Explosions underneath the WTC Towers b4 they collapsed

Originally posted by Satyr


Yep. I'm mostly referring to #7, though. There was no impact damage there. I don't doubt that the twin towers may have fallen on their own. It's actually quite clear to me that they started collapsing at the places where the damage was most severe, so that's not as much of a mystery to me.

yes, there was impact damage. Do you have any idea how big 110 stories x2 is?

"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears."

(From my previously posted link)

Other aerial shots I've seen seem to indicate that the debris hardly even reached that block. Still, again, there are quite a few other buildings that suffered worse damage and are still standing, correct? Can you show me which square contained WTC7? (in this link)

www.thewebfairy.com...

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
Other aerial shots I've seen seem to indicate that the debris hardly even reached that block. Still, again, there are quite a few other buildings that suffered worse damage and are still standing, correct? Can you show me which square contained WTC7? (in this link)

www.thewebfairy.com...

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Here is a building map from a 911 conspiracy site. I am not sure how close to scale it is, but it marks all of the buildings. Also, there is video footage of WTC 7 coming down at the same site. The author of the site contradicts himself by claiming that there is little or no burning footage of WTC 7 out there. The video of the collapse taken from CBS clearly shows alot of smoke coming from WTC 7.

WTC Map

Wait a minute! You live in NY, and you can't pick out the square that it was in? If you know the city well, it should be easy to find the spot, shouldn't it? I thought you said you knew the city?

It was in this one...

www.thewebfairy.com...

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
Wait a minute! You live in NY, and you can't pick out the square that it was in? If you know the city well, it should be easy to find the spot, shouldn't it? I thought you said you knew the city?

It was in this one...

www.thewebfairy.com...

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

I did not realize this was a test! Jeez. I thought you were having trouble finding it, so I gave you a map.

Stick to your research.

And yes, I live just outside NYC> and I was born on the upper east side and my family goes back 110+ years in NYC. My next door neighbor lost 60+ employees of HIS company and one person I grew up with did not make it out alive. I'm bailing on this one. I suggest you refer to SeekerOf's WTC list in the "war in terrorism" section.

Grow up and welcome to my ignore list.



[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by Facefirst
My next door neighbor lost 60+ employees of HIS company and one person I grew up with did not make it out alive. I'm bailing on this one. I suggest you refer to SeekerOf's WTC list in the "war in terrorism" section. Grow up.

You were doing fine, until you told me to "grow up". Now I think you're an idiot. Typical response from someone who just wants to be ignorant, or remain in denial.

I'm sorry about the loss of your friend, but you owe it to him, and everyone else, not to just sweep things under the rug. There's absolutely nothing wrong with investigating this, even if it goes nowhere. In fact, it's imperative that it does get investigated by private parties, since those who were in charge of it can't really be trusted to any degree.

Originally posted by Satyr Yep. I'm mostly referring to #7, though. There was no impact damage there. I don't doubt that the twin towers may have fallen on their own. It's actually quite clear to me that they started collapsing at the places where the damage was most severe, so that's not as much of a mystery to me.

There was lots of damage... one very large chunck hit dead-center... if you watch video of the north tower falling, you can see the large piece heading toward #7. Also, the NYC emergency management center was in #7, with all the emergency generator fuel buring like mad. Combine this with the structural issues from the vibrations of 220 floors falling just yards away, and it was only a matter of time. On an unrelated note... why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in turns into a heated argument. This is not a good trend.

Originally posted by Satyr Can you show me which square contained WTC7? (in this link)

Find the center dot, it's the square just to the bottom right of the dot. www.thewebfairy.com... Use this: www.wirednewyork.com... Google is your friend.

Originally posted by Satyr
Obviously, you don't understand the physics. The physics are exactly the same. It's the material that's different. I was just trying to make a point.
[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Satyr]

You have got to be kidding me. Have you tried telling this to a civil engineer?..............

Satyr...your information and your analogy is wrong.... You cannot explain what happens to a "skyscraper" in a fire, which was being feed by... what was it....67,000-90,000 lbs? of jet fuel plus all the flamables in a building, by heating a metal rod with a bic lighter and trying to bend it with your bare hands......

Structural steel softens at 425C, althou it begins to "soften gradually" from 100C- 200C, half of the strength of steel is lost at 650C, and at 800C the stregth is reduced to 11%, with a yield level residual stress resulting from the difference of temperature of 150C from location to location, which caused the buckling effect, and which with the original impact of the planes the structure was already compromised and weakened, this all was the cause for the collapse of the north and south towers. The initial explosions most probably reached tower 7, this is how the fire began there, or some of the burning rubble from the explosion which was thrown probably a couple blocks began that fire.

Here is a good site explaining this.

www.tms.org...

Here you will find a good link with animations on what happened when the south tower was hit and how it collapsed.

www.usatoday.com...


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

Oh wait, but we're the USA, there is no corruption in our government, despite the overwhelming proof of it in many presidencies...

[Edited on 3-8-2003 by Attero Auctorita]

Thank you captain obvious. Captain obvious is lost in America because so many are happy and set with what they got and ignore information. Red or Blue is what too many see when there is a whole spectrum of options to choose from.

If the attack was more planned then we were led to believe the threat of more attacks is multiplied greatly unless those who pulled it off like what is happening with the world as we speak. I dont have in person access to that info if i did I am sure I'd have major conscequences for sharing the conspiracy.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
On an unrelated note... why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in turns into a heated argument. This is not a good trend.

Are you saying that's my fault? He just insulted me. I did nothing to bring that on, did I?
Heated debate only means it's a good debate. It normally means that both side are providing pretty valid arguments. It's not intentional, and I won't frequently be the one to direct the first insult. People just tend to get pissed off when they can't win a debate, and you generally won't, with me.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Structural steel softens at 425C, althou it begins to "soften gradually" from 100C- 200C, half of the strength of steel is lost at 650C, and at 800C the stregth is reduced to 11%, with a yield level residual stress resulting from the difference of temperature of 150C from location to location, which caused the buckling effect, and which with the original impact of the planes the structure was already compromised and weakened...

Steel beams aren't going to just bend, even when they're softened. The weight was distributed evenly throughout all beams, which distributes the stress among all of them. You could go into the buiding and cut several of the main beams and the building would not fall. Since the fire appeared to be contained to 2 or 3 floors, I seriously doubt it could've superheated all beams to the point of collapse. Once again, look at the massive size of the steel beams in that building! There isn't a fire in the world that would weaken beams of that size to that point, IMO. Hence, the reason why it's never happened before....ever. The more massive the steel, the more heat it would take to make them buckle, just because of the heatsinking effect. In other words, at 650C, when a smaller beam (which can't transfer as much heat to the colder parts, as quickly) could lose some strength, a larger beam (with much more area to distribute heat) is not going to have as much heat concentrated in any one area as the smaller. That's my point with the lighter example. Heat a paperclip with that lighter, then try heating the bigger rod, and you'll see. There is a huge difference. The amount of heat absorbed is directly proportional to the size of the material, and the heatsink effect.

[Edited on 5-30-2004 by Satyr]

Satyr, first of all I would like your to please get your terminology correct. There were four major types of structural components to the WTC towers. All of which contributed to the support of the building loads. First and foremost are the perimeter columns, Technically there were no perimeter beams, but there were wide flat steel plates called spandrels between the columns at each floor level. The purpose of these was to provide lateral rigidity in the plane of the perimeter walls.

The floors were not supported by beams at any point, rather they were supported by truss structures. The truss is an open grid-work of thin steel chords and diagonals that is lightweight and strong. but remember that the cross sections of the steel truss components are relatively thin compared to typical I beams used in smaller buildings. The truss has a great deal of surface area compared to the mass of steel. Additionally, the steel trusses were stiffened by the concrete of the composite floor deck structure. Concrete resists compression stress, so the deck itself helped to prevent the floors from buckling under the normal stresses of the building. finally the bottom chords of the trusses were attached to the columns with visceoeleastic dampers (rubber). These helped dampen the movement of the trusses when the building swayed under normal wind loads. These probably burned through rather quickly. Although they are not really a structural component, it is not clear what effect the loss of these connections may have had on the truss performance.

an animation sequence showing how the trusses may have failed:



Note that this animation is rather simplified, it does not show the floor slab, nor does it indicate the extent of the damage done by the impact of the airplane.

Finally you have the core. The core consisted of a more standard boxlike structure of columns and beams.

The general consensus among structural engineers is that the floors failed. The composite truss and slab system was undoubtedly extensively damaged by the aircraft impact.

The subsequent high temperature fire quite likely had two main effects.

1) it weakened the steel cross sections of the truss.

2) It spalled and cracked the lightweight concrete deck.

Together, these caused the floors to sag. Once they started to sag, the were unable to perform one of their essential tasks, stiffen the exterior columns and prevent them from buckling.


Finally consider the damage caused by the impact itself



Look at this picture. Notice how many of the exterior columns are cut through. The loads formerly carried by those columns has been transfered to the adjacent columns, over-stressing them. Notice that most of the interior floor slabs at the point of impact have also been wiped out. Notice that on the top left of the picture, it appears that the fires have already burnt though some of the exterior cladding.

It is my opinion, that the buildings would have collapsed eventually due to the damage. The fire merely helped the process along.

I am skeptical on the controlled explosion.

I am aware of one thing to, I do not think that the explosions in the basement would cause the towers to 'rise'.

I think that if the explosion would have that much power, it would demolish the building BEFORE it had any chance of 'rising'.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by MacKiller]

There is no evidence, other than an unsubstantialed, third hand rumor, that the towers "rose"

Certainly none of the survivor's noted anything like that.

Let's not confuse buildings. I was talking about WTC7, not the towers. As I've already stated a few times now, I don't doubt that the towers had substantial damage to cause structural failure. WTC7, however, did not, IMO. It was a smaller building, with a hell of alot thicker steel than the average building.

[Edited on 5-30-2004 by Satyr]

Do you have access to the structural plans? how about the As-Builts? If you do, please contact the 911 commission as they are looking for copies of these.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you have access to the structural plans? how about the As-Builts? If you do, please contact the 911 commission as they are looking for copies of these.

Grow up.

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

Go to www.serendipity.li... and see for yourself the CLEAR seismic recording of huge spikes BEFORE the known beginning of the collapse of the towers.

Finally, let us not forget the faux pas of a FEMA official proving prior knowledge of 9-11 when he let slip that his FEMA team flew into New York on the night BEFORE the two towers were hit the following morning!:
"We arrived on, uh, late Monday night [September 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning [September 11th]; and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site."

� Tom Kenny (FEMA), speaking to CBS anchor Dan Rather on September 12th.





[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Banshee]

micpsi, rather than just cut an past an article as your post, why don't you look at the actual data.

members.fortunecity.com...

Note that the red lines are simply expanded versions of the black lines. Look at the red lines and tell me: Where are the short spikes?



Deny ignorance micpsi.


and Satyr, My point was made. You don't really know what the structural conditions were so any speculation of your part is pure conjecture.



[Edited on 31-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by HowardRoark]