Politics > Politics-USA > Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new9/11 investigation
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Yoga" |
| Date: |
02 Mar 2007 12:36:32 PM |
| Object: |
Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new9/11 investigation |
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would
still be there.”
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s
investigation also didn’t include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
“unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
04 Mar 2007 12:11:47 PM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
Can you let us know which buildings he's designed? I just want to make
sure I never go near any of them.
Mark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
04 Mar 2007 12:48:24 PM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 6:11 pm, "mma...@my-deja.com" <mma...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
Can you let us know which buildings he's designed? I just want to make
sure I never go near any of them.
Mark
Actually, I can't find any trace of the bloke on the internet, which
is very odd for a professor of engineering. I have emailed the source
publication to see if they can fill in the blanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 08:23:37 AM |
|
|
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len McLaughlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 11:39:38 AM |
|
|
"Stephen Horgan" <stephen@horgan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172931817.469124.188290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified.
=====
Old or new, BLEVE is the answer all the doubters.
-lm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Len McLaughlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
05 Mar 2007 11:43:13 AM |
|
|
"Len McLaughlin" <len@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:upiGh.5017$PV3.48899@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
"Stephen Horgan" <stephen@horgan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172931817.469124.188290@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on
9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified.
=====
Old or new, BLEVE is the answer all the doubters.
=====
A BLEVE would account- for the increase in free fall, for vapor explosions
between floors, starting with the hottest(the top), for the virtually
perpendicular decent, for the evidence of explosions shooting out the sides
plus structural failure. In addition the chimney effect of empty elevator
shafts would have fed air(O2) at high velocities. Although this type of
event is usually not associated with a BLEVE, all the ingredients were
there..
Any chemical or petroleum engineer could have told them all the answers..
It's certainly no mystery..
-lm
BLEVE -"boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion".
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
BLEVE, pronounced blevy, is an acronym for "boiling liquid expanding vapour
explosion". This is a type of explosion that can occur when a vessel
containing a pressurized liquid is ruptured. Such explosions can be
extremely hazardous. When the liquid is water, the explosion is usually
called a steam explosion. The acronym is sometimes sardonically translated
as "Blast Leveling Everything Very Effectively."
A BLEVE can occur in a vessel that stores a substance that is usually a gas
at atmospheric pressure but is a liquid when pressurized (for example,
liquefied petroleum gas). The substance will be stored partly in liquid
form, with a gaseous vapour above the liquid filling the remainder of the
container.
If the vessel is ruptured - for example, due to corrosion, or failure under
pressure - the vapour portion may rapidly leak, dropping the pressure inside
the container and releasing a wave of overpressure from the point of
rupture. This sudden drop in pressure inside the container causes violent
boiling of the liquid, which rapidly liberates large amounts of vapour in
the process. The pressure of this vapour can be extremely high, causing a
second, much more significant wave of overpressure (i.e., an explosion)
which may completely destroy the storage vessel and project fragments over
the surrounding area. BLEVEs can also be caused by an external fire nearby
the storage vessel causing heating of the contents and pressure build-up.
A BLEVE does not require a flammable substance to occur, and therefore is
not usually considered a type of chemical explosion. However, if the
substance involved is flammable, it is likely that the resulting cloud of
the substance will ignite after the BLEVE proper has occurred, forming a
fireball and possibly a fuel-air explosion, also termed a vapor cloud
explosion (VCE). If the materials are toxic, a large area will be
contaminated.
Significant industrial BLEVEs include the accidents at Feyzin in France in
1966, Kingman, Arizona in 1973, and San Juan Ixhuatepec in Mexico in 1984.
In the event that a gas cylinder is venting, BLEVE's can be avoided by
cooling the cylinder involved with water or foam, taking care not to
extinguish the flame, until the cylinder is empty, or the leak is plugged.
Other fire mitigation measures are listed under liquified petroleum gas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 08:52:51 AM |
|
|
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Horatio" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 09:19:33 AM |
|
|
said:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
It's more proof that there's a big conspiracy afoot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 09:31:03 AM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 3:19 pm, Horatio <horatiobl...@excite.com> wrote:
andycoop...@googlemail.com said:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
It's more proof that there's a big conspiracy afoot.
But in Loose Change, Larry Silverstein admits, on videotape, that "we
made the decision to pull Tower 7".
No conspiracy. No kooks. No loonies.
He says it. Watch Loose Change, don't take my word for it.
Ergo, it was demolished via detonations.
How much more clearly do people need it spelt out to them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 11:00:58 AM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 3:31 pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:19 pm, Horatio <horatiobl...@excite.com> wrote:
andycoop...@googlemail.com said:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
It's more proof that there's a big conspiracy afoot.
But in Loose Change, Larry Silverstein admits, on videotape, that "we
made the decision to pull Tower 7".
Larry Silverstein was in no position of authority over the NYC
emergency responders on the 11th of September 2001. The usage of the
word 'pull' has no especial meaning in building demolitions, except
perhaps where a small building is pulled over using steel cables, and
he has repeatedly explained in subsequent interviews that he was
referring to the withdrawal of firefighters because WTC 7 was in
imminent danger of collapse.
No conspiracy. No kooks. No loonies.
No, just a gross misinterpretation put on a choice of words and a
refusal to take any other explanation for them.
He says it. Watch Loose Change, don't take my word for it.
Which version of Loose Change? They have had to do a second, because
of the litany of errors that even the makers had to admit to in the
first. If you did see the first version did you believe it all? If so,
what does it say about about the propaganda-spinning powers of the
film-makers?
Ergo, it was demolished via detonations.
That conclusion simply cannot be drawn for the use of the word 'pull',
or in fact from any of the other arguments put up by the 9/11
conspiracy industry.
How much more clearly do people need it spelt out to them?
People don't need propaganda films, what they need is arguments that
are well made and that stand up to scrutiny.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 10:25:08 AM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
So, if people disagree with something they should keep quiet about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 11:10:55 AM |
|
|
On 3 Mar, 16:25, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
So, if people disagree with something they should keep quiet about it
Just as you comment about 'rehash of the usual 9/11 conspiracy
industry 'facts' your familiar response is hardly a revelation. The
events remain the same. Three buildings collapsing into their own
footprint, the first time that fire has brought down steel framed
skyscrapers (all of which looked like perfect examples of controlled
demolition). Not a conspiracy, an observation.
Building 7, slightly damaged by debris and minor fires suddenly
collapses and is actually predicted by at least two news media
corporations.
The queries to the BBC have been met with the usual 'conspiracy
nutters' rhetoric. The point is, its not a conspiracy related qestion.
It's a request for clarification over a very strange anomaly. If what
is claimed is true, there are serious questions need raising. There
were two victims involved in WTC 7. If there was compelling evidence
of collapse why were there any victims?
Furthermore, does this mean that any legitimate question about one
of the most important events in recent history can be treated in the
same way?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 12:12:36 PM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 16:25, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
So, if people disagree with something they should keep quiet about it
Just as you comment about 'rehash of the usual 9/11 conspiracy
industry 'facts' your familiar response is hardly a revelation. The
events remain the same. Three buildings collapsing into their own
footprint, the first time that fire has brought down steel framed
skyscrapers (all of which looked like perfect examples of controlled
demolition). Not a conspiracy, an observation.
It was the first time that airliners had flown at high speed into
steel-framed skyscrapers too, which brings many new factors into
consideration. Suggesting that the aircraft impacts and subsequent
multifloor jet fuel fire can be ignored is absurd. The buildings
clearly did not collapse in their own footprint as the numerous
demolitions of surrounding buildings subsequent to 9/11 testifies.
Building 7, slightly damaged by debris and minor fires suddenly
collapses and is actually predicted by at least two news media
corporations.
Slightly damaged? Minor fires? Try
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
As for prediction, the fire-fighters were pulled back because it was
feared WTC7 was about to collapse. Why is it unreasonable that a news
organisation could not have discerned this? The alternative suggestion
appears to be that in the midst of their ghastly scheme the
conspirators paused to issue a press release.
The queries to the BBC have been met with the usual 'conspiracy
nutters' rhetoric. The point is, its not a conspiracy related qestion.
It's a request for clarification over a very strange anomaly. If what
is claimed is true, there are serious questions need raising. There
were two victims involved in WTC 7. If there was compelling evidence
of collapse why were there any victims?
This is a good example of the 'rational' approach to argument. It
assumes that people and groups always make rational decisions, systems
always work and there is always perfect information, with no timelags
or miscommunication. Here it is suggested that because anyone knew
WTC7 was about to collapse, everyone must have known that WTC7 was
about to collapse. This despite fear, confusion, dust and the fact
that not everyone is telepathic.
Furthermore, does this mean that any legitimate question about one
of the most important events in recent history can be treated in the
same way?
I would be very surprised if the BBC has called anyone a nutter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 01:34:24 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar, 18:12, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 16:25, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
So, if people disagree with something they should keep quiet about it
Just as you comment about 'rehash of the usual 9/11 conspiracy
industry 'facts' your familiar response is hardly a revelation. The
events remain the same. Three buildings collapsing into their own
footprint, the first time that fire has brought down steel framed
skyscrapers (all of which looked like perfect examples of controlled
demolition). Not a conspiracy, an observation.
It was the first time that airliners had flown at high speed into
steel-framed skyscrapers too, which brings many new factors into
consideration. Suggesting that the aircraft impacts and subsequent
multifloor jet fuel fire can be ignored is absurd. The buildings
clearly did not collapse in their own footprint as the numerous
demolitions of surrounding buildings subsequent to 9/11 testifies.
Building 7, slightly damaged by debris and minor fires suddenly
collapses and is actually predicted by at least two news media
corporations.
Slightly damaged? Minor fires? Tryhttp://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20...
As for prediction, the fire-fighters were pulled back because it was
feared WTC7 was about to collapse. Why is it unreasonable that a news
organisation could not have discerned this? The alternative suggestion
appears to be that in the midst of their ghastly scheme the
conspirators paused to issue a press release.
The queries to the BBC have been met with the usual 'conspiracy
nutters' rhetoric. The point is, its not a conspiracy related qestion.
It's a request for clarification over a very strange anomaly. If what
is claimed is true, there are serious questions need raising. There
were two victims involved in WTC 7. If there was compelling evidence
of collapse why were there any victims?
This is a good example of the 'rational' approach to argument. It
assumes that people and groups always make rational decisions, systems
always work and there is always perfect information, with no timelags
or miscommunication. Here it is suggested that because anyone knew
WTC7 was about to collapse, everyone must have known that WTC7 was
about to collapse. This despite fear, confusion, dust and the fact
that not everyone is telepathic.
Furthermore, does this mean that any legitimate question about one
of the most important events in recent history can be treated in the
same way?
I would be very surprised if the BBC has called anyone a nutter.
I was referring to the word 'nutter' as used by the 'debunkers', not
to what the BBC spokesman said. If i had quoted him, i would have made
it quite clear.
Two towers hit by planes, one building hit by debris and with fires
burning. Result: All three fall down in remarkably similar fashion.
The worlds most hi-tech and largest airforce being totally outwitted
by Arab pilots who could barely fly a cessna between them.
Mr Horgan, if you want to believe this *****, it is your choice , but
don't think you will convince me that this was anything other than
smokescreen and mirrors aided and abetted by the the very obedient
media.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Horgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Constructional engineer questions WTC collapse and calls for a new 9/11 investigation |
03 Mar 2007 02:21:58 PM |
|
|
On Mar 3, 7:34 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 18:12, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 16:25, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:52 pm, wrote:
On 3 Mar, 14:23, "Stephen Horgan" <step...@horgan.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, Yoga <y...@hotmex.com> wrote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the
era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some
disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that
explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government
agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology).
The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the
floor truss connectors failed and caused a "progressive pancake collapse."
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero
explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which
is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word "concrete," the latter
documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma
City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of
structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be
compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took
the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and
historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning
Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of
the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each
building's columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet
fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings
redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the
undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over
the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower,
John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was
asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were
originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in
size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a
horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but "the building structure would
still be there."
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did
cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the
steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a
collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office
combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures
hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of
fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually
relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history
of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any
structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the
columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their
structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order
to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop
vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from
above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next
level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into
the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell
upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This
violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require
that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit,
the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us
believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself
crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a
free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting
structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not
only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message
rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days
for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a
tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of
controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the
"unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from
public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let's consider this
building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade
Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on
9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and
collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours
after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse
safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on
either side received relatively little structural damage and both
continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the
four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6,
which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still
remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The
buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at
the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic
concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize
concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel
beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA,
the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was
omitted from the government's 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse
has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding
9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let's start by contacting our
congressional delegation.
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who
worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College
where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other
building related courses.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
If this is meant to be a new article on the subject by a civil
engineer then can someone explain to me why it is simply a rehash of
the usual 9/11 conspiracy industry 'facts', with almost no actual
engineering content? By the way, I have googled for 'William Rice'
with the biographical details that are suggested and have come up with
nothing. Perhaps someone can help with a reference so that the author
can be better identified
Not at all... You are just doing your mandatory 'debunk the conspiracy
kooks' sketch. If these conspiracy theories are such *****, why do
you bother wasting your time responding to a lot of them?
So, if people disagree with something they should keep quiet about it
Just as you comment about 'rehash of the usual 9/11 conspiracy
industry 'facts' your familiar response is hardly a revelation. The
events remain the same. Three buildings collapsing into their own
footprint, the first time that fire has brought down steel framed
skyscrapers (all of which looked like perfect examples of controlled
demolition). Not a conspiracy, an observation.
It was the first time that airliners had flown at high speed into
steel-framed skyscrapers too, which brings many new factors into
consideration. Suggesting that the aircraft impacts and subsequent
multifloor jet fuel fire can be ignored is absurd. The buildings
clearly did not collapse in their own footprint as the numerous
demolitions of surrounding buildings subsequent to 9/11 testifies.
Building 7, slightly damaged by debris and minor fires suddenly
collapses and is actually predicted by at least two news media
corporations.
Slightly damaged? Minor fires? Tryhttp://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20...
As for prediction, the fire-fighters were pulled back because it was
feared WTC7 was about to collapse. Why is it unreasonable that a news
organisation could not have discerned this? The alternative suggestion
appears to be that in the midst of their ghastly scheme the
conspirators paused to issue a press release.
The queries to the BBC have been met with the usual 'conspiracy
nutters' rhetoric. The point is, its not a conspiracy related qestion.
It's a request for clarification over a very strange anomaly. If what
is claimed is true, there are serious questions need raising. There
were two victims involved in WTC 7. If there was compelling evidence
of collapse why were there any victims?
This is a good example of the 'rational' approach to argument. It
assumes that people and groups always make rational decisions, systems
always work and there is always perfect information, with no timelags
or miscommunication. Here it is suggested that because anyone knew
WTC7 was about to collapse, everyone must have known that WTC7 was
about to collapse. This despite fear, confusion, dust and the fact
that not everyone is telepathic.
Furthermore, does this mean that any legitimate question about one
of the most important events in recent history can be treated in the
same way?
I would be very surprised if the BBC has called anyone a nutter.
I was referring to the word 'nutter' as used by the 'debunkers', not
to what the BBC spokesman said. If i had quoted him, i would have made
it quite clear.
Two towers hit by planes, one building hit by debris and with fires
burning. Result: All three fall down in remarkably similar fashion.
The worlds most hi-tech and largest airforce being totally outwitted
by Arab pilots who could barely fly a cessna between them.
Mr Horgan, if you want to believe this *****, it is your choice , but
don't think you will convince me that this was anything other than
smokescreen and mirrors aided and abetted by the the very obedient
media.
It is an easily checkable fact that three of the four terrorist pilots
had commercial pilot's licenses and had trained on type in sim | | | | | | | |
