Ahoy all, I trust we are enjoying our long weekend.
I've just done some quick updating the conversation these last few days
and have some additional thoughts.
On Jun 30, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their
conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag,
pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake
on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no
longer able to support the weight...
Is that the one where they have some footage with the architect?
Julia
"Why the Towers Fell" aired on PBS, proposing the FEMA theory {via the
American Society of Civil Engineers - ASCE} about the floor trusses
growing hot and the sagging to the breaking point. That show ends on
the sorrowful figure of a junior architect {name escapes me} and leaves
the audience wondering if he designed poorly and bearing great remorse.
It also incorrectly fingers him as the keystone designer, but in
reality he was an underling for senior partner John Kittling who did
the actual designs, had the experience, and states that this building
was over-built. I've also noticed a number of diagrams from news
stories at the time which vastly under represent the strength of the
exterior column walls. This building was designed to withstand
hurricanes as well as plane impacts and as Kittling still says, it
should no have failed as it did.
This documentary rang true enough the first time I saw this, but when
it came around again I started doubting. The NIST {National Institute
for Standards and Technology} report abandons this theory and in fact
states these trusses would have been drawn to the core structure and
and this caused the break - kinda-sorta opposite theories, but the
"story" has lodged in the public's mind - I dare say as it was intended
to.
How the debris we see falling {I would point out it's much more akin to
exploding outward and then down} exterior to the building can match an
interior descent flies in the face of logic. I simply cannot accept
that the core structure, a thick _lattice_ of crossing steel, would
offer the same resistance as the air outside slowing the debris.
Recap, to believe this theory one has to accept that the interior steel
structure has to completely and utterly fail up and down the entire
length and I just don't see how a shock-wave from one collapsing floor
can do this: the building has give and sway precisely to bend to
hurricane winds, earthquakes, let alone the 100+ MPH winds skyscrapers
routinely handles during their lifetime. To believe this you need to
accept a brittleness to these structures that defies their original
program.
Collapsing steel buildings tip in one direction - the area of failure -
with the remaining building falling {damn near} intact on top of the
failed section... examples include earthquakes {Iran}, terrorists
{Russia - bombs placed in parking area collapsed apartment building}
poor construction {Turkey} all demonstrate this. For structures that
do start falling down initially they invariably begin tipping one
direction once the floors below bunch up - inevitably collecting in one
area over another because nature does not operate symmetrically on a
failing structure - unless coerced. I had already considered the
collapses mentioned in previous posts, but put them aside because they
always seem to occur during construction - obviously as this is the
most dangerous and fragile period of a building's life when it's
integrity has not been finalized and loads are shifting dramatically.
The only way symmetry in a collapse occurs is when its made to collapse
- when thought and energy has gone into weakening critical points.
It's why crews that perform such demolition are considered elite
specialists.
I am not convinced the discussion of heat-softened steel justifies
extrapolating complete failure. I can find no study in their report
about the wicking nature of steel and how this offsets a {potential}
high-temp fire in one locale _not_ being distributed away. Rio de
Janeiro had a steel skyscraper burn for 24+ hours over multiple floors
yet it had no such catastrophic collapse, was reconditioned and in use
today {with upgraded fire suppression}. Those fires on the South Tower
had burned less than an hour, were in fact almost out {watch the smoke
volume decrease dramatically by end of sequence} and firemen had
reached the scene & said they could handle it - yet that building falls
first.
It's up to the government to explain this event and they have offered a
very faulty proposition obscured with copious preliminary detail around
the plane crash, engines, fire, wing members, down to the damn
turban-fans ... with but a few pages explaining events AFTER the
building BEGINS to collapse. The narrative doesn't even match the
illustrations. The only response NIST has made to the clamor of voices
asking about controlled demolition are two paragraphs:
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided
little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling
building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free
fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the
falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors
below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." {p 196}
Which says nothing about why the mass and structure below the falling
stories was not slowed, let alone failed to support it with their
ever-thickening beams. Without any other examples throughout human
history of such steel failures {except self-referentially pointing at
WTC events}, nor testable theory, and a shocking lack of quantifiable
detail to substantiate this, it is _unscientific_ to accept the
phenomena proffered.
They address the "Squibs" of debris jets preceding the collapse in a
simple paragraph thusly:
"The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much
like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and
debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. {p196}"
Plausible at first blush, but ignores these issues:
- no piston mechanism is described in their models - nada.
- ejections appear at regular vertical intervals on all faces of the
North Tower.
- these ejections are _very_ energetic and appear at single window
locations rather than across an entire floor or area. How would such
force be contained by small openings except if their source was a small
local explosive event?
- Squib jets are thick with pulverized debris far ahead of the
approaching wave collapse and could not have been atomized _before_ the
mass arrived to crush & expel it.
One final and glaring omission from the official NIST report is rarely
commented on: once the collapse takes place they virtually ignore the
entire structural analysis of the pancake theory and how the various
materials acted {or didn't}... as thought the report ends once collapse
is initiated. Another notable issue I have is their opacity on the
types of computer models they used and how this scientific body does
not allow you to download the data from the models. Thus, we all fill
in the blanks with this conversation and project into this void
questions and hypothesis, because the government has failed to explain
this event. It's glaring: The investigation stops before the event
even begins.
As we know from history, propaganda is notable for what is _not_ spoken.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
BTW - I misspoke last week attributing the NIST author to be Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's cousin, Benjamin. In fact, he
anonymously penned the Popular Mechanics debunking article. A very
clever piece with a strong, rude, bias in it's demeanor.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page
I'll save my thoughts on this connection for another rant, but our
HomeSec head was defending a known Arab terrorist in court
{successfully} when he was appointed to ensure America's safety and
there is much mischief around him going back to Vince Foster's death in
the Clinton White House.
-JG-
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
