The Hologram Theory is dead

reply to post by ULTIMA1

But also no other steel builidng has ever collapsed from fires and stuctural damage like the towers and builidng 7.

But also keep in mind that no other building has ever been hit by a 767 traveling at near mach speeds.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
No other steel building building has had a 767 airliner slam into it at 490mph.

No other steel building has had a 110-story building fall onto it creating a 20-story hole in the lower section of the building, causing a subsequent 7-hour-fire.

But both NIST and FEMA reports conclude the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

....except that the subsequent fires weakened them further.

As for builidng 7, firemen reported some damage to 10 floors on the south side of the building. The majority of fire wasonthis side

Here's what a couple of firefighters had to say about building 7:

"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it."
"7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse"

Also there have been builidngs with longer lasting fires and as much or more sturctural damge as the 3 WTC buildings and they did not collapse.

I'm sure you wouldn't say something like that unless you have some examples. Bear in mind, your examples should include buildings with similar construction for relevance's sake.

Originally posted by nicepants

....except that the subsequent fires weakened them further.

Here's what a couple of firefighters had to say about building 7:

"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it."
"7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse"


I'm sure you wouldn't say something like that unless you have some examples. Bear in mind, your examples should include buildings with similar construction for relevance's sake.

1. But all reports, NIST and FEMA state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse. Videos and photos show the fires burning out well before the collapse.

2. Here is what firemen stated in the FEMA report about builidng 7.

www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

3. Here are steel builidngs that had worse fires and at as much or more structural damage and did not collaspe.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
3. Here are steel builidngs that had worse fires and at as much or more structural damage and did not collaspe.

And not a single one of those described any amount of structural damage to the building that comes close to WTC 1, 2, and 7. In fact, you may want to read what you posted again, for one of them even contains the line :

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was NO damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

Sorry to tell you, but that isn't a comparison at all. Now if you happen to find a building that had several of its floors destroyed and then has a massive fire on several of those floors and others it might be comparable.

To say as much or more structural damage is ludicrous, misleading or a flat out lie.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

1. But all reports, NIST and FEMA state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse. Videos and photos show the fires burning out well before the collapse.

Well the fires did burn hot enough to seriously weaken the supports. This is very common in building fires. Even ones that don't last long.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Yes but fire alone did not cause those buidlings to collapse. One of the biggest things you are missing is the massive exchange of energy from the plane to the building followed by the fire.

Your examples don't work as a comparison because none of them had a comparable energy transfer.

Can you show a building of similar size and construction that was hit by a similar object? That would be a fair comparison.

Originally posted by jfj123
Your examples don't work as a comparison because none of them had a comparable energy transfer.

But again doesn't the NIST, FEMA , and other reports state the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

Which means the energy transfer was not that great, the builidngs were designed to withstand very heavy wind loads.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But again doesn't the NIST, FEMA , and other reports state the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

Which means the energy transfer was not that great, the builidngs were designed to withstand very heavy wind loads.

The buildings withstood the initial impacts - which is a credit to how they were built. In fact they probably exceeded any expectations for how long the upper floors held up. But what had happened is that - to draw an analogy - someone had blasted a shotgun into the side of the towers from close range.

We're talking about 8900 tonnes of impact force, and what you are doing is comparing the wind loading to 8900 tonnes of point load impact.

Wind loading is evenly distributed across the structure, a point load impact is a completely different kind of force.

Think of it this way. Put a sheet of standard unreinforced 5mm thick glass horizontally across two wooden supports. Set a medium size ball bearing on it and roll it around. The glass will support the ball bearing. You could put a heavier or lighter bearing on and it will still hold (unless the bearing is massively heavy). Thats your equivalent wind loading here.

Pick the ball bearing up and drop it on the glass from a height of 1.5 metres. The glass will break. Thats a point impact load.

Can you see the difference now?

Steel and concrete beam structures are designed to spread the loads on them evenly, so that all parts of the loading are transferred through the structure to the foundations, which are designed to spread the weight on them into the supporting ground below. When the planes hit the balance of forces on the load structure was completely disrupted, and the loads spread differently through the remaining structure.

When those loads spread out, they would have taken the support structure past its design tolerances, and caused failures.

The vibrations from the impact would have traversed the whole building, both upwards and downwards, potentially adding shear forces to welds on steel reinforcements in concrete, and on bolts and welds in steel beams. At that point all bets are off as to whether the structure will stand, because you are looking at a cascade reaction that no one can control.

I'm trying to put this as simply as possible, so bear with me here.

Imagine there are three joints next to each other holding a load. One of them pops - or is removed in the impact. That means in effect that the missing joint its not holding the load any more because its in free to move about on its own axis. The other two joints are now trying to cope with the weight transfer, whilst holding the initial weight they were already distributing. There will be tolerances built into the joints to allow them to disperse extra weight, but in this case hundreds - thousands probably - of immediate connections and joints were removed in the impact. The spreading of the weight would then result in overload of the other joints. Those loads would then be transferred to other joints - you get the picture. No joints on that building were designed to take the whole weight of the structure.

The building would be designed to withstand forseeable circumstances and not - as someone above pointed out - a nearly fully loaded 767 deliberately targetted at them.

I imagine that if the planes had hit with glancing blows - maybe the wing hitting the building, that the towers would still be standing - but thats not the case here is it? A sane and rational pilot would have taken some form of avoiding action as soon as he realised his mistake and he had he seen the towers looming infront of him to cause such a glancing blow, the people flying these planes did not.

Look - I know its difficult to comprehend. I'm a Civil Engineer with structural training and my initial reaction to the collapse was "thats nots right" but you have to get past your initial reactions and look at it in more detail.

Don't deal with what you think you know, deal with what you do.


[edit on 21/1107/07 by neformore]

[edit on 21/1107/07 by neformore]

[edit on 21/1107/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Your examples don't work as a comparison because none of them had a comparable energy transfer.

But again doesn't the NIST, FEMA , and other reports state the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

Which means the energy transfer was not that great, the builidngs were designed to withstand very heavy wind loads.

The energy transfer was very large. A kite didn't hit the building. A wind gust didn't hit the building. The building may have not fallen immediately due to the plane impact but BECAUSE of the plane impact and ensuing fires, the 2 buildings fell. It doesn't matter if the buildings stayed up for 1 hours after the impact or 1 week, the ultimate cause of the building collapse was the plane impact which lead to other factors which further weakened the building.

reply to post by neformore


An excellent explanation, neformore.

Thank you.

reply to post by jfj123



How is it possible that the first tower that got hit collapes second?
I understand that there might be physics behind the aluminum slicing through steel....well lets face it, it wasnt just one peice of steel it was an entire column of steel beems designed to support the weight of the largets building in NYC. With that being said, just from watching the videos of the impact where you see practically no dammage to the building or plane because it just looks like the plane was absorbed by the building..then the explosion. Wouldnt you see shards of glass and metal discharge in a slow motion capture of the impacts? I would assume so right? Instead you just see the plane smoothly enter the buidling, come out the other side oddly enough, and then an explosion after the entire physical body of the plane itself enters the building. Numbers can be tweaked to support any theory so those arguments can be fallible on both ends of the spectrum.

Originally posted by jfj123
The energy transfer was very large. A kite didn't hit the building. A wind gust didn't hit the building.

It doesn't matter if the buildings stayed up for 1 hours after the impact or 1 week, the ultimate cause of the building collapse was the plane impact which lead to other factors which further weakened the building.

I am afraid you are off on the energy transfer theory.

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

You are also off on the planes impacts being the cause of the collapse.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

I would suggest you do a little more research.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am afraid you are off on the energy transfer theory.

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising.

Unfortunately, you are still comaring the wind's evenly distributed pressure with the plane's point load impact, as neformore patiently explained to you. Why didn't you respond to that post? Why would your opinion be enough to refute that of an engineer?

You are also off on the planes impacts being the cause of the collapse.

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

Be reasonable, from any vantage point there was obviously more than one factor that led to collapse. What do you suggest was responsible for the collapses, if not the plane?

I would suggest you do a little more research.

I'd like to suggest that you just respond to specific points, without repeating the same lame insults over and over. It does nothing to further the thread, it's childish, and it's annoying. Thanks!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I would suggest you do a little more research.

OK. I'll try again.

Do you have any kids building blocks? Lego perhaps?

Make four equally high columns.

Get a flat plate and place it on top of them.

Put your hand on the top and press down gently.

The weight of your pressing down is distributed through the supports evenly.

Take your hand off the plate.

Take out one of the columns.

Put the plate back on top.

Now when you look at the plate it looks like its supported, and it will hold up.

Put your hand back on the plate and two things are likely to happen.

Firstly, the plate will tip to the missing corner. Thats a bending moment. The support isn't there, the structural integrity is gone. The pressure of your hand is actually forcing the plate down in one corner but also upwards along one of the other points, and laterally across the other two. If any of those points are fixed they would fail.

Secondly, its likley that the remaining columns will buckle. Thats a shear force, caused by the uneven weight distribution above, which will cause the columns to bend unnaturally, and fail.

Now instead of your hands and building blocks, try and imagine the mass and weight of the building instead.

Now, do you understand?

Originally posted by neformore
Now instead of your hands and building blocks, try and imagine the mass and weight of the building instead.

Now, do you understand?

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
I'd like to suggest that you just respond to specific points,

So your saying the NIST model is completly wrong?

OH NO SAY IT AINT SO !!!



[edit on 21-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by GUICE2
reply to post by jfj123

 

How is it possible that the first tower that got hit collapes second?

Both planes didn't hit in the exact same way. It's possible the 2nd tower had just a few more damaged supports or had more of a weight transfer.

With that being said, just from watching the videos of the impact where you see practically no dammage to the building or plane because it just looks like the plane was absorbed by the building

I'm not sure what videos you have watched but all the ones I watched show severe damage to both.

[quoe]Wouldnt you see shards of glass and metal discharge in a slow motion capture of the impacts?
Sure if you had high resolution source video. Do you have any? Every video you might find on the internet has been compressed causing picture quality loss.

Originally posted by jfj123 It's possible the 2nd tower had just a few more damaged supports or had more of a weight transfer.

How did the second tower have more damaged supports when the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building. It had a lot less damage then the first tower. (according to reports)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 It's possible the 2nd tower had just a few more damaged supports or had more of a weight transfer.

How did the second tower have more damaged supports when the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building.

I already explained that above.

It had a lot less damage then the first tower. (according to reports)

I don't know that this statement is true or false. I am explaining to you what my speculation is regarding why one collapsed before the other.

If one collapsed before the other then it had more structural damage. It's simple really. Now we just want to know how it had more damage. Well the obvious thought is that the plane did more damage.

If the building didn't have more structural damage, it wouldn't have fallen first.

Just to be REAL CLEAR. The above is my opinion.

Originally posted by jfj123
The above is my opinion.

Well you have stated 1 thing correct, all you do is post opinion as fact. Please do some researach and stop posting opinions as fact.

Try the 9/11 commision about the damage being less on the second tower then the first.

9/11 Commission Report, Staff Statement #13, page 14

At 9:03 a.m., the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 78th to 84th floors.
Video: UA 175 hits South Tower. What had been the largest and most complicated rescue operation in city history instantly doubled in magnitude.

The plane banked as it hit the building, leaving portions of the building undamaged on impact floors. As a consequence—and in contrast to the situation in the North Tower— one of the stairwells (Stairwell A) initially remained passable from top to bottom.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 It's possible the 2nd tower had just a few more damaged supports or had more of a weight transfer.

How did the second tower have more damaged supports when the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building. It had a lot less damage then the first tower. (according to reports)

I'm not sure if that's accurate either, but assuming it is...

Maybe the second tower to get hit fell first becuase it was struck about 25 floors lower. Those extra 25 floors are heavy, and would contribute to an earlier collapse.