The collapse of the WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

The collapse of the WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:02 pm

I came across an interesting document today concerning the collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7.

The document is entitled:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

By Brent Blanchard, August 8, 2006, c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

The full document can be read at the following link.

A number of non-conspiracy sites have linked to the article as final proof that there is no conspiracy.

These are the assertions made by the author, but I would recommend reading the whole document to receive a full explanation of the points made. {A critique of the document is supplied further below.}

ASSERTION #1
“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

ASSERTION #3
“But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.

ASSERTION #4
“Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.

ASSERTION #5
“An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used… a nondetonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim.

ASSERTION #6
“Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.

ASSERTION #7
“WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”
PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

ASSERTION #8
“A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three steel buildings collapsed on one day…therefore explosives must have been responsible.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, actually it means three steel buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.

ASSERTION #9
“Anyone denying that explosives were used is intentionally ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit their conclusion.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.


After reading the article in full, I was very interested to see if there were any counter-arguments already provided. I myself had noticed a number of 'oddities' in the article -in particular Assertion #2- and I was curious as to how the various 911 researchers would respond.

Jim Hoffman of 911research has countered the claims made by Blanchard and his article can be read here.

The article critiqued here is one of several technical articles defending official explanations of the total collapses of the World Trade Center towers published shortly before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attack.

Following publication of Blanchard's article, The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published its Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Whereas NIST relies heavily on the straw-man technique, primarily highlighting claims based on fallacies, Blanchard appears to address several serious arguments against the official explanations. However, he fails to articulate these arguments and skirts them with replies laced with fallacies.


Follow the link above to read the full reply.

So, what does everyone else think? Are the conspiracy theories surrounding 911 justified, or does the official story hold the answers for what happened on that terrible day?

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm


Postby Almeirhria » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:33 am

I think you and many others already know the answer to the question.

5 years on the 9/11 issue still remains - has the government budged one iota?
If the official story is false - do you seriously think the governement could admit to that? Think of what would happen.
Those truly helpless are those who have not consciously chosen but who repeat patterns without knowledge of the repetition or the meaning of the pattern
User avatar
Almeirhria
Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 1:39 pm

Postby Shawnna » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:10 pm

deleted
Last edited by Shawnna on Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shawnna
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:30 pm

Postby ryguy » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:52 pm

Zep - I wrote a somewhat detailed analysis based on some personal experiences of mine in my field of work with metals, heat treat, etc... There are some flaws in both arguments...I wrote it up, pressed "post"....the forum went down and I lost it all... lol

I'll attempt to do a re-write at some point soon - great topic!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Almeirhria » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:47 am

I agree Shawnna, I only used the words to convey points.

Yes - we are all part of both the problem(s) and the solution(s).
Those truly helpless are those who have not consciously chosen but who repeat patterns without knowledge of the repetition or the meaning of the pattern
User avatar
Almeirhria
Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 1:39 pm

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:19 pm

ryguy wrote:Zep - I wrote a somewhat detailed analysis based on some personal experiences of mine in my field of work with metals, heat treat, etc... There are some flaws in both arguments...I wrote it up, pressed "post"....the forum went down and I lost it all... lol

I'll attempt to do a re-write at some point soon - great topic!

-Ry


Man I hate it when that happens! One thing I always do now is, write the post in a text editor first and save it. That way, if the forum plays up and you lose the post it doesn't matter because you have it saved.

I agree regarding the topic and I would love to see the article you wrote :)

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:55 am

ASSERTION #8
“A steel-framed building has never collapsed due to fire, yet three steel buildings collapsed on one day…therefore explosives must have been responsible.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, actually it means three steel buildings collapsed due to fire (and violent external forces) on one day.


9/11 Conspiracies.... I've personally stayed out of them - simply because I believe such a painful experience for so many deserves more respect than conspiracy theorists and their poorly researched speculations. I'm torn between belief of the negligence of a powerful, yet arrogant government, and distaste for those who see evil and intent behind every locked door within the government.

There is one piece of "evidence" that is so blatantly wrong, I can't help but comment quickly. In my work I deal with some metallurgy. In particular this involves the "heat treat" of various parts that compose jet/airplane engines. These components usually consist of some of the hardest metals available...and even these need to be modified molecularly under intense heat and vacuum conditions in order to withstand the very high temperatures of burning jet fuel.

Anyway - to the point. Many conspiracy theorists argue that these buildings are built to withstand such an impact, and these planes should not have caused the collapse of steel beams that make up the structure of these towers. I disagree. While it is true that many of the tallest buildings in any city are constructed to withstand such impact - in fact they are built to withstand very high winds and earthquakes as well. However the conditions that were produced on 9/11 - an airliner full of jet fuel striking in just the right location, structurally, was beyond the ability of the design to save the building from collapse.

From a Washington Post article:
Experts agreed that collapse of the two towers was almost inevitable; although their "tube structure" design was their greatest source of strength, it was also an Achilles' heel. For someone who wanted to bring them down, a guided missile filled with jet fuel was perhaps the only way.

The towers were built like "rectangular doughnuts," Parfitt said. Strength came from a central steel core and from steel columns spaced closely around the perimeter of each building. There was no structural support between the core and the outer walls.

"When the planes come through, they cut through a number of those [perimeter] columns," Parfitt said. "At the same time, the planes are starting transcontinental flights, and they have full tanks of aviation fuel. You get a massive explosion and a fire."

The initial jet fuel explosions most likely blew the insulation off the towers' girders, Parfitt suggested, incinerated easy combustibles and gave the ensuing fires free access to the unguarded steel. "Sprinklers aren't going to do too much in that situation," Parfitt said.


The type of "heat treat" we perform consists of placing metal parts in large chambers, modifying the atmosphere, and then increase the temperature of the vessel up to anywhere between 500 deg F to 2500 deg F. The longer the metal remains at high temps, the "softer" it gets, allowing the molecular properties of the metal to be "manipulated" in various ways.

The argument of many conspiracy theorists is as follows: The melting point of structural steel is around 1510 deg C (2750 deg F).

From: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html

~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.


However from experience we know that it is quite easy to soften metals by keeping them at high temperatures (far below their melting points) for extended periods. Some of the processes in manufacturing include temperatures as low as 800 to 1000 deg F most commonly - and the softening, or weakening of the structural integrity of the metal, starts to take effect well before even just one hour. Assuming the worse case, weakest burning (diffuse) jet fuel fire was taking place (even below 800 deg C) - that would mean a fire of around 1500 deg F was burning for just over an hour. I have personally seen very large metal structures, made of metal alloys even stronger and with higher melting points than structural steel - come out of a vacuum furnace that sat at 1400 - 1600 deg F for 60 minutes, and was curved, or "drooped" from the structural "softening".

There is no doubt, that a fire burning at 800 deg C, or even just below it, would reduce the structural integrity of the core support structure of these buildings enough to cause the collapse as it occurred on that fateful day.

Here - from structural engineer Chris Wise, as quoted on the BBC:

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


The mistake he makes, of course, is in saying that the columns would have "melted". Debunkers of his statement point to the melting point of structural steel - and they are right. The columns would not have "melted" by any scientific definition of "melting". They did not reach the melting point. However they didn't have to. Metal does not have to reach its melting point in order to experience enough reduction in structural integrity to collapse. This is what too many conspiracy theorists fail to understand.

In summary - the only point I wanted to make here, with this post, was that I do not believe these buildings were demolished by any planted explosives, as many conspiracy theorists have put forth. I do believe they were destroyed on that day, by the intense temperature of burning jet fuel, and the extended period the steel support structure remained at those temperatures.

However - that does not mean I don't believe that the U.S. government was responsible, in very large part, for the events that occurred on that fateful day. But that analysis goes into the political, social, and cultural issues that were taking place in the middle east years before this horrible event. And this is an analysis that I am hoping our research team (and members) will join me in conducting in the near future.

The events that built up to this day, paint a picture that is very disturbing - and displays a level of complicit and dangerous actions by our very own government and the intel community that is very relevant in the world today...and in this "War on Terrorism" that we now find ourselves in the middle of.

But these questions are for another day...and another post. Maybe even an article or two, after proper research is completed....

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ScaRZ » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:45 pm

What about building number 7?
Why did it also fall as the other 2 towers? No plane ever hit it and I don't buy the story that the fires caused it to fall. If this part of their story is untrue, then how much of the WHOLE story is just plain fiction?
I for one will NEVER buy the official story of 911.
I believe 911 will play out through the years much as that fatal day in Dallas November 22, 1963.
Image
User avatar
ScaRZ
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:51 pm

Building 7 fell because it was damaged enough to eventually fall. I believe it's as simple as that....the pictures themselves are quite clear.

Here's a site which details the damage and the full quotes in context with the decision to "pull" the building....in context meaning - pull all firefighters from the building, because it was obviously about to collapse.

While I do believe the government, and U.S. intel may have had a hand in driving the events that occurred on that day - I don't believe they got their own hands dirty. It's much easier to use the minds and bodies of middle-eastern militants, than it is to do the dirty work yourself.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:19 pm

Wrt building #7, I must admit I thought the same thing as you ScaRZ - that is, until I started digging a little deeper. I am planning to write a series of articles regarding 911, it will take some time however so for now I will make do with posting on the subject.

The majority of 911 sites out there all make the same statement as yours above, namely no plane ever hit building 7 but yet it still came down. They also expand that statement and claim it only suffered minor damage at the SW corner of the building as a result of the towers collapsing.
The claim that building only had relatively minor damage is untrue however.

Captain Boyle, Engine 94 (18 years service)
Interview with Firehouse magazine, August 2002
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 (33 years service)
Interview with Firehouse magazine, April 2002
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7, did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


Those statements should serve to inform that there was indeed much more damage to building 7 than a lot of the conspiracy sites would have us believe. Those guys are firefighters with many years’ service and experience; one would feel they know what they are talking about.

The unfinished NIST report also mentions the damage to the structure of the building.


Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west


As I mentioned further above, the vast majority of conspiracy sites only make mention of “minor” damage to the SW corner of the building and neglect to inform their readers there was indeed much more damage to this building than they will lead you to believe.

The other claim often mentioned is “that no single skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to fire”.
How many skyscrapers in history have had a fully laden jumbo jet crash into them at over 500mph? How many skyscrapers in history have had thousands of tons of masonry falling onto them from a great height?

These folks are concentrating on the wrong aspects of the so-called 911 conspiracies, IMHO.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:32 pm

ryguy wrote:Building 7 fell because it was damaged enough to eventually fall. I believe it's as simple as that....the pictures themselves are quite clear.

Here's a site which details the damage and the full quotes in context with the decision to "pull" the building....in context meaning - pull all firefighters from the building, because it was obviously about to collapse.

While I do believe the government, and U.S. intel may have had a hand in driving the events that occurred on that day - I don't believe they got their own hands dirty. It's much easier to use the minds and bodies of middle-eastern militants, than it is to do the dirty work yourself.

-Ry


Yes. And, as for Bldg. 7- very well explained by Zep above. Do these conspiracy advocates realize the magnitude of the supposed 'conspiracy?' That somehow a demolition team might have secretly wired these buildings with thermite explosives is just beyond the pale. The government with it's long history of lies and cover-ups in all things great and small has invited these paranoid conspiracy nuts out of the closet. The conspiracy nuts are a ridiculous bunch- the Rothschild/ Illuminati/ reptoid/ new-world-order/ giant owls/ assorted Jews and Zionists and the rest of their usual suspects notwithstanding.

The truth is that OBL and his gang of merry terrorists did in fact pull this off. That was the true conspiracy. Why is that so hard to understand? And fail to understand that at your peril. They undoubtedly have further plans in store for us. With people like Rice and Bush on watch duty, I'm afraid we're screwed.
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby I.P.Freely » Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:27 pm

well IMO in regards to building 7 it was by far niether the closest or most damaged building in that complex. Yet they never fell What it was is where many documents in federal cases against major corporations were kept. Cases that have now been dropped.
"You can either trust people or not. I choose to trust what people say and sometimes I get lied to. If I were to trust no one I would never hear the truth." - James (IPF) Martell
I.P.Freely
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:41 pm

True, but it was the ONLY building in the Trade Center complex with that specific design. That is, a design that could not withstand any major damage to any of the load bearing columns. There was significant damage to the load bearing columns, damage that was fatal to the structural integrity of the building.

The fact there were lot's of records that got lost as a result is neither here nor there. The same thing applies to Towers 1 and 2.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby I.P.Freely » Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:16 am

I don,t really have the education to know anything for sure but if you zep or anyone else for that matter does. I would like to know if it would be possible to do what some people believe was done. Forget about probable just is it possible is all I,m asking?
"You can either trust people or not. I choose to trust what people say and sometimes I get lied to. If I were to trust no one I would never hear the truth." - James (IPF) Martell
I.P.Freely
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:58 pm

well, they say anything is possible...

In this context however it isn't. Controlled demolition is a very complex operation and would be impossible to execute without the thousands of witnesses in the area actually realising what was happening.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Next

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron