google Fire Engineering + Bill Manning and see his January, 2002 editorial.
Any lawyer will tell you that destroying evidence is little short of a signed confession.
Posted by: Richard | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Occam's Razor would indicate demolition charges.
All other theories involve (a) Creating special cases to explain away newtonian laws of physics regarding momentum, strength of materials and drag, (b) Turning a blind eye to the lack of real investigation by "official" bodies.
The simplest answer quite commonly is the correct one: 9/11 was perpetrated by those who stood the most to gain, namely powerful elements in our government who know how to foster public support for endless war.
Posted by: Rand | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 07:26 PM
"It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses that buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and this also helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls."
Are you saying that when the steel floor trusses heated up and expanded, they bowed such that they pulled in the exterior columns. If the exterior columns were moveable, why would the trusses bow?
Are you saying that the strength of the trusses was insufficient to support the concrete slab on top once the truss/floor bond was broken?
Are you saying that when the floors heated up, they had nowhere to expand, so they bent downward and collapsed the trusses?
Posted by: D.Infamis | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 09:02 PM
Arthur Scheuerman,
I'm sure you are a pleasant person but the assessment of the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 you have proposed may hold weight in a hypothetical debate but in the real world people have eyes to see. Once the clever veil of diversion is lifted it becomes easy to see that the twins towers blew up (or actually down) and WTC 7 imploded like a classic Las Vegas demolition. Regardless of the science argued on either side, the plain truth comes out when viewed without suggestive hype as the media did immediately after the crime took place. I fell for it, at first, but as time passed I became suspicious when the "War on Terror" became almost cartoonish. Without influence from any 'truthers' ,I started watching hours of footage. Once convinced, I searched for like-minded researchers - some credible,others ridiculous - which blossomed into what it is today. This is not some cult of lonely 'Trekees' looking for attention. All walks of life are part of this awakening.
Maybe you need more believable scientific evidence to change your stance?
I say just use thy orbs.
Peace...
Posted by: sandman | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Perhaps Mr. Sheuerman you might like to explain to us how two buildings that were constructed virtually identically should also collapse virtually identically even though they were damaged in a decidedly different manner, the one being struck head-on at a very high level and the other being struck at one corner mid-way up the building? What do you make of the people who testified to seeing, hearing and feeling explosions that were going off in the buildings throughout the morning prior to the collapses? As the buildings were both still standing while these explosions were detected (and being reported on in the news) the witnesses cannot simply be mistaking the sound of the collapse for the sights (the entire lobbies being destroyed), sounds ("it was as if someone were sitting at an invisible panel pushing buttons to set off bombs," said one woman who escaped the tower long before it came down) and feelings (some witnesses testify to being thrown through the air by explosions that came well after the planes hit but long before the towers fell) they experienced.
Why did it take the administration eighteen months to even impanel the 9/11 Commission and why was this done only as a result of the victims' families having to petition Congress? Why did the Commission decline to consider the testimony of janitor William Rodriguez, a hero by all accounts, who began testifying the very day of 9/11 that massive explosions destroyed entire floors of the basement at roughly the same time (and quite possibly immediately prior to) the plane strikes? Why was the largest crime scene in US history scrubbed clean before it was thoroughly investigated? And why did the clean-up workers testify that virtually nothing recognizable survived the collapses? Consider that at the very top of Tower One there was a restaurant full of heavy-duty kitchen supplies -- steel sinks and grills, massive refrigerator doors (not to mention elevator doors) and nothing above them but the roof. What could have caused all these items to be atomized beyond recognition? A refrigerator may be mangled and smashed but isn't going to turn to dust just because it's fallen a thousand feet. So why was NOTHING recognizable discovered in the debris pile which was curiously small for the sheer volume of matter that comprised the towers as they stood?
Posted by: onlyquestions | Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Arthur has certainly convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. Despite his painstaking analysis, he doesn't explain how each of the Twin Towers essentially transformed itself into a hammer and proceeded to bang!, bang!, bang! itself into a pile of rubble, pulverizing itself into dust in the process. And he doesn't account for how the lower parts of the towers began falling even before the sections above them could have begun to exert dynamic load on them. But the fact that he's trying so hard to say "Move along now, nothing worth seeing here!" is a dead giveaway.
RH Nigl, you've done everybody a great service by speaking up in the capacity of someone involved in the design of the WTC. I'm sure that a great many people would be fascinated to learn more about your time at Minoru Yamasaki Associates.
Posted by: Greywolf | Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Gosh-a-MIGHTY,what a long post that was! Speaking as a layman with a keen sense of the logical,I'll just tell what I observed during the collapses combined with what I found out later:
-The buildings were designed to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707,roughly the same size as the 757/67.To me, the idea that the engineers HOPED that the impacting plane wasn't fully fueled-that maybe it was coming in on fumes from Australia-is right up there with the designers of the Titanic HOPING that no more than four compartments were breached.Certainly engineering has advanced since that era.
-As the towers collapsed,there were the huge clouds of dust billowing out from all sides.This was the pulverized concrete-those acres of concrete floors weighing many tons-floating away.Also,the gigantic "block" of the top of a tower that tilted as it fell apparently turned to dust before it hit the ground,because I've heard of no report of seismic activity associated with it hitting the ground.
My logical layman sense tells me:
-There were at least 50 structurally undamaged floors in each tower.
-The columns got bigger in all respects the closer they got to the ground.
-The sections of the towers above the impact site turned to dust before they hit the ground,so there was no "hammer" or "piston" effect from those sections smashing their way to the ground.
-Between the undamaged floors,the massive columns,and the weight from above constantly being reduced(the dust clouds represented tons of concrete),more of the buildings should have survived-and this is all assuming that the initial collapse was caused by what we were told!
That post was full of-assumptions.I think my favorite was the aluminum cladding falling off the buildings,and the flash of sunlight reflecting off them "would be"-not "could be"- mistaken for flashes from an explosion.Classic!
Furthermore,not only do we need to discuss the buildings' collapses,but let's have a look at events before,during,and after the attacks that have nothing to do with the structures,like Larry Silverstein,his son,and his daughter-all with offices in one of the towers-all with excuses for why they were NOT in the towers like they normally would have been.The odds of three members of a family,with one being the owner of the buildings,not being in the complex on the day it is destroyed are long indeed.
And let's not even get into the Bush Administration's towering "incuriousity" of how four US passenger planes are hijacked in US airspace,three of which are allowed to crash into and destroying two of the tallest buildings in the world,one crashes in to the HQ of the nation's military,all without being intercepted by military aircraft,and some three thousand people being killed! Instead of starting an investigation,they started up "The Mighty Wurlitzer".No time for why this happened;we're too busy getting plotting our "revenge" for it!
If a woman was found dead and her husband didn't want an investigation,we'd all assume that he was involved in her death;yet when the attacks on 9/11 happen and the government doesn't want an investigation,it's perfectly OK? Any hokey TV show-or an outraged layman-will tell you:ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE DON'T WANT CRIMES INVESTIGATED.
Posted by: Passenger57 | Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 01:56 AM
Arthur Scheuerman seems to be a serial pest (see the first reply to the post here). He pasted the same reply to a post of mine some time ago without the last two paragraphs that include new BBC material and comment on WTC7.
I think his goal is to jump onto any significant posts with an immediate comment designed to neutralise the damage to the official story. His reply is clever -a seemingly coherent explanation for the collapses which would fool many people who are not too familiar with the facts. For everyone else it is clear that his comment is nothing more than a disinformation stunt.
I am also assuming Mr Scheuerman knows he is being untruthful in his reply since some of the claims he makes are blatantly false.
As an ex-fire engineering expert HE SHOULD KNOW that photos of orange hot metal in the WTC rubble could not possibly be lead as he claims. Lead that is orange must be liquid- not plastic. This basic "mistake" is hard to understand other than in the context of Scheuerman acting disingenously.
I wrote an extensive reply to him which you might want to check out.
http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2008/03/scientific-proof-that-ends-911-truth.html#comments
You will notice that the topic of my post dealt with the damning physical evidence of Molten Steel found in the rubble- indicating the application of explosive incendiaries. I did not highlight any hypothetical model with regard to how the buildings may have collapsed. The post was all about what caused the steel to melt.
Nevertheless, Scheuerman in his reply shifted the focus away from the forensic evidence onto poorly conceived theoretical models of the collapses.
Posted by: SpookyPunkos | Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Makes you wonder how much Mr. Arthur Scheuerman is being paid to write this drivel.
I remember when there was a fire in the WTC in early 1975 and it burned for hours. Covered six floors. I recall it was in the first 20 floors which would definitely affect every floor above it if Mr. Scheuerman's logic about the weakness of steel is to be believed.
The 1975 certainly burned a lot longer and hotter than the South Tower did on 9-11-01.
Any fool could see that was a controlled demolition. I said it to my neighbors as I watched it happening.
People like Arthur Scheuerman should stop insulting our intelligence. What I can't figure out is why they want this lie to persist.
Posted by: MRW. | Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 05:12 PM
www.debunking911.com has many videos and pics of wtc7 burning like crazy on the lower rear side. They also prove that it did not drop straight down. It went backwards, but that can't be seen from a frontal shot video. For some reason, these are not shown on most 911 truth sites. Why would that be? See for yourself.
Posted by: bill | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
An oil painting of the collapse of WTC Building 7 with a pancake on its head-
http://faithmouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/collapse-of-wtc-building-number-seven.html
Posted by: Timothy A. Bear | Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 02:24 AM
The Laws of conservation of energy and momentum are definitely violated especially in the first 30ft of the collapse in WTC1. we have an acceleration measured at 98% free fall in this phase of the collapse, which means that the falling block is not supplying the energy required to accelerate the two floor masses it is in collision with in this phase(best estimate 4 million kilos mass each floor) to the velocities observed in the collapse, never mind the energy required in overcoming the structure, cracking concrete or ejecting large amounts of debris . In fact no collisions between the top block and the lower floors are possible as the block falls. How can this be possible? The best hypothesis is controlled demolition - which is supported with evidence of residues in the dust which carry the finger print of nano thermate - and iron spherules - also in one of the only pieces of steel from WTC7 that escaped being carted off to be melted down in India or China has evidence of sulphidisation in the intergranular spaces along with evidence of eutetic processes. This is unheard of in office fires,
Posted by: no_body | Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 07:57 PM
http://www.ae911truth.org/ for the architectural drawings of WTC 1&2
more science here
http://stj911.com/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Posted by: no_body | Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Arthur Scheuerman (Long explanation)above failed to explain some issues.
1. I saw the evidence of the home-made video camera that detected sound waves on regular intervals within the first second of demolition - no sounds were detected within the next 9-12 seconds during the building collapsed, thus it could not be peoples in other buildings that heard the other plane crash.
2. I saw many different photos of the basement columns been cut off at almost 45 degree angle - the way the demolitionists does it.
3. The "Squibs” that leads the dark cloud on the way down as the building collapses.
4. With VERTICAL steel columns and a very strong core, it seems impossible that the building falls down at free fall speed as shown (and timed) on existing video evidence - even with such a heavy mass just above it!
5. On a TV coverage it shows how fire-men spoke to each other and one said "the floor was 'popping out' - unbelievable". Another said "it happened like it was detonating - never seen that"
6. The bigger picture: The buildings were purchased 3 months earlier at a cheap price – Larry S then insured it for billions and got it! Why does a property expert buy buildings (in a terrible condition) for cheap and insure it for billions and ask specifically for terrorist cover? Had to be part of the plan.
Johan
Posted by: Johan | Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Arthur is wearing out his mouse pasting this hypothetical crap all over the innertubes...G:
Posted by: Geezerpower | Monday, May 04, 2009 at 03:09 AM