Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yet another take on controlled demolition

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 04:20 PM
Original message
Yet another take on controlled demolition
I just know I'm gonna regret this. I'm even going to ignore my own thread, but for the same of posterity...

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Damn you, Trog!!!
:spank:

You just like to stir the pot, don't you???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. THE 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWER FIRES
THE 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWER FIRES. http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=315

Videos of the towers indicate fires about as, or less severe, than your typical office fire. Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to preform on September 11, 2001 and the fires spread easily and rapidly to floors above, and below, the impact floors. It is likely that the fires above, and below, the impact floors, were deliberately ignited.

Some thoughts about the World Trade Center Tower fires (from various sources).

(1) One complaint is that much of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings. This was particularly true in the case of the south tower. After the impact nearly all of the jet fuel would have been spread throughout the area as a flammable mist. When this mist ignited it would have emptied the building of almost the entire fuel load, which then "exploded" outside the building. This is exactly what was seen in the videos of the impacts.

(2) If any quantity of liquid jet fuel did manage to accumulate in the building, then its volatility would lead to large amounts of it being evaporated and not burnt (pyrolysed) in the interior of the building. This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen.

(3) The jet fuel fires were brief. Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds, and all of it within 2-3 minutes (if all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor as a pool, it would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes). The energy, from the jet fuel, not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period, would have been vented to the outside world.

This means that the jet fuel fire did not heat the concrete slabs or fire protected steel appreciably. Large columns such as the core columns would also not heat appreciably, even if they had lost all their fire-protection. Unprotected trusses may have experienced a more sizeable temperature increase. The jet fuel fire was so brief that the concrete and steel simply could not absorb the heat fast enough, and consequently, most of the heat was lost to the atmosphere through the smoke plume.

(4) Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected. Consider this quote: After the Broadgate Phase 8 fire and the Cardington frame tests there were benchmarks to test composite frame models. Research intensified because almost all the tests had unprotected steel beams (no fire rated suspended ceiling and no spray-on fire retardant) but collapse was not seen <3>.

(5) Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975.

(6) Of course, most of the weight of the building was supported by the central core columns. There is no indication as to how these 47 massive columns might have failed (at least in the case of the north tower, some of these columns, perhaps two or three, would have been displaced by the impacts). We know that the jet fuel fire was too brief to heat them appreciably. Since the central core area contained only lift shafts and stairwells, it contained very little flammable material. This meant that the core columns could only have been heated by the office fire burning in the adjacent region. Consequently, the core columns would have never got hot enough to fail. But we already know this because they did not fail in the 1975 WTC office fire.

(7) Also, the building engineers placed the ventilation system in "purge mode." This forced fresh (cool) air into the core area keeping it free of smoke and hot gases.

(8) You should consider that it has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C). You can find the calculation here.

(9) Another reason that we know the fires were not serious enough to cause structural failure, is that witnesses tell us this. The impact floors of the south tower were 78-84. Here are a few words from some of the witnesses:

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby: We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned.

Eagar claims temperatures were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away.

Interestingly, a tape of radio conversations between firefighters exists (but only relatives of the dead men have been allowed to hear it). Kevin Flynn, of the New York Times, reported:

Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. "We should be able to knock it down with two lines," he tells the firefighters of Ladder Co. 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower. Lt. Joseph G. Leavey is heard responding: "Orio, we're on 78 but we're in the B stairway. Trapped in here. We got to put some fire out to get to you." The time was 9:56 a.m.

So now we know that, just a few minutes before the collapse of the south tower, firefighters did not consider the fires to be that serious, and were in fact able to get right into the impact region without being killed by the heat that was (according to Eagar) so intense that the trusses glowed red-hot and failed.

(10) When fully developed fire conditions (temperatures of over 700°C) are reached, this results in the breaking of window glass. For example, the 1988 First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles, which showed greater heating effects over larger regions than those observed in either tower, rained broken window glass down on the streets below, presenting a considerable hazard to those on the ground. The First Interstate Bank did not collapse.

(11) If the temperatures inside large regions of the towers were of the order of 700°C, then these regions would have been glowing red hot and there would have been visible signs of this from the outside. Even pictures taken from the air looking horizontally into the impact region show little sign of this.

(12) Another reason the fire would not have been as hot as your typical office fire (at least on the impact floors) is that cross ventilation would have cooled it somewhat. Consider the quote: Cross ventilation resulting from (broken) windows present in opposite walls causes a high intake of air and cooling effects <3>.

(13) If there had been severe fires burning in the core region this would have made the stairwells impassible. However the stairwells below the impact region on the North Tower were sufficiently clear to allow some occupants close to the impacted floors to escape and to allow firemen to reach at least the floors around the 70th level. In the South Tower, at least one stairwell remained operable as there were survivors from above the impact region.

OTHER HIGHRISE FIRES.

Here is a list of the fire duration of various fire incidents in steel-frame buildings:

Building -- Date -- Fire -- Duration (hours)
World Trade Center North Tower -- February 23, 1975 -- 3 to 4
World Trade Center North Tower -- September 11, 2001 -- 1.75 *
World Trade Center South Tower -- September 11, 2001 -- 1 *
World Trade Center Seven -- September 11, 2001 -- **
1st Interstate Bank Building -- May 4-5, -- 1988 -- 3.5
Broadgate Phase 8 -- June 23rd, 1990 -- 4.5
1 New York Plaza Fire -- August 5, 1970 -- 6
One Meridian Plaza -- February 23-24, 1991 -- 19 (11 uncontrolled)

* The time after which the towers collapsed. Before September 11, 2001 no high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
** It is claimed that WTC Seven collapsed due to fire. Fire duation is unknown. Fire severity is unknown. Photos of small localized fires exist. No evidence of a large fire at WTC 7 exists. Though hundreds of photographers were taking photos of the ruins of the twin towers, none bothered to photograph the "raging" fire across the street (Vesey St) at World Trade Center Seven. I guess that a "raging" fire in a 47-story building, is such a commonplace occurrence in New York, that the photographers just ignored it, even though it was only a few hundred feet away from them. Just couldn't see a good story in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. All of your speculations will be refuted
...on Friday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. jumpin jehova
Boy...you jumped on that one quick. Let me guess. You'll be quoting from FEMA or NIST?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. NIST Report Due Friday
They have much more extensive resources than you are drawing from.

I have no illusions. 9/11 revisionists will continue to cry about nukes in the basement or controlled demolitions or flamethrowing missiles shooting out of pods.

But on Friday, the adults who have been looking at the actual evidence will be speaking. And you will not like what they say, but it will be the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thank you adult President Bush ...says NIST
Well well well well well well...Looks like NIST has their big ol hands in the Government cookie jar...big time. And they're going to produce a WTC analysis that wouldn't please their CONTRIBUTOR? hahahahaha!! At least show us a study that might be halfway objective. You know..... truly "adult".

From http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/budget_2005.htm

"President Bush outlined his continued support for science and technology in the FY 2005 budget request he sent to Congress today. Under the proposed plan the Technology Administration (TA) would receive $529.8 million. The funding builds on the President’s continued commitment to research and development, especially in the areas of nanotechnology and cybersecurity.

“The President realizes that technology is central to both our economic security and our homeland security,” said Under Secretary of Technology Phillip J. Bond. “Given the President’s efforts to hold the line on non-defense funding, this budget request represents a significant investment in our science and technology infrastructure that would enable us to both win the war on terror and remain competitive around the world.”

The Technology Administration includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Technology Policy (OTP), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Below is a more detailed breakdown of the TA budget:
"National Institute of Standards and Technology $521.5 million"

Well well well well well...521 Million out of a budget of 771 million. Lets just say that doesn't have the right smell of a truly "adult" independent investigation...does it bolo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OudeVanDagen Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. couple of questions, demodewd
I'll start with these:
1. You state; "(5) Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, ..."
still stood, yes ... but stood still? What about motion? Have any comments on these structures dampening the motion? Can you explain how WTC was designed or what key structural elements were used for dampening motion ... and how they performed on 9-11?
2. You state; "Before September 11, 2001 no high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
Can you please explain when causation of structural collapse is limited to one factor. Your "due to fire' is a very broad comment ... what collapse ... any collapse in any era ... has been caused by just one single factor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. re: couple of questions
I didn't write the article. See THE 2001 WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWER FIRES. http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=315 for further explanations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OudeVanDagen Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. asking for YOUR views
I know you didn't write the article, but it does however closely mirror some of your opinions and theories, and you're never one who is unwilling expand when asked, especially about your own observations and interpertations.

I would really like to know your take .... your opinion on motion; because, simply put, collapse only occurs when structres can not dampen or arrest motion.

Maybe you can also offer some of your observations about structural collapse ... in general or better yet, specific to WTC. Is it your view that collapse results from a singular event or is it a result of several events ... and how does one apply that view of collapse to WTC? Your comment about fire never causing collapse is very broad and suggests the impossible ... that one and only one event can cause a collapse.

What role, in your opinion, did the structural connections play ... how about the key structural elements designed for dampening? I'm sure you've given these matters some thought and I would like to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Am going to limit myself to just one item
regarding your post. It was pretty hard to stop at just one as there is so much misinformation to choose from.

8) You should consider that it has been calculated that if the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction, then the jet fuel could have only raised the temperature of this floor to, at the very most, 536°F (280°C).

Man, that sounds pretty convincing. Except for one small detail. But before I get to that detail, have you ever noticed that commercial steel buildings are fire proofed? I have. So I asked myself a question. If steel building are not typically spec'd to withstand jet fuel induced fires, why would those silly engineers and fire safety guys insist the steel be fireproofed?

Then I got it. Commercial building almost always have lots of other combustible stuff inside. Like wood, paper, fibers, paper, wood, - you know stuff offices are made out of. So those silly life safety guys must be on to something when the insist steel building be fireproofed. It must be because the stuff in the building burns.

So even if the energy of 10,000 gals of fuel doesn't release a lot of heat in relation to the size of the building, ALL that other stuff does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. refer to number 5
Yes but silly engineer LARED. Fibers,paper,wood etc burns below the temperature of kerosene.Let us refer to no. 5 shall we?
5) "Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. The 1975 fire ....
.... was primarily electrical in origin and nature; and whatever 'room and contents' office fires that erupted were small and contained, and suppressed long before the truss-slab integrity could become issues.

In this firefighter's opinion I think it's more about fire duration than fire temperature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Ok
Fibers,paper,wood etc burns below the temperature of kerosene.

Yes they do, but they still burn hot enough to effect the properties of steel, hence a reason steel is fireproofed

Let us refer to no. 5 shall we?

Sure

5) "Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed. After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire.

I agree in part. The floor was not functioning as designed. Large areas of the floor were missing, hence they could not be functional. Where the floor was still intact we have no way of knowing it its supports were fully functional either. But yes, some of the floor was still functional as designed.

The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence.After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire

Again, quite possible. Although it was not typical as most fires don't start with a high speed jet plowing into the building. Most start and spread out as combustible material is consumed. Typically a smaller amount of the building would be affected at any given time compared to the WTC that day.

, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975."

Ah no. We don't know any such thing. In the 75 fire there was not any damaged caused by a jet blowing up inside the building. The fire spread mush slower. An you have no clue if the amount of heat conducted is the same between the two fires. common sense tell one that the 9/11 fire would have a far greater impact on the integrity of the building structure.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadBroke Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. I'm splitting hairs, but maybe not...
... but this firefighter has some trouble agreeing with Before September 11, 2001 no high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

A high-rise in firefighting terms is any occupied structure with a height that can not be reached with a ladder truck. Generally speaking, a ladder truck traditionally has a 100 foot ladder. Once the appartaus is positioned and the ladder is raised it will, if everything goes right, at best reach the eighth floor or the roof of an eight story building; six floors is more realistic and not pushing things, so anything over 6 to 8 stories is considered a high-rise to firefighters. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, maybe not. The strategy and tactics used for firefighters differ very little between an 8 story building and one much higher.

But the larger issue is that the 9-11 Trade Center fires were in two buildings that were built with trussed floors and not in buildings with a typical redundant column and beam design. Had the Trade Center been a one story building firefighters would not have entered. Trusses and trussed roofs are dangerous and prone to collapse; that's why communities all over the world are making owners of buildings with truss construction have special plain sight exterior truss ID markings so firefighters can see the signs and not enter.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but The Trade Center was not a typical steel frame structure with redundant columns and beams. It was truss, trusses that spanned long distances. Trusses are bad news. All too many truss buildings have failed from fire and too many firefighters have needlessly died. The Trade Center was in essence just truss roofed buildings stacked one upon another and a recipe for disaster.

If you're going to speak about steel frame buildings never before collapsing from fire you really should in fairness specify the differences between a typical steel frame buildings and the Trade Center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarryLime Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. a pair of business proposals
Since the North and South Towers obviously collapsed from heat stress from burning kerosene I plan to sell the idea to steel companies in the US. Just burn kerosene! You don't need bottled oxygen. Duh!

In addition, since WTC 7 obviously collapsed from--well, it obviously collapsed--I plan to sell the idea of using small office fires to perfectly demolish a building in its footprint. Hey, demolition experts! You don't need to plant cutting charges anymore. Just let a small office fire burn all day (from some mystery fuel) and eventually the entire building will straight fall down!

Boy, those guys in Afghanistan sure are smart. They figured things out that eluded US engineers for centuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-04 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. you should add some office furniture, because
that will really speed up the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 27th 2024, 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC