The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

reply to post by weedwhacker

Has anyone stopped to consider the physics, by looking at the structure design, of how the buildings would have sustained themselves if the fire and heat were taken out of the equation? Just the initial impact damage alone --- would the wounded portion have eventually given way, allowing all that mass directly above it to fall down, as we saw, and smash its way to the ground?

Have to consider the collapse of WTC as a SYSTEMS PROBLEM, in that it
was not one factor which caused it but a confluence of factors

First consider thew building design - it was an innovative, some would say
experimental building. It was designed to MAXIMIZE rental floor space
by eliminating interior columns. Most buildings have a network of columns
forming a grid. The interior columns spaced 30-35 feet apart help subdivide the building into series of boxes to contain fire spread. The column grid would have also acted as a meat grinder shreading the plane as it entered the building preventing it from slamming into central core

The floor of WTC used steel trusses varying from 35 ft (short side) to 60 ft
in lenght to support floor deck . Trusses are web of lightweight sections
joined together for mutual support. Problem is that the lighweight pieces
heat up faster than a solid unitary beam. A truss also has disadvantage
that if one section fails the entire truss is compromised. As the trusses heated up began to sag and twist causing floors to buckle,

Fireproofing in WTC was new too - previously fireproofing of steel was done by heavy concrete or terra cotta masonary severla inches thick. The fireproofing at WTC was a spray-on mud like slurry of cement and mineral fibers. Initialkly only applied to thickness of 1/2 ", it was never
fully tested. Fireproofing was upgraded in some sections to 1 1/2 inches
The dried fireproofing was very friable and easily flaked off - the shock
of the aircraft impact and shower of debris traveling at ~500 mph scoured
off much of the fireproofing in the impact area leaving bare steel exposed
to the heat.

Truthers make point of several other major building fires (Meridian Plazaq,
First Interstate Bank) which endured serious fires without collapse. Though
Meridan Plaza was so damaged had to be torn down.

These fires were actively fought - at First Interstate 400 men were involved in extinguishing the fire

Another thing was that the building structure was not compromised and
that the fire fighting systems, both active (sprinklers) and passive
(Fireproofing) were intact. Meridian Plaza came close because restrictor
valves in standpipes prevented FF has getting sufficent water on fire.

In WTC the fires were several hundred feet in air (93 floor North, 78 floor
South)

First problem was getting there.....

In other building elevators were operable and able to shuttle men and
equipment to fire floors (actually at least 2 floors below). In WTC elevators were either destroyed or inoperable (Chief Palmer was able
to find operating freight elevator to 40th floor cutting distence to climb in half). FF had a long exhausing climb up crowded stairs filled with people
evacuating building. Only FF to reach impact zone was some men from Ladder 15 who used the operating elevator to reach 78 floor - sadly just
as building started to collapse.

Sprinklers were also inoperative do to damage to piping. No water - No
sprinklers , Without the sprinklers to control them the fires had free range
to burn across the floor.

Without any effective fire suppression the fires were able to grow until
consumed almost entire floor. Fires were able to attack exposed steel
and cause it to warp and buckle twisting building out of plumb, increasing
stress on surviving building structure s until point reached that critical
section failed.

Hope this explanation helps ....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Has anyone stopped to consider the physics, by looking at the structure design, of how the buildings would have sustained themselves if the fire and heat were taken out of the equation?

Of course we've considered. That's part of investigating. NIST calculates that 14%-15% of the columns in the impact zones were damaged. Most of that was to the outer columns. My calculations are about 13%-14%. Either way, 13%-15% structural damage to the massive structures that were the twin towers was negligible.

The impacts had severed about 33 outer columns out of 59 on one side. All 3 other sides were intact. The core, which was the backbone of the buildings, consisted of 47 six-inch-thick box columns and "I" beams that were connected together horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. Every which way those columns could be connected for maximum support, they were.

The only part of a jetliner that would be any match for those massive core columns would be the engines and the landing gear. The aluminum fuselage and wings would do no damage to the cores.

So, with only 33 columns out of 236 on the outside damaged and very few (3-8) core columns out of 47 damaged, there was no massive damage to the towers. And remember also, the second plane hit at an angle causing the starboard engine and landing gear, and the forward landing gear to miss the core in the south tower altogether. The port engine and port landing gear would have been the only parts of FL.175 that would have done any damage to the core of the south tower.

Meaning, the south tower sustained less structural damage than the north tower where FL.11 impacted closer to center.

Great audio recording, I had heard bit and pieces before but never the whole thing like that, great OP.

Never mind don't feed the trolls, how about we just ignore them. Let them post but just don't respond to them. We need a thumbs up, thumbs down feature on ATS for these guys, then they can see how much they are in the minority.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thank you.

I know you've looked at this, from an engineering perspective, and a design perspective that I am only starting to grasp.

May I ask....you said, at one point (and I won't dissect your post, just typing from memory) "six-inch" thick steel. In the core? Referencing some of the vertical structure that were part of the center?

(Sorry if I don't use the correct engineering/structural terms...)

Again, this is NOT an argument, not meant to be antagonistic --- think of me as a student, and you the instructor, OK? So, all questions aren't meant in any other way except to gather info, and to learn.

I think I've seen that as the components that comprised the core went up, the thinknesses required diminished. Does this sound right?

In other words, at the 'base' of the building, where more strength is needed, the thickness would be greatere than, say, at higher floors.

I'm sure there are reasons, beyond mere economy of material, to make each successive level use slightly less material....because of mass, and thus weight, and there is the need to account for wind effects, on a tall building, etc, etc....sway, any "give" and flexing, and whatnot....

Again, I'm just speaking, here, from a layman's understanding.

NOT sure if I have a valid question here....because I posted in a thread, either this one or another, that IF it were just a fire, and a really HUGE fire that had borken out, in either Tower....then I expect they'd still be there, today. Repaired.

But, with impact damage (and most of what happened inside is mere speculation, and/or educated conjecture, based on engineering design experience) how significant was the added aspect of the impact damage, when added to the fires that could not be reached, to put out, and thus were allowed to burn as they 'saw' fit?

It's a very complex scenario, for sure...and I fear that many wish to over-simplify it.

As I said, even myself, watching on TV, live...and not knowing the basic design principle of those buildings, I thought they'd stay there, and that the fires would eventually either burn themselves out, or would be fought down by the NYFD.

If I may finish this (overly long post, by now)....this is sort of a 'global' question, to all....

>warning....I am taking "off" that student hat, now<

....and, now speaking from a different perspective, to ask:

IF the continued 'mantra' remains that all three buildings, that is....1, 2 & 7 were subjected to a 'controlled demolition' of some sort....then I question the timing. I should not have to explain what I mean by that, I hope?

I am trying to approach this from as logical a viewpoint as possible.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
My calculations are about 13%-14%. Either way, 13%-15% structural damage to the massive structures that were the twin towers was negligible.

So if the plane impacts were negligible and fires did not burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse, what did cause the collapse?



[edit on 10-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
So if the plane impacts were negligible and fires did not burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse, what did cause the collapse?

Explosives, what else? But you already knew that since we've been saying it for years.

My favorite part about this thread is Pepper, here is his list of complaints about the film:

1. Fireman were working throughout the building.
1.in or to every part of; everywhere in: They searched throughout the house.
dictionary.reference.com...

FACT: In the South tower, the last transmission was on or around the 79th floor.

2. Battalion 7 was on the 79th floor
Yes, they were

3. Battalion 15 was on the 78th floor
Yes, they were

4. Alpha 7 reached the 55th floor.
yes, they did.

5. Rescue teams encountered only small isolated pockets of fire.
There is no where in their communications where the word "small" was used. Isolated and pocket does not mean small. We will also look into where they were in regards to where the plane impacted the South tower.

6. Rescue Workers were finding numerous wounded survivors.
It is true. But, what I find disingenuous is how the Major failed to mention the numerous deaths that were reported as well:

"numerous 10-45's code 1".
- Chief Orio Palmer
For those of you that don't know, a 10-45 code 1 is a dead person.

7. The structure of the tower was not melted or deformed.
Melted? This is another pathetic attempt to play the melted steel game. We all know the steel was not melted.

8. Rescue Workers were climbing on un-compromised staircases
As you can see above from the survivors, the stairwells were compromised. In FACT, in this very transmission at about the 8:18 mark of the YouTube Video, there were firefighters fighting a fire in the B - Stairwell:

Orio we are here on 78 but we are in the b stair we're trapped in here we've got to put some fire out to get to you............. All right, we are going to knock down some fire here in the "B" stair and we will meet up with you
- Joseph Leavey

9. Elevators were in use up the 40th floor.
Yes, until if you listen at the 9:33 of the video:
Stuck in the elevator in the elevator shaft, we're chopping through the wall to get out.

Read my next post to see the breakdown of these complaints...

Since he claims on page 10 of this thread that nobody has come forward to respond to this, here we go:

1. pepper seems to have a problem with the choice of words used by the narrator. In peppers first problem with the video, the word throughout doesn't work for him. Apparently since these brave men were not in every nook and cranny of the building, and were focused on the fires (maybe we should get the expert/professional advise from dman, but I believe a fire fighters job is to fight fires... but again we should get professional opinion on this.) they were not working "throughout" the building! fair enough for me point one is correct pepper, they were not working throughout the building!

2-4. pepper actually agrees with what the video says so there is no argument there.

5. pepper gets hung up on wording again, but is soon pointed out by another person that pocket does indeed mean small. I trust that this is no longer on your list of complaints about the video.

6. pepper doesn't like how the narrator only points out the wounded victims, so I think everyone should know that people died that day. I mean how dare the narrator not point that out, as well as other obvious things like how the sky was blue, or that a plane hit the towers. I trust that this complaint is well taken lol.

7. Pepper makes a great point in number 7 of his list. "We all know the steel was not melted" I agree pepper, and I am sorry I cut out the quotes from other sources, but seeing as to how neither source talks about structural integrity, and the first source is from time/cnn the day after 9/11 when they didn't even know the total death count; I found them irrelevant.

8. Pepper doesn't think that the firefighters were climbing on un-compromised stairs. I think pepper is failing to realize how the narration in the video works, he lets the recording play and then recaps what is going on up to the point of interjection by the narrator. So at the time the narrator said the firefighters were climbing on un-compromised stairs, they were. For instance I am watching tv right now, if I get up and go to the bathroom while the narrator is telling people that I was watching tv; that doesn't make the narrator a liar it just means that he hasn't narrated the fact that I have gone to the bathroom yet.

9. this complaint is the same as number 8...

The narrator also mentions at the end of the video that the video is only good for the people that can grasp the information in the video. Seeing as to how that is not pepper, he has no business commenting on it.

There ya go pepper, enjoy.

The fact of the matter is that the only two things to EVER bring down high rise buildings are as follows: DEMOLITION and EARTHQUAKES!

so lets look at what happens to high rise buildings when these two things happen:

Earthquakes- 911research.com...
www.youtube.com...

Demolition-
www.youtube.com...

If it is not obvious to you which one the twin towers looked like when they fell, then you are either in denial, or need your eyes checked...

I am going to hold my breath and wait for pepper or another to dispute this lol...

[edit on 10-3-2010 by arpanet]

reply to post by arpanet

....so lets look....

Yup...I've looked. Seen that same demolition video numerous times.

BUT, did you LISTEN???? Big, big difference from events of 9/11 in NYC.

Oh, and back to 'looking'....notice anything else missing, at the WTC? The explosive charges that you see in actual CD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Noticed another little mistake, sorry....

Earthquakes- 911research.com...
www.youtube.com...

Did you read the comments on that UTube video?? "...was a botched demolition in Sweden"!!!

Oh, and Earthquakes causing buildings to fail? What relevance does that have, please? The ground shakes....shakes the building from the bottom.

WTC 1&2 collapsed, starting at the point of the severe damage, upper floors, aggravated by the intense fires burning unchecked.




[edit on 10 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

I think I've seen that as the components that comprised the core went up, the thinknesses required diminished. Does this sound right?

In other words, at the 'base' of the building, where more strength is needed, the thickness would be greatere than, say, at higher floors.

If you are really interested in research, here is the NIST Core Column data. This is old research to many of us.

Core Column Data

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6358dd10bf4d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/baecb1a2ea89.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07577caa6a52.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f77f8ab9c3c.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by REMISNE
So if the plane impacts were negligible and fires did not burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse, what did cause the collapse?

Explosives, what else? But you already knew that since we've been saying it for years.

What about something like a thermite reaction caused by the plane?

I mean you have molten aluminum comming into contact with the other flamable and volitile materials from the plane.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by arpanet

 

....so lets look....

Yup...I've looked. Seen that same demolition video numerous times.

BUT, did you LISTEN???? Big, big difference from events of 9/11 in NYC.

Mind if I ask what we are to be listening for? Just curious.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by arpanet

 

....so lets look....

Yup...I've looked. Seen that same demolition video numerous times.

BUT, did you LISTEN???? Big, big difference from events of 9/11 in NYC.

Oh, and back to 'looking'....notice anything else missing, at the WTC? The explosive charges that you see in actual CD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Noticed another little mistake, sorry....

Earthquakes- 911research.com...
www.youtube.com...

Did you read the comments on that UTube video?? "...was a botched demolition in Sweden"!!!

Oh, and Earthquakes causing buildings to fail? What relevance does that have, please? The ground shakes....shakes the building from the bottom.

WTC 1&2 collapsed, starting at the point of the severe damage, upper floors, aggravated by the intense fires burning unchecked.
[edit on 10 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

First let me apologize for the youtube video, I didn't spend much time searching for earthquake videos because as you said it doesn't have much relevance, because we know it was not caused by an earthquake. The relevance it has to this situation is just that... Since the only two ways a high rise building has ever collapsed is through demolition or earthquake, and you just ruled the earthquake out obviously... As far as the demolition if you take into account the fact that it was obviously not supposed to look like a "CD" then you can see why whoever did this tried to make it look as if demolition weren't the cause. Just like if you watch demolition from vegas where they have a light up countdown on the side of the building that's about to go down, and you didn't see a big light up countdown on the twin towers...

Here is a link to how building implosions work: science.howstuffworks.com...

It is the defining characteristics of hypocrisy when someone is so faultfinding of an idea that questions their beliefs, and so accepting of an idea that aids their beliefs. Even ironic how critical people are towards those who do not share the same beliefs, yet dislike the people who are critical of them.

If you choose not to see it, then I cannot make you see it.

Have a great day!

Originally posted by REMISNE
What about something like a thermite reaction caused by the plane?

There could have been thermite(mate) in the planes, it is possible. However, conventional explosives were also used to bring the buildings down.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

There could have been thermite(mate) in the planes, it is possible.

_BoneZ_???

You had me going, for a few moments there! Very amusing!

although I do agree with weedwhacker that there most likely was not thermite on the planes, the use of thermite/thermate was involved in the demolition of the core. Another chemical that does the same and is known throughout demolition is cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short.

Originally posted by arpanet
Since he claims on page 10 of this thread that nobody has come forward to respond to this, here we go:

1. pepper seems to have a problem with the choice of words used by the narrator. In peppers first problem with the video, the word throughout doesn't work for him. ....... fair enough for me point one is correct pepper, they were not working throughout the building!

Thank you for agreeing with me. Let's reiterate the point here: The narrator want's you to think that they were "throughout" the tower. We all know that this is not true as they never made it to the impact point.

5. pepper gets hung up on wording again, but is soon pointed out by another person that pocket does indeed mean small. I trust that this is no longer on your list of complaints about the video.

Hold the phone my friend. I conceded that the word "pocket" is typically referenced to mean "small"... two points here:

1. the word small was not used as the narrator claimed.

2. there was a discussion here regarding two lines needed to knock down the fire. This in FACT shows that the fire was not "small". Thedman another ATS member and New Jersey Fire Fighter, explained the size lines and the GPMs of these lines. I also showed a video of how powerful the water pressure in these two lines are.

6. pepper doesn't like how the narrator only points out the wounded victims, so I think everyone should know that people died that day. I mean how dare the narrator not point that out, as well as other obvious things like how the sky was blue, or that a plane hit the towers. I trust that this complaint is well taken lol.

You're missing the point here. WHY did he ignore the issue that the firefighter reported MULTIPLE deaths on the 78th floor? Remember this video is attempting to show how little damage and little fire there was in the south tower.

7. Pepper makes a great point in number 7 of his list. "We all know the steel was not melted" ......

Thank you!

8. Pepper doesn't think that the firefighters were climbing on un-compromised stairs. I think pepper is failing to realize how the narration in the video works, he lets the recording play and then recaps what is going on up to the point of interjection by the narrator. So at the time the narrator said the firefighters were climbing on un-compromised stairs, they were. For instance I am watching tv right now, if I get up and go to the bathroom while the narrator is telling people that I was watching tv; that doesn't make the narrator a liar it just means that he hasn't narrated the fact that I have gone to the bathroom yet.

This is exactly what I am talking about. This is why the video is so deceptive! The creator of this video, again is trying to paint a different picture as to what the conditions are in the Tower. It is disingenuous.

The narrator also mentions at the end of the video that the video is only good for the people that can grasp the information in the video. Seeing as to how that is not pepper, he has no business commenting on it.

There ya go pepper, enjoy.

Oh, I grasped it, and you didn't answer the questions I presented. There is a reason why _Bonez_ is staying clear of responding to me. He is smart enough to know this video is bunk.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by arpanet

7. Pepper makes a great point in number 7 of his list. "We all know the steel was not melted" ......

Thank you!

I am very confused here. You ask about dead bodies and such things as you saw in the ABC special.

Did you miss the part where ABC was the one making the claim that there was molten steel?

So ABC is telling the truth when it fits what you already believe but when they claim there was molten steel, they go back to being liars?

[edit on 3/12/10 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by evil incarnate


I am very confused here. You ask about dead bodies and such things as you saw in the ABC special.

Did you miss the part where ABC was the one making the claim that there was molten steel?

So ABC is telling the truth when it fits what you already believe but when they claim there was molten steel, they go back to being liars?

You are a little confused. This thread is regarding a video presented by A&E For 911 Truth. The video is attempting to take you through the moments leading up to the collapse of the South Tower. The narrator states that there is no melting metal witnessed. (not the exact words)

The discussion about molten metal in the debris pile is covered in many threads here at ATS.

I hope that helps.