Looking for WTC ‘Achilles' Heel

I have always gone under the assumption that buildings were designed to stand, the architects of WTC even confirmed my assumption is right... though i must have heard it at least a hundred times "the buildings were designed to collapse". Yet never once was data provided to back up this claim and all my quests for such data lead me to culd-a-sacs of "dog chasing tail" gibberish.

Can someone please enlighten me on the specific architectural features that were designed/built in to all three towers (1, 2 & 7) that would by default be enacted when the buildings were put under distress... and specifically what kinds of "distress" and location(s) would put such preventative measures into action?... give me solid sound independent objective science.

Spare me all the topical slanted official story bull we have all heard over and over like a broken record, no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't sufficiently explain all three collapses, let alone even one.

This is a decent one but not really.

According to the original documents the towers were built to WHITSTAND being hit by planes, so it might be he said she said thing.

There's plenty of evidence tho, the 45 degree cut core columbs, the molten steel at the base and so on.

www.tms.org...

Originally posted by The All Seeing I


Can someone please enlighten me on the specific architectural features that were designed/built in to all three towers (1, 2 & 7) that would by default be enacted when the buildings were put under distress... and specifically what kinds of "distress" and location(s) would put such preventative measures into action?... give me solid sound independent objective science.

Sure, no problem:

Gravity

Thank you

reply to post by CameronFox


You believe this I got land in the sky for sale, only problem is you will never know where its at because clouds are always changing.

Again fire + steel = no collapse its just that simple, who is it that you cant see that. I would like real proof the fires took the towers down.

Even NIST's models couldn't do it unless there where extreme instances so PROVE IT.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Again fire + steel = no collapse its just that simple, who is it that you cant see that. I would like real proof the fires took the towers down.

Ah, you silly truthers....you forgot some of that equation.

It would be:

Airplane + speed + explosion + damaged fireproofing + structural damage + fire + no sprinklers ....... see, you guys seem to leave that plane out.

The only reason there was structural damage is because they cut the core collumbs before the planes hit, didn't you see them...like two dozen of them all cut at the same 45 degree angle. and i've seen buildings steel buildings that burnt on 18 floors and didnt' fall down.

Now tell me why fires on like 3 floors made that possible, two floors on WTC 7.

The planes didn't cause those things to fall down, neither did gravity. They wouln't have fell straight down, and they wouln't have fell in 11 seconds flat.

reply to post by CameronFox


Yet again stop talking crap and prove it.. seriously, with real science not half baked 9/11 science from 911myths.com or something.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Sure, no problem:
Gravity

Sure, no problem. WTC 7 fell with an acceleration equal to gravity for 2.25 seconds.

An interconnected, joined steel framed building that was 47 stories tall with around 80 columns, offered no resistance to its own collapse for 2.25 seconds.

Gravity certainly sucked hard on 9/11...

Originally posted by CameronFox

Ah, you silly truthers....you forgot some of that equation.

It would be:

Airplane + speed + explosion + damaged fireproofing + structural damage + fire + no sprinklers ....... see, you guys seem to leave that plane out.

no plane
no speed
no explosion
no damaged fireproofing
but I guess you will see huge structural damage and fire lol




"...see, you guys seem to leave that plane out"

Yea, for a good reason, because there were no planes crashing into the towers. And no, I'm not gonna convince you, this is just for other readers who are really looking for truth.

People who use "truth", "truther" in a negative upside down way make me very suspicious.

And now have fun with your ongoing crusade against truth....oh my

Let me rephrase this... do we have any architects and structural engineers or students of these disciplines in the house, who can explain how one goes about designing a building that will collapse when distressed? ...and how specifically was this designed into WTC 1, 2 & 7.

If i step back and play naive for a moment, i find the closest metaphor being that of a compact umbrella. Towers 1 & 2 had a massive inner core that appeared to disappear with a light-weight mess-like exterior that flew away/out-ward.

Again how does one design such a building, to collapse into it's own foot print.

And how do you determine what the 'Achilles' heel(s) will be?

free fall is impossible in the path of most resistance without doing away with the steel structure - now we have a combo or trifecta in the demo of the towers (Dr. Judy Woods - DEW, Dr. Jones - Thermate, and good ole fashion demo charges... all working together to make the impossible possible....

reply to post by CameronFox

reply to post by CameronFox


Airplane + speed + explosion + damaged fireproofing + structural damage + fire + no sprinklers ....... see, you guys seem to leave that plane out.

Post by me!

The above algebra or what ever you wanna call it, math, does not make sense, and I can say this as for only one example is the hotel fire in Madrid which was built among the same principals of the twin towers.

Link www.concretecentre.com...

Please post evidence of your doubt first. This is a basic knowledge in the 9/11 forum.

Thanks Cam but even as this is lod news to me it seems you not done your home work

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Again fire + steel = no collapse its just that simple, who is it that you cant see that. I would like real proof the fires took the towers down.

Ah, you silly truthers....you forgot some of that equation.

It would be:

Airplane + speed + explosion + damaged fireproofing + structural damage + fire + no sprinklers ....... see, you guys seem to leave that plane out.

Yeah that 3rd plane hitting bldg 7 took it down...

Oh wait it was fire and debris from WTC1 & 2 that took Bldg 7 down.

Ahh no , Mr. silverstein had Bldg 7 pulled come to find out...

Larry Silverstein admitting they had Bldg 7 pulled

If you won't take the owners words, then I don't think
truth is what your really after.

Alot of the nay sayers will refuse even in the face of facts to believe.

Pretty amazing that a controlled demolition team just happened to
be standing by with all the plans and gear to get it done in just
a few hours.

Must be some huge coincidence they were just standing by waiting
on some building to blow on the island that day.

Golly gee....



[edit on 30-12-2008 by Ex_MislTech]

Look guys i appreciate the support but you're preaching to the choir.

All those who care to share, please review my past posts, i am asking some very direct questions, that should have some very direct answers.

Thus far no debunkers have cared to chime in with anything substantial, just the usual plagiarizing patronizing "wisdom".

As far as i'm concerned... the burden of proof is on those who buy into the Official Story. Therefore my advice to all my fellow independent thinkers is to make this fundamental shift in all your threads from now on.

It is beyond asinine that we accept a defensive position to the torrent of bull flung at us. We are the ones who are proactive in our cynicism not passive lazy dogmatic ditto heads, of whom we have been fighting this info war with.

By far we hold a higher purpose, take the offensive it is our right.

Now on that note... i'm still waiting for an intelligent answer from a specialist in this genre of study/profession to adequately address my question.

reply to post by The All Seeing I


I think this is a excellent question one I have also tried to find some sort of answer for in the past and also have been unsuccessful. I would agree in thinking this is more rumor (debunker driven) he said she said.

Think of it this way though...

How is it possible that we would lose (if I remember correctly) something like 347 firefighters 80 some PA plus all of the NYPD. For me though the important one is the 347 FF's and the video and stories of all the chief FF's gathered at the base of North tower planning there next move.

These guys were all New York city vets, born there , they knew these towers. How could it be possible that they would not know that the towers had been built to collapse in time of serious stress. Especially after 93, they knew they were strong enough to take that damage. That alone tells me that even after they factored in the second attack and knew what time it was not one ever said we can't send men up there the towers might or will collapse in 90 minutes or less(no elevators the climb).

No, they knew this was gonna be a deadly fire fight, but collapse ..total collapse in whatever low double digit amount of seconds that you think it was.

How is it possible they were all wrong, these guys would of known about any possible scenarios that could take place in a firefight , or plane crash into the towers. Total collapse wasn't one of them.

Makes you wonder.

You have me venturing in a new area of inquiry, ... there was plenty of time for the architects/engineers of the WTC to get in touch with all emergency administrators/chiefs that day to inform them of the collapse design mechanism(s). Matter of fact if such exists, that should have been their most pressing top priority in assessing at that moment and in the aftermath of evidence, that was immediately sent off to be discarded/melted.

As for back to the task at hand...
I can see we have a bunch of light-weight debunkers here...
i'll air this OP at Fire Fighers for 911 Truth and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

Can someone please enlighten me on the specific architectural features that were designed/built in to all three towers (1, 2 & 7) that would by default be enacted when the buildings were put under distress... and specifically what kinds of "distress" and location(s) would put such preventative measures into action?... give me solid sound independent objective science.

Unlike the usual truther drivel - the WTC towers were not designed to
collapse as some claim or were they some super strong fortess capable
of resisting anything (except clever controlled demolition)

The WTC towers were designed in mid 1960's using cutting edge construction techniques - this was done to allow not 1, but 2 of the
worlds tallest and largest buildings to be constructed using minimum of
materials to reduce costs. Karl Koch of Karl Koch Erectors which built
the steel work of the towers estimated WTC weighed in at 37 lbs per sq foot of space versus 75 lb for usual skyscraper

Basic structure

Unlike other tall buildings WTC did not use the typical grid of internal
columns, but were designed as tube structures. In center was cluster of
steel columns to resist gravity loads (about 60% of building load) surrounding elevators, stairs and electrical/plumbing/Hvac conduits
The exterior shell of the building comprise latticework of steel columns
bolted together to form external skeleton to resist wind forces.

The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as had traditionally been done. The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[25] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[26] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[25]

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. T

Floor trusses

WTC used steel web trusses spanning the distance from the exterior walls
to the central core. The web trusses ranged from 35 ft (short side) to
60 ft (long side) These supported the floor decking

A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.

To protect the steel from fire designers used Spray Fire Resistant Materials
(SFRM) - at first asbestos, later mineral wool mixed with cement and
sprayed out of a hose to coat the steel work . Before steel was protected
using several inches of concrete or terra cotta - this was too heavy and expensive for the towers.

Problem was that the SFRM was applied too lightly (only 1/2" in many
locations) and difficulty adhering to steel. It tended to flake off over time
- it was discovered air movements through the HVAC system would
dislodge the SFRM

Much of the fire resistant materials in the impact zone were dislodged by
the aircraft impact wxposing the steel underneath.

The steel web trusses supporting the floor were the most vulnerable to
the fires - as the steel heated it expanded and began to sag and buckle
pulling in the exterior columns and leading to their failure

NIST ran several test using steel web trusses coated with SFRM then
baked in furnance - a 17 ft section using 1/2" of SFRM failed in less than
hour. The trusses of WTC were 2 to 3 1/3 that (35 and 60 feet)

NIST TEST

wtc.nist.gov...

Analysis By Arthur Scheurerman/Vincent Dunn, retired FDNY chief officers

www.icivilengineer.com...

thedman... i applaud the effort in regurgitation but sorry no cigar.

It's common knowledge that tower 1 & 2 were unique constructs... and yet the inner core which was designed to bare more then half of the load, evaporated... no reasonable explanation for this... except that the buildings were designed to collapse under distress.

This issue/quandary is further expressed in the fact that WTC 7 had a typical grid of internal columns that also appeared to evaporated... again no reasonable explanation for this... except that the building was designed to collapse under distress.

...and again we are back to my OP not given a sufficient explanation.

As for NIST, all they have done is dance around this issue with elaborate probabilities, supported by bias tests of speculation. Why don't they want to open this up for independent research? ... because it would expose the blatant frauds that they are.

reply to post by thedman


I took a look at the NIST study you linked to. Page 25 notes that with each of the four tests completed that "Failure to support load" "(3) Did not occur.". Therefore, the study actually does not do a lot to prove your point about the endurance of the trusses.

One rule of thumb in firefighting is "don't trust the truss" because they tend to collapse. However by the NIST test results it sounds like they are more durable than I would expect.