Suspicious Features of the Twin Towers Collapses-- A Summary

[spooked911]

Thought I'd make a nice list here.

I should note first that the fact that the collapses occurred is not in itself suspicious. Obviously any structure will collapse given enough damage and strain. What was suspicious is how the towers collapsed and then what happened afterwards.

Suspicious Features of the Twin Towers Collapses:

1) the collapses occured at NEAR free-fall speed, with little resistance from the intact undamaged structure.

2) the collapses were highly symmetrical despite the fact that the initial damage was asymmetrical, and much of the debris landed in the building's footprints.

3) as the collapses occurred, there was ejection of huge amounts of dust and debris in the horizontal direction several hundred feet out from the towers.

4) demolition-like ejections or squibs were observed below the collapse waves.

5) molten pools of steel at the bottom of the rubble.

6) the rapid recycling of WTC steel under high security.

7) reports of bombs from witnesses and a gag-order on firemen talking about bombs in the WTC.

8) the inability of NIST to even mention the possibility that bombs were used to bring about the collapses.

9) Marvin Bush was a major player in the company that provided security for the WTC.

Feel free to add more points, of course.

Acording to the official story, these are all easily explainable facts, nothing to see here folks, move along.

But how many suspicious facts are we willing to tolerate here? At what point do this collection of facts tip the balance?

[LARED]

1. Number one bits the dust

1) the collapses occured at NEAR free-fall speed, with little resistance from the intact undamaged structure.

The collapse took somewhere around 12 to 14 seconds. At 13 seconds you are now somewhere near 50% higher than free fall.

Putting this into perspective. If my ideal weight is near 180 pounds and I really weigh 270 pounds, by your definition I am still near my perfect weight. Anyone buying that?

Can we please put the near free fall myth to bed. Please.

[spooked911]

2. You're comparing relative TIMES to relative WEIGHTS?

Is that really a good scientific comparison?

I think not.

The bottom line is that the fall was very fast, with each floor offering roughly 10 milliseconds worth of resistance.

[LARED]

5. You don't like that comparison, OK

They are both scalar quantities so it should not matter if you are comparing percent change. But I'll slice it differently for you.

Lets say the towers took 13 seconds to fall. A reasonable estimate.

Lets calculate how high the towers would be to be in order for a free fall to take 13 seconds.

The answers is about 2800 feet. Roughly twice the height of the towers. BTW, if you use 15 seconds the height is now 3600 feet.

So you are making the claim that dropping something from a tower about twice the height takes nearly the same time.

Have I convinced you that the towers did not fall at near free fall yet?

Also using 13 seconds, each floor imparted about 40 milliseconds worth of resistance, not ten

[spooked911]

8. NO, you haven't convinced me

that the towers did not fall at "near" free fall-- it depends how I define "near".

If the towers took twice as long or more to fall as "free fall time", I would say it is a valid point, but 50% is close. And we agree, the collapse time for each floor is well under one-tenth of a second.

The point of course is that the undamaged structure did not provide significant resistance to the collapse and no one yet has explained how that occurred.

[LARED]

10. "Near" is a relative term, and I guess you can define it anyway

you like, but in the realm of mathematics and most anyway of measuring things, a 50% difference is not generally considered "near".

If the towers took twice as long or more to fall as "free fall time", I would say it is a valid point, but 50% is close.

According to your logic if your normal weight was 180 and you tipped the scales at 360 you are "far" from normal rather than "near", but if you are 270 you are "near" normal.

50% is 50% no matter what you are measuring. Time, distance, or weight and it is not generally considered to be near.

Make7 posted a link indicating a 18 second collapse. According to you that qualifies as "far". What do you make of this information?

[spooked911]

18. I never used the word "far" -- you are distorting what I said

18 second collapse is still damn fast.

Look-- if the building took a minute to collapse and much of the debris ended up on one side of the footprint, there wouldn't be much argument. It would look like what we expect for a damage-induced natural collapse.

As it is, the building went down as if it was controlled demolition.

DEAL WITH IT, MAN.

[LARED]

31. I only used the word far to contrast your characterization of near

being a 50% increase. It was not meant as a distortion.

As for 18 seconds being damn fast. That depends on what you are measuring and what would be damn slow.

In my present physical condition running a 100 yard dash in 18 seconds is damn fast, (assuming I didn't expire along the way). An Olympic sprinter doing a 100 yard dash in 18 seconds is damn slow. When you start using words like fast and slow or near and far their meanings become relative to the system you are in.

In the system defined by the WTC structure 18 seconds for a progressive collapse is damn slow. The notion that it would look normal if it took 60 seconds to fall is frankly silly. During each second the tower would fall only 22 feet. Any pieces from the top that cleared the debris would be laying on the ground for at least 45 seconds before the collapse was completed.

Think about how little steel was available and was required to fail once a progressive collapse started. The floor joists had a small cross section of area attached to the inner and outer columns. The floors were designed to support the floor and the the ordinary weight of an office. Not 5 or 10 floors crashing down on it. The floor joist supports sheared without making any fuss at all. Once the floors supports were gone the column lost stability and failed.

But this is just quibbling at this point. You will continue to cling to the notion that the towers fell at near free fall speeds. Nothing I can say will change that so lets call it a draw.

[spooked911]

36. I get this impression you concentrate on the near-free-fall terminology

because you have nothing else to criticize. You have nothing to say about the other points I raised? The fact that Marvin Bush had some level of control over WTC security means NOTHING to you?

But getting to some of the things you said:

In the system defined by the WTC structure 18 seconds for a progressive collapse is damn slow. The notion that it would look normal if it took 60 seconds to fall is frankly silly. During each second the tower would fall only 22 feet. Any pieces from the top that cleared the debris would be laying on the ground for at least 45 seconds before the collapse was completed.

I don't understand why this is silly. It's not like God stuck his foot on top of the tower and smashed it down as hard as he could. A true progressive collapse should take time as one floor falls on another, each time breaking the supports and the core structure. I would expect exactly what you say: some pieces would fall down and reach the bottom before the complete tower has collapsed. What is wrong with that?

Think about how little steel was available and was required to fail once a progressive collapse started. The floor joists had a small cross section of area attached to the inner and outer columns. The floors were designed to support the floor and the the ordinary weight of an office. Not 5 or 10 floors crashing down on it. The floor joist supports sheared without making any fuss at all. Once the floors supports were gone the column lost stability and failed.

So what happened to the core columns here? And how do you know exactly how much weight the floors were supposed to support? Is there any reason to think that you are not just pulling this out of thin air? Aren't most structures, especially something like the WTC, over-engineered and redundant? Don't you think a given floor was designed to support MUCH MORE than "the floor and the the ordinary weight of an office"? What if they had a big office party and a thousand people showed up? That would be almost 100 tons of extra weight. Do you think the floor would collapse then?

[petgoat]

42. what happened to the core columns

First of all, they were extensively cross-braced.

I'm not an engineer, but I am a framing carpenter. The complete
collapse bothers me because by the time you get to the 50th floor the
debris pile is essentially a beaver dam and the core should be resisting
this disorganized attack. Thus the perimeter collapse should get ahead
of the core collapse, and the pile should start sliding toward the
edges, which makes the perimeter collapse all the faster. We should
have wound up with thirty or forty stories of the core standing.

An argument against this would be that the broken core column pieces
would get tangled in the unbroken columns and so be unable to slide
away, but on the other hand the tangle would serve to reinforce the
standing core columns.

[petgoat]

45. what happened to the core columns

Don't forget, the core columns were designed to carry the weight of the
entire building, and they would have been overbuilt at least five times.
And then consider the fact that a disorganized debris pile would have
expended a great deal of its kinetic energy simply in thrashing about
internally, thus diverting energy from its assault on the core.

[spooked911]

48. yes, good points.

[Christophera]

139. Good Logic & Reason For Public Outcry | It's Freaking Obvious

Your picture of a collapse is accurate.

I know that since the post I reply to I've explained the rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced concrete core to you, so this is for other readers. This page has a description and photos.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Perhaps you've thought about what great containment cast concrete would make around rebar evenly coated with C4 plastic explosive. When high explosives are contained like that, very high pressures are allowed to accumulate and the breakage of mineral materials is maximized, hence the basement full of sand and gravel.



There is a link to a bigger image on my page where you can actually see the gravel. Which is very significant because the above ground structure that FEMA describes had NO gravel in it. Only lightweight concrete.

[spooked911]

51. NOVA says they fell in "near free-fall" time

"The collapse was a near free-fall."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

[Klimmer]

15. 12 to 14 seconds, where is this data from? Let's do Physics . . .

:think:
I do not agree with many of NOVA's "Why the Towers Fell?" assumptions and many of their conclusions. NOVA does get government grants and all, so they have to keep the $ coming. NOVA over all does good science programs, but certainly not this one. They know the hand that feeds them. However there are many sources giving a falling time for the towers close to 10 seconds including NOVA. I suppose with a video of each collapse running at NORMAL speed this can easily be verified with a stop watch or the data counter on the original video running on screen.

And I do not agree with the website posted below in this discussion dragging out the collapse of the tower to 18 seconds or more --- pure nonsense.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

NOVA: Why the towers Fell? Did you know ---
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

"17. Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.

18. The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour."

Let's assume NOVA got this right since they do have the videos, and it is a simple matter to time the collapses. A little hard to fake that, although some websites are obviously trying to exaggerate the time of the collapses. I wonder why?

And here is a website giving the height of the towers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

So let's do a little physics shall we?

Imagine dropping a steal marble off of the North WTC Tower at a height of 1368' (416.966m). How long would it take to hit the ground? Simple HS physics:

For any object in free-fall (no air resistance) the object will fall a distance equal to: d = 1/2 g t(squared)
Where: d = distance object falls in meters
g = 9.8m/s/s
t = time for object falling in seconds

Solve, the equation for t:

t = the square root of (2d/g)

Plug in the known values, and solve for t:
t = 9.22 seconds (in a vacuum with no air resistance)

The time for collapse of each tower is close to 10 seconds, considering air resistance and other forms of resistance (even in a controlled demolition there would be some amount of neglible resistance), I would say this is darn near close to free-fall time and the speeds of the WTC tower collapses.

These buildings were brought down with controlled demolition. The evidence says so, and so do eye-witness testimonies.

NYFD Firemen discuss explosions prior to WTC towers collapsing:
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Many resources say the time for the collapse of each tower is close to 10 seconds, not 12 - 18 seconds. Like I said this is easy to confirm with unaltered video with a data counter running on screen. Pick the top of the building and when it starts to move down, start the clock, and when it slams into the ground stop the clock. Close to 10 seconds.

I mostly concur with the list of anomalies that start this discussion. Good list. :thumbsup:

[Make7]

24. Let me get this straight....

the source you propose to use says "with no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour."

And then you do the math and come up with a free fall time of 9.22 seconds. Obviously, your source is right on top of their calculations regarding this. "Pure nonsense." (As you would say.)

-Make7

[janedoe]

26. You are so right!

And, it didn't even require 9.22 seconds to demolish the building!
The detonation sequence could have been 7-8 seconds or less. If the whole building is blown up, there's nothing left to fall, except the dust.

"Gravity wasn't needed -- except to take the dust out of the air. "

[Klimmer]

28. Janedoe, I know what you mean but gravity is still needed . . .

Yes, the controlled detonation removed the strength of the towers, but intimately it was the force of gravity that brought the buildings down. That is how controlled demolition works. Explosives remove the support strength, and gravity pulls it down.

So gravity is still needed, or the towers just may have drifted off planet Earth into space, after the controlled demolition. Now they didn't want that to happen. Wouldn't have the same effect. LOL.

[janedoe]

32. I think they blew it up.

Gravity is not needed for that kind of demolition (blowing it up) -- except to get the dust out of the air. I put it in quotes in my previous post because someone else one this board is the true author.

After all, didn't some of it drift over to New Jersey on a lofting cloud? ...or was that fallout? ;-)

[Make7]

73. "no more than 16 seconds"

The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of the buildings
reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse process had
begun. - Webster Tarpley

http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

[philb]

92. 5 seconds is no more than 16 seconds

Based on Tarpley's statement, the time to fall is somewhere between
0 and 16 seconds. So we might ought to go with a source that tried to be a little more specific and use some science in it calculations.

I think the 9/11 Commission conclued it was about 10 seconds. But it should be obvious they aren't a very credible source.

[Make7]

110. 15 seconds is also no more than 16 seconds.

When I watch videos of the towers collapsing I think it is close to 15 seconds. I was curious to see if others were seeing the collapses that differently, or if they were relying on some other source for their information. There seems to be quite a range of times reported from both controlled demolition proponents and detractors - how do we decide which one is correct?

-Make7

[philb]

20. I thought the 9/11 Commission said 10 seconds?

[Make7]

25. I thought Dr. Griffin said that was clearly a "571 page lie." ( n/t )

[philb]

93. I agree with Griffin; I've read the report and Griffin and Griffin's

conclusion that the 9/11 Commission Report is a 571 page lie is accurate.

[Old and In the Way]

3. 10) Those siesmic graphs

Still can't understand that initial spike that went off the charts on both buildings. Seems to me that the signal should have been increasing as the collapse progressed.

[tofubo]

4. wow, physics rules don't apply here

free fall speed is constant, governed by gravity, if your 180 or 270 it doesn't matter, you'll fall at the same speed (the only dependant factor is drag), yes, it'll increase, but to a limit, and you would think that a steel superstructure would produce a great deal of 'drag'

[janedoe]

14. Yep.

Check out my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50236

Using a reduced value of gravity that puts the top of the WTC on the ground in 16 seconds (not even 14), means that the top of the WTC will hit the ground at over 100 mph. So, it can't be compressing the lower floors at that speed!

(If it's a progressive collapse, the top of the building can't pass the lower floors.)

[JackRiddler]

6. these are mostly winners

These are almost the same points I bring up when explaining why demolition is still an open case.

Most important is surely how the crumble wave proceeded evenly and unhindered down the length of both buildings, spewing out explosively section by section, with dramatic and well-centered squibs shooting out far below the lowest point of collapse at regular distances.

And number two, the rapid destruction of the evidence to the point where NIST can now say anything, since they have only ONE piece left from the core columns within the impact zones, and NONE whatsoever from Seven. Add to this that the original FEMA (BPAT) "investigation" was conducted by weekenders under continuous escort! This is how you investigate the biggest disaster in U.S. history?!

Number three: the two experts who spoke out and shut up just as quickly (Romero, Swirsky).

Also note: angular momentum not conserved for collapsing top of South Tower.

Of what you mention, I object only to one: the molten steel weeks later. Explosions don't explain molten steel. (The thermite theory might, however.)

Explosions produce dispersive energy, rather than heating up huge quantities of steel. Whether we assume explosions or collapse (not thermite) I think once the buildings are down, all liquid fuels (such as were present in huge quantities throughout the buildings) pooled at the bottom of the pile, deep underground. There were plenty of tunnels under there to feed oxygen. The fuel ignited and produced a fire, possibly under high pressure in the classic way of underground fires, with a cauldron effect finally melting metals. (Remember, there's lots of aluminum there, not just steel.) This pooled at the deepest points, which later register as hot spots. In any case, I don't see how explosions (or a collapse) on 9/11 explain metal still molten on 9/24. That requires a fire still going!

For whatever its worth, this is the explanation NIST's Sunder alluded to (calling it "the cauldron effect") when I questioned him about the molten metal/hot spots. Of all the things he said, it made the most sense. Of course, I have yet to see it in any of the NIST documents, since they bother with NOTHING after constructing a hypothesis for the initial failure (which is another smoking gun, isn't it?).

I am unimpressed by the "spike" evidence. The seismic event has to peak at some point during the collapse, and early makes more sense than late. More of the building's mass is still attached to the ground and is in motion early on rather than at the end, when everything has already hit the ground except for the roof piece.

You forgot of course the item that keeps most of us still looking at this case, without which I would have stopped thinking about it long ago:

SEVEN.

[spooked911]

7. Yes-- good analysis.

fwiw, I wrote this up first thing in the morning before coffee. I went to bed after reading some of theses thread and woke up still thinking baout it.

[Make7]

9. Perhaps you could define and document "NEAR free-fall speed."

Maybe even try some evidence. Something like this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

_________________________________

At least if you present something to back up the near free-fall speed claim, we can discuss it.

Continually repeating something is not proof.

-Make7

[demodewd]

11. virtual free fall

n/t

[philb]

94. Haven't we just been through this one already? (n/t)

[spooked911]

17. why is it so offensive to say "near free-fall" anyway?

the bottom line is it was damn fast and "close" to free fall. The point being you still don't want to address is how little resistance the undamaged structure gave.

[Make7]

19. Sorry, I didn't even realize I was offended.

I was just asking for some evidence of the collapse time and how that fits into how you define free-fall.
____________________

But since I seem to be missing the point, let me address it:

If the claim is being made that the free-fall speed proves controlled demolition, I don't believe it is my responsibility to address the amount of resistance the buildings structure provided. I think the person making the claim needs to demonstrate that the structure gave less resistance than would be possible without controlled demolition.

Why doesn't someone just prove it once and for all? Show me how the towers fell faster than they possibly could have if they collapsed from a catastrophic structural failure without explosives.

Is that too much to ask for?

-Make7

[spooked911]

29. I have been asking for a LONG TIME now how the towers fell so quickly

and why the undamaged lower structure provided so little resistance. I have receied no answer from you or LARED or Hack89 or whoever else supports the official version. Now you want ME to show how the speed of fall supports controlled demolition?

Now how much resistance the structure should have given is obviously a major point of contention. But even LARED came up with a figure that each floor provided about 40 milliseconds worth of resistance. That seems ridiculously small to me, and supports the idea that explosives could have taken out the undamaged columns.

How about you? How much resistance do you think each floor should have given, on average?

[Make7]

30. If you have been concerned about this for so long....

...then why haven't you been able to come up with something that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is physically impossible, it should be able to be proven with physics.

Actually, I don't care what you come up with, but if you claim that it fell too fast then you need to show why it fell too fast. Just because the amount of resistance the structure imparted seems ridiculously small to you, doesn't mean that that was impossible without the use of explosives. It means that you don't think it was possible.

So now it's my (or LARED's, or Hack89's, etc.) job to show your that claims are unsubstantiated? I think you need to show how the towers could not have fallen that fast without it being controlled demolition. If that is indeed the claim you are making.

-Make7

[spooked911]

35. It is no one's JOB to show anyone anything here. Give me a break.

This is all done in the spirit of free-discussion and hopefully open-mindedness.

But please, go back and read janedoe's posts-- she knows what she is talking about and she has given the proof you want.

[Make7]

41. why is it so offensive to ask someone to back a claim anyway?

Claim whatever you want as proof. But without a reasonable explanation as to why it is correct, I'll reserve the right to assume that it is incorrect.

-Make7

BTW - Thanks for this one:

spooked911 wrote:
...read janedoe's posts-- she knows what she is talking about and she has given the proof you want.

No, she hasn't.

[petgoat]

43. self-deleted

[Make7]

47. I thought it was meant to convey finding something humorous.

I didn't realize it was solely reserved for use regarding the administration.

I edited my previous post. Is that better?

-Make7

[Make7]

140. Fifty two point five milliseconds.

If you think that is too small, what, may I ask, are you basing that on? Given what is known of the structure of the building, what amount of average resistance have you calculated that each floor should have had?

-Make7

[pox americana]

141. Considering that the average time for similar collapses is never

that's pretty fast.

[Make7]

142. Is never what?

What similar collapses? What was the average time for them?

-Make7

[pox americana]

143. Never ever

at least for the reasons given in the FEMA/NIST reports.

[Make7]

144. Sorry, I thought the subject line of your previous post got cut off.

Are you saying that the towers shouldn't have fallen because there was no historical precedent?

-Make7

[pox americana]

145. Not exactly.

I'm saying fires, crashes and sympathy (or whatever is supposed to have brought down WTC 7) do not cause steel framed highrises to fail.

[Make7]

146. How do you know that fires and crashes will not cause a failure? ( n/t )

[pox americana]

147. Properties of steel, engineering standards, design of the buildings,

and past experience, including the 1975 WTC fire.

Steel is obviously not indestructible, but it's pretty durable, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a ten-minute kerosene fire to bring down a steel framed highrise.

The crashes would have had no significant structural effect below the crash and little if any above.

[Make7]

148. That's interesting because....

... Leslie Robertson said:

"One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel."

I wonder why they were doing calculations to see if the building would collapse in the event it was struck by a plane. And why is he specifically mentioning that they did not take into account the fuel? Doesn't he know anything about the properties of steel, engineering standards, or the design of the buildings? I wonder where he got his degree. (I just looked it up, it was UC Berkeley.) I wonder where you got yours.

pox americana wrote:
Properties of steel, engineering standards, design of the buildings, and past experience, including the 1975 WTC fire.

Steel is obviously not indestructible, but it's pretty durable, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a ten-minute kerosene fire to bring down a steel framed highrise.

The crashes would have had no significant structural effect below the crash and little if any above.

• Do you think the 1975 fire was comparable to what happened on 9/11?


• It does take more than a ten-minute kerosene fire. Much more than that happened that day. "You weren't watching?" "How could anyone forget?"


• Define significant. I think the building loads being redistributed around the damaged structural elements would be considered a significant structural effect.

-Make7

[pox americana]

149. Robertson wasn't the only one on the job

and isn't claiming that he was. I don't know why he said this stuff but I'm assuming his career is over because he's admitting to some very sloppy thinking which I find dubious in the extreme.

But then so did Eagar and (after prompting) Romero. They also got very nice "advisory" sinecures in the Department of Homeland Defense and I wouldn't be surprised if Robertson got a little something too.

[Make7]

151. So you are claiming to know...

... more than one of the main engineers involved with the project?

Do you have a set of the blueprints for the building? Do you know what steel was specified for the different parts of the building? Did you see the calculations they did to predict what would happen if a plane hit the building?

Just where exactly are you acquiring all this knowledge to definitively state that plane crashes and fires cannot cause a steel framed highrise to fail?

I am still wondering where you got your degree. And now I wonder what field of study it could possibly be in.

I'd ask you, but previous experience has shown that an answer would not be forthcoming.

-Make7

[petgoat]

153. "Do you have a set of the blueprints for the building?"

Nobody does. That's one of the hinkey things about this. I'm not sure
that even FEMA got the blueprints. That FDNY Auxilliary guy, Paul
Isaac, said a few weeks ago that he'd found them somewhere. I never
heard what happened after that.

"Do you know what steel was specified for the different parts of the
building?"

None of NIST's core steel samples show heating above 250 degrees
Centigrade. The guys who went around trying to collect the steel that
showed what happened don't have any steel that shows what happened.

[Make7]

155. "Nobody does?"

For example, ASCE has said that the study will rely primarily on audio and video recordings, interviews with survivors, blueprints and design drawings of the World Trade Center, and evidence they or the SEAoNY volunteers have collected from the rubble. The BPAT team has access to more than 120 hours of high quality film footage and audiotapes of 911 communications with trapped victims. The BPAT team initially had difficulty in obtaining building blueprints and design drawings from either the City of New York, the Port Authority, the building owners, or the building designers due primarily to liability concerns on the part of the building owners and insurers. Belatedly, however, the team was provided access to these documents in early January.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/may01/append1.htm

Apparently somebody does.
____________________

What do the samples of steel after the collapse have to do with the design of the buildings and the different grades of steel that were specified?

pox americana said that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed because of "properties of steel, engineering standards, design of the buildings, and past experience." I'm just trying to understand how she has accumulated this information. Particularly about the design of the buildings.

-Make7

[petgoat]

157. Nobody does

You didn't read very far in your link, Make7.

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/may01/append1.htm

Search to the second iteration of "blueprint" and it lists problems
that have hampered the investigation, including:

"Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation,
including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records: The
building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent
researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining
access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability
concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and
photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain
why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in
the future."


" I'm just trying to understand how she has accumulated this
information. Particularly about the design of the buildings."

The design of the building is pretty simple, is it not? 911research
and the construction photos pretty well tell the story. Steel that is
not heated above 250 degrees Centigrade does not distort, right?

[Make7]

158. Are you saying nobody has blueprints of the buildings?

The BPAT team initially had difficulty in obtaining building blueprints and design drawings from either the City of New York, the Port Authority, the building owners, or the building designers due primarily to liability concerns on the part of the building owners and insurers. Belatedly, however, the team was provided access to these documents in early January.

From Post #155

They were provided access to documents that don't exist?

Or how about the following:

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.

"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/wtc_obstruction.html

Did he sign a waiver to obtain documents that don't exist?
____________________

petgoat wrote:
The design of the building is pretty simple, is it not? 911research and the construction photos pretty well tell the story. Steel that is not heated above 250 degrees Centigrade does not distort, right?

No, the design of the building is not pretty simple. The concept of the building's design is pretty simple.

Can you determine the amount of lateral loads the building can be expected to handle from the construction photos and 911research? Or figure out how the building would perform in the event that a plane runs into it? How much of the normal building loads would be transferred to what parts of the still viable structure? At what point might it cause failure? How much of the structure could be damaged without a failure occurring?

How exactly do you even begin to determine any of that without blueprints and design drawings? Maybe there is an easy way to do all this engineering stuff that I don't know about. Perhaps you can just look at construction photos and 911research to determine what the largest plane is that could crash into the building without the structure completely failing. Well, you've seen the photos and research, maybe you would be so kind as to provide answers for some of these questions.
____________________

Once again, I'd like to know what the condition of any of the steel post-collapse has to do with the building's design.

Do you mean distorted like the steel in these photos?

?pic
?pic
?pic
?pic

Can we positively determine that these samples were heated above 250^oC because they are distorted? Just from viewing the pictures?

-Make7

[pox americana]

161. Agencies like the NIST have access to them

and leak enough information including floorplans into their reports to get a good idea of how the buildings were put together.

Do we have access to actual load calculations and steel size specifications? No. Does the NIST? Yes.

[Make7]

162. You are relying on agencies like the NIST for information...

...regarding the structure of the buildings of the WTC complex? I thought you said they were disseminating b.s. and disinformation.

So you don't have blueprints, design drawings, or specifications - and what information you do have comes from agencies you accuse of spreading disinformation. Yet you still maintain that the buildings could not have fallen without explosives because of their design?

I am still not clear on how you have been able to reach such a conclusion.

-Make7

[pox americana]

163. If you're playing dumb, it's a convincing performance.

You asked about the blueprints. I told you where they are. Is the NIST the only source of information on WTC design? No. People have been writing about the WTC for thirty years.

[Make7]

164. Thank you for the complement!

pox americana wrote:
You asked about the blueprints. I told you where they are.

My memory must not work so good at this time of the morning. I thought I asked if you had the blueprints. (Post #151)

Petgoat replied saying that he didn't think anyone had the blueprints. (Post #153) In two subsequent posts I gave information about the whereabouts of the blueprints (Post #155 and Post #158), and now you are telling me that I "asked about the blueprints" and you informed me of where they are. If you say so....

I believe the correct response to my original question ("Do you have a set of the blueprints for the building?") would be no.

pox americana wrote:
Is the NIST the only source of information on WTC design? No.

I don't recall saying that the NIST was "the only source of information on WTC design." If fact, the posts I have previously mentioned would actually indicate I know that they aren't. Maybe I said they are but just can't recall it. (It is early in the day for me.) Perhaps you could point it out to me.

pox americana wrote:
People have been writing about the WTC for thirty years.

Actually it's been longer than thirty years.

-Make7

[LARED]

150. a ten-minute kerosene fire ?

What building did that happen in? You can't possibly believe the WTC'er were limited to a ten minute kerosene fire.

Can you?

[petgoat]

152. " WTC'er were limited to a ten minute kerosene fire"

Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator said the kerosene fire burned out
in ten minutes. I had the link; don't have it right now.

Popular Mechanics's famous hatchet job quotes Forman Williams, a
professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego:

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned
for maybe 10 minutes...."

[LARED]

154. I know it was about a 10 minute kerosene fire

pox americana implied the fires were limited to 10 minute kerosene fires.

pa stated

Steel is obviously not indestructible, but it's pretty durable, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a ten-minute kerosene fire to bring down a steel framed highrise.

Do you agree there were fires started by the kerosene fire that lasted far longer than 10 minutes?

[petgoat]

156. Fires after ten minutes? Yes. The report from the firemen at the 78th

floor of the south tower was that there were two isolated fires. They
said they could "knock them down". There were still fires. I haven't
seen any indication that there was a raging inferno. And none of NIST's
core steel samples say there was one.

[LARED]

159. I see you have mastered the CT'er meaningless

talking point that somehow implies that because fireman saw two isolated fires in the area they were in, the entire floor or building was the same way.

[spooked911]

160. It's not meaningless. Don't you think firemen are trained to figure out

where the fires are? While you're right in saying this doesn't rule out other fires, there is the real possibility that these firemen had located the most intense fires they could find in the building.

[petgoat]

12. FDNY Gag Order--Can Anyone Verify?

The only authority I can find for the FDNY gag order is the Morgan
Reynolds article, the Philip Berg lawsuit, and perhaps an unverified
remark by Paul Isaac.

Does anyone have any proof of this that would convince hostiles?

[janedoe]

13. There is a BBC interview

with Dan Rather that talks about this. Dan Rather even comments how "everything changed" on 9-11, and reporters were no longer allowed to print the facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/02/rather22may.ram

16 May 2002 interview, posted on 22 May 2002, Dan Rather is interviewed by BBC and tells how the media has been shut up by the Bush administration since 9-11. It's a streaming video. Do you know how to save it?

[petgoat]

21. Saving a Video File

I think this is the page you got your RealAudio (.ram) link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/1991885.stm

Try right-clicking on the link, it should say something like save file to disk.

[janedoe]

27. But, that's a streaming video.

Is there any way to save it? (Thanks)

[petgoat]

44. Saving the Streaming Video

Go to this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/1991885.stm

Right click on the link to the streaming video




Click on "Save Target File As"

[janedoe]

46. I only get the call-up address

It downloads a file, but that file is 70 bytes long.
Then clicking on that 70 byte file (0.07k), it simply launches the streaming video.

I'd like to save it in case they delete it, or in case I want to play it without an internet connection.

I'm guessing that a translation program is needed to record it while it's playing, then save it.

The method you present works fine for non-streaming video, audio, and other types of files. I can even save streaming quicktime video (because it loads into the temporary folder).

Thanks for trying to help!

[petgoat]

55. I'd saved short clips to disk before with that method, but

I can't remeber if they were Real files or Quicktime or what.
Apparently the server can permit downloading the file or block
downloading and this one is blocked.

There are commercial packages for capturing the video stream. Or if you
want to be kludgey you could use a computer-video-to-TV converter, take
the video out to a VCR or DVD recorder, then play the recording back
into your computer for hard disk recording. Or even load the DVD file
directly through the DVD drive. I haven't done any of this so I'm just
speculating.

[spooked911]

16. It is in Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror 911" book

According to Webster Tarpley in his new book, "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA", most NY City firefighters know there were bombs placed in the WTC that went off on 9/11. Some of them experienced the explosions first hand. They know that the WTC would not have collapsed without explosives-- otherwise, why would so many of them have risked going up into the building to fight the fires? However, the firemen are being kept from talking about bombs in the WTC by their bosses, and their jobs and pensions have been threatened if they talk publicly about it.

In fact, news videos made on 9/11 show firemen and other people discussing bombs in the WTC. However, these people have been kept quiet by their superiors or by the FBI.

The clincher is that the NYFD hired former CIA director and neocon James Woolsey as their anti-terrorism consultant, and he actively suppresses any discussion that bombs were placed in the WTC.

[philb]

22. Denial of FOI request regarding firefighter statements

http://www.flcv.com/fmenfoi.html

I've seen the order blocking release of firefighter statements regarding explosions,etc. but don't have it handy.

[philb]

23. Some more unanswered Questions re: WTC explosions

Explanation of what caused the massive upward and outward explosion of materials at top of the WTC buildings at the beginning of the collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/mushrooming.html

What caused the huge dust cloud of finely powdered concrete and building materials?
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12

Why the dozens of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings including firefighters and building engineers were not interviewed by the 9/11 Commission and why their statements were not made public in the 9/11 Commission Report http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

Explanation of the explosions heard by the firefighters at WTC prior to the collapse http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The contents of the black boxes found at the WTC site by firemen but denied by FBI http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

Explanation of collapse since wireless phone records of firefighters in WTC prior to collapse indicate the fires were small, isolated, and controllable
http://thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

[pox americana]

33. Also, there's no form of gravity load failure that could have produced

the effects seen in the photographs:

1. Flying columns and column sections showing few if any signs of buckling or bending.

2. Several stories of perfectly unbuckled/unbent columns at the bottom.

3. No sign of universal column buckling or bending, and few if any signs of any column buckling or bending.

4. Many unbuckled/unbent exterior WTC 1/2 columns lying on the ground after the collapses (recognizable by their square cross sections).

In other words, there's plenty of evidence, and none that I have seen shows that gravity loading (vertical force producing either "pancaking" or twisting) could have collapsed the buildings.

-----------
"buckling" = crushing, like an aluminum can.
"bending" = bowing, like a sapling.

[LARED]

34. You are certainly entitled to you opinions about just about

edit to add images

anything, but you are not entitled to redefine buckling

"buckling" = crushing, like an aluminum can.
"bending" = bowing, like a sapling.

Is just not correct.

In engineering buckling is a failure mode of a structure characterised by a failure to react the bending moment generated by a compressive load.


http://www.students.uwosh.edu/~piehld88/ndcproj1.htm

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/intro.cfm

http://www.engineersedge.com/column_buckling/column_ideal.htm

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~boza/courses/cee122/lectures.htm

http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Buckling

Just prior to failure



Just after failure Note the buckled columns on the left

[janedoe]

37. Yeah! And did you see the video of it...

posted on the same site where you got those pictures? The video shows how that top chunk rotates counter clockwise, then rotates back, with a clockwise rotation.

Isn't that a neat trick? Somebody repealed the laws of physics... or doctored the pictures... or ...there were explosives involved.

Can you think of any other explanations?

[pox americana]

50. You're getting warmer, but still no cigar. Thanks for trying. (n/t)

[pox americana]

54. p.s: "failure generated by a compressive load" = crushing.

And react is an intransitive verb, so you misquoted.

[janedoe]

39. Also, the ground was rumbling for

less than the time it takes for my blue ball, glued to a chunk of roof, to fall to the ground. i.e. The "collapse" time was less than the free-fall time (with no air resistance) all the way from the roof to the ground.



If the roof is falling at free-fall speed while collapsing the entire building, wouldn't you expect the ground to rumble for more than 8 seconds (WTC1)? My guess is that the early report of "8-seconds to collapse" came from this seismic data, before any calculations were made for possible free-fall times.

If there is enough force applied to the 50th floor to cause it to collapse, you will see it on the seismic chart. If there is enough force applied to the 20th floor to cause it to collapse, you will see it on the seismic chart... etc.

So, even if the floors took no time to collapse (i.e. didn't slow down the collapse time), why doesn't the seismic "rumble" continue for more than 8 seconds (at the very most)?

I can only think of one reason to explain this; the floors didn't collapse by gravity.

The part of the WTC shown in the following picture could not have caused much of a rumble in seismic activity when it fell to the ground.

[spooked911]

49. I like your last point!

:)

[janedoe]

52. Wag the building

Thanks.

Don't you find it interesting how WTC1, after being hit by the plane, "wagged" back and forth for a LONGER time before the vibrations damped out, than the entire "collapse" time?

So, let me ask you, as the non-engineer you've claimed to be:
Does it make sense to you that it took longer for the vibrations (from the plane hit) to dampen out, than it took for WTC1 to "disappear?" (disappear, collapse, fall apart, vaporize, get pulled, explode... pick your favorite term.)

Now, I'll put on my engineer's hat and ask, I wonder if they designed the detonations to cover a minimum of 9+ seconds, but something went wrong? Or, perhaps they miscalculated and did an overkill with the explosives, not intending to pulverize the entire building? Perhaps they planned for chunks to still be falling at 9.22 seconds. The fact that there were no more impacts (enough to bust up a floor), is quite telling!

I used to think that WTC2 was an "oops," with a really awesome "save." (I'll bet somebody in the planning booth went, "whew!" after that one, and probably had their heart skip a few beats.) I thought WTC was an "oops" with a good save, and WTC1 was the "perfect" job (or nearly perfect). Could it be that the first hit (into WTC1) was higher than they planned for? Could it be that WTC1 was the "oops" job, and WTC2 was sort-of on plan?

[spooked911]

53. Response (contains my analysis of the seismic signal)

So, can we really compare the two times? The vibration from the plane crash is like a guitar string vibrating after you've plucked it-- it will go for a while. Whereas the collapse time is as if you cut the string and you are measuring the time it takes for cut end of the string to recoil backwards. Okay, maybe not a perfect analogy but you get the point I'm sure.

About the seismic vibrations from the building collapse-- is the quaking from large chunks of the building falling from the top of the building? If so, then you might expect that only the pieces that fell from the very top produced the quaking, and so vibrations might not register for the pieces that came from the lower parts of the building.

Or, are the seismic vibrations coming from the base of the building shaking the ground as the upper floors collapse down progressively and hit the core of the building? If so, then the vibration time would be very telling and suggest a complete free-fall time.

My sense is that chunks that truly fell from the top of the building as it collapsed were not big enough to register seismic signals. This would therefore indicate the seismic vibrations were coming from the base of the building being smacked by either a progressive collapse or by explosives tkaing out the supports.

Interestingly, in a true progressive collapse, the seismic signal would start out small and then get bigger and the collapsed progressed, right? Towards the end of a progressive collapse there would be more of the building weight banging on the base. (Sort of like "bang bang Bang BAng BANg BANG BANG! BANG!! BANG!!! BANG!!!!! etc)

But this is the opposite of what we see. Instead, the seismic signal starts out large then gets smaller (BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!! BANG!!!! BANG!!! BANG!! BANG! Bang! Bang bang).

I don't know if this is a new idea or not, but it would seem to me from the seismic signal that the collapse CAN'T HAVE BEEN PROGRESSIVE BUT RATHER MUST HAVE BEEN EXPLOSIVE. In the explosive collapse, the largest signal is at the beginning as the building supports at the inner core are taken out and almost the whole weight of the building falls and shakes the ground. Smaller seismic signals result as the building starts disintegrating and banging the ground with less weight.

Does this make sense?

As far as the "oops" factor-- are you referring to where the plane hit or how the demolition started?

[petgoat]

56. Does this make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. But did we ever deal with the assertion that
the seismic trace reflects a superimposed p and s wave and therefore
interpreting it is difficult?

If I remember my high school geology, the p wave and s wave travel at
different speeds and so can be used (by measuring the time gap between
their arrivals) to measure the distance to the epicenter. I think the
suggestion is that since the seismograph is so close to the WTC site,
the p and s waves arrived so close together that the trace smears them
together.

[spooked911]

58. You have a good memory!

My own reading on P and S waves confirmed what you say.

Here is a serious scientific analysis of the seismographs for the WTC impacts and collapses:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm

Basically, the collapses are different from what you see with a true earthquake (not surprisingly), since with the collapses the ground shaking was at the surface level whereas earthquakes arise much deeper. As you say, there are no clearly defined P and S waves for the WTC collapses. It looks like that is due to how the ground was shaking rather than the how far the stations were from ground zero.

In any case, I think it is clear that the signals start out strong and get smaller. My thinking is that a progressive collapse would give the opposite signal-- as the collapse progressed and more of the building was falling, the signal should increase.

[philb]

100. What do they mean by "observed low group velocities"? any numbers suggest

ed?

Anderson and Dorman <1973> observed low group velocities from quarry blasts for paths that propagate mainly though the Newark Basin, and higher velocities for paths within the Manhattan Prong.

Their largest arrivals also were the short-period Rayleigh wave Rg. Short-period Rg is well excited only for surface or very shallow sources, which is the case for the WTC.
Since Rg propagates mainly in the upper several kilometers of the crust, it is affected strongly by rock properties in that depth range.

(

[Old and In the Way]

66. Why the 6 sharp spikes after the initial huge spike?

The chart posted doesn't reflect the extreme initial spike which I've thought might be the proof for a massive shearing of the foundational support beams. Seems that a charge directly coupled to the foundational supports would amplify that signal dramatically. What else could it be? It certainly wouldn't be registering the 1st floor to collapse, I wouldn't think. The signal for that would be dampened significantly as it progresses down through the building into the ground. To your point, why wouldn't there be 90+ equally sharp spikes? Or a signal that shows a progressively larger spike as more of the structure's mass is dropping from one floor to the next? Equipment resolution? I don't think so.....the signal should go high and stay high for the entire 12 seconds if that was the case, but we see a clear attack and decay phase for those following spikes......could they have been timed charges in the core that were sync'd in the collapse? The collapsing floors above would provide cover for the core detonation below. That might better reflect an explosive charge going off every 15-20 floors, timed every 2 seconds or so.

[LARED]

67. You might want to check this out

How Do I Read a Seismogram?

There are four distinct types of waves that may have been generated by the collapse.

They all travel at different speeds and have different magnitudes so they may overlap each other causing constructive or destructive interference. Without knowing how to separate the interference the novice will not b able to garner information about magnitude or frequencies in a meaningful way.

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/constructiveInterference/InterferenceExplanation2.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConstructiveInterference.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/fourier.html

[Old and In the Way]

68. Thanks.

If the WTC's were taken down by explosives in the way I described in my post, the seismic evidence would be changed...how?

BTW.....has the seismic data on the WTC7 ever been released? That would be an interesting chart to compare to WTC1 and 2.

[janedoe]

70. The WTC7 chart has also been filtered.

I have the filtered data, for whatever that's worth.

But, I don't think the WTC7 was the same type of demolition. WTC7 looked like a regular job of controlled demolition with a gravity drop, not a blowing up of the building. The majority of the "dust cloud" at the base was the disruption of the WTC tower dust that had settled on the ground, earlier in the day.

WTC7 didn't have those magnificent fountains of dust shooting out the top of the building. So, I would expect a much longer duration of explosives that started well before the building began to drop.

[petgoat]

76. LARED You've Got Nice Links for Constructive Interference

but none of them supports your assertion that there were four different
types of waves. Where do you get this information?

[LARED]

77. I said there MAY HAVE BEEN UP to

four different types of waves. I don't know and apparently neither does anyone on this board know how many different waves types were generated by the collapses.

Hence without having genuine knowledge about understanding seismic graphs, it is not possible to understand what they mean

[janedoe]

69. Why the 12 seconds?

The chart I showed (post#39) has been filtered for "something."
i.e. It is not the raw data. The raw data for this event seems to have become "classified" information. We don't know what that "something" is, but can see that whatever it lasted for about 8 seconds when WTC1 "collapsed." It sure doesn't support a "gravity collapse."

I agree with you> But, perhaps the detonations would need to be a little closer than 2 seconds. Maybe 1 second every 20 floors.)
(see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=48327&mesg_id=49191)

[Old and In the Way]

71. Here's the graph............

<>


That's one huge spike.......

[janedoe]

74. Spike

Yep, that's a big spike, even with the filtering!
At least that one tells you the fileter range, although the time scale doesn't have much resolution. But, clearly it's a decay that quickly stops.

[philb]

96. Towards the end the dust isn't affecting seismic much

Even the dismembered steel beams wouldn't affect the seismic much

[philb]

95. Seems pretty conclusive it wasn't a progressive "pancake" collapse (n/t)

[LARED]

97. If you don't mind me asking;

How did you manage to determine conclusively it wasn't a progressive collapse by looking at that graph?

[philb]

98. As noted before; the seismic effect tailed off; when a pancake

effect should have had the largest effect towards the end

[LARED]

105. Then how do you explain this graph

Same signal, different scale. It seems the signal increases in magnitude slightly before tapering off.

[Kevin Fenton]

57. How come?

I used to think that WTC2 was an "oops," with a really awesome "save."
COuld you explain to me what you mean by this?

I don't think the seismic waves mean anything, and neither does this guy:
"In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance."
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

"Could it be that the first hit (into WTC1) was higher than they planned for?"
Why do you assume the hijackers and the bombers were on the same team?

[janedoe]

62. My latest theory is that WTC2 was indeed an ooops.

(my current working case scenerio)
I think they detonated a line of charges on the wrong floor, by mistake.

Recall the line of charges we see around the perimeter of the building, on just one floor. Then, x number of floors above that floor or below that floor, there is another set. Note how WTC1 started to come down. There were several of these "beltways" around the building.

Isn't it amazing how these beltways run completely around the building on the exact same floor. What are the odds of that happening? ;-) Didn't the plane go in diagonally?

Here are the "beltways" getting warmed up on WTC1.
(getting warmed up = getting the theater props prepared)


The picture on the left, below, was taken just as the building was about to collapse, but had not started moving, yet. Why is that little mushroom cloud sprouting out of the roof? If it's a "progressive collapse," why would the first collapse be the roof caving in?

I think the purpose of these beltways was to give the appearance of a "progressive collapse." To have a true progressive collapse (and they do occur in reality), all parts of the floor must collapse at the exact same time. In order for it to keep on progressing, all members of a floor must collapse together. (Picture a parking garage after an earthquake.)



For WTC2, they initiated the charges on the left side on floor x and initiated the charges on the right side on floor x+5 (or something like that). That's what got the tipping started.

Note the buckles. Where they reach the right edge, is the floor that was first set off. It was supposed to be on floor x, several stories below that. Notice the fire exploding out on floor x (right side). What caused that explosion? There's less weight on that portion of the building, now that the top chunk is rotating over.

Here is the video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.very.close.mpg
If you look at the video, carefully, you can see the explosions shooting out of that right edge, almost out of view. The buckles are a long a diagonal line, connecting the lower left corner to that upper right edge. Why did it buckle on the right, when it's tipping to the left. From what I can see in the video, it doesn't really buckle on the left, at all.

I think they placed these "beltway" detonations every xx number of floors (every so often, in the region where they expected the plane to hit), in case the plane went a few floors above or a few floors below. Perhaps part of the job of that helicopter was to assess which floor it was where the plane went in, so they could call up the right firing sequence subroutine.

Perhaps someone wired the charges backwards.

[Kevin Fenton]

63. Who bombed the WTC?

I agree that the way the buildings were demolished isn't right - the bombers are making mistakes. Christophera also seems to be thinking along the same lines, although his explanation is that the explosives are not manually controlled. I would actually go a lot further than both you and him...

Who Bombed the WTC? Fucko the Clown?
The problem I have with the demolition is that it looks so much like demolition. Shouldn’t the bombers have tried to disguise it a little? Surely, the bombers should have considered beforehand that somebody might realise that the buildings were demolished with explosives and say so publicly. Shouldn’t the demolition be done in such a manner that it looks most like a fall due to the impact damage and fires? Shouldn’t the bit where the plane hits demonstrably collapse first, so that people make a clear link with the impact damage? Shouldn’t it actually be quite slow – what’s the point in destroying the buildings in approx. 15 seconds – a controlled demolition could be substantially slower that it actually was? Why is it so fast, what’s the hurry? Aren’t the rings of squibs round the building a bit of a giveaway? Shouldn’t the bombers have used less explosive? What’s the point of destroying the buildings all the way to the ground; why not leave the bottom few floors standing? Why destroy the building that got hit second first? Surely this is a no-brainer? (If you want to argue the fires in the South Tower were diminishing, what stops the bombers from destroying the North Tower first, and then the South Tower soon after? They would have the added reason of damage/instability caused by the fall of the North Tower.) Why not knock the buildings over sideways, or knock one tower into the other?

The only thing the bombers did “right” was getting the towers down, everything else is wrong. How come the bombers seem so incompetent?

"The Mozart of Terror"
9/11 was obviously not the first attack on the WTC, Islamic radicals had been there before. The 1993 bomb plot involved placing a bomb in the North Tower in such a manner that it would fall onto the South Tower, which would then fall itself, totalling a good chunk of Lower Manhattan, perhaps including Wall Street. Lead bomber Ramzi Yousef is said to have estimated he would have killed 250,000 people and, while I find this an excessive estimate, he would probably get into six figures – that’s as many people dead as after the explosion of a small nuclear device. The fatalities are not the only problem, there are also the questions of damage to property and loss of priceless information – God knows how much the damage would have been if the NYSE had been destroyed.

The WTC was clearly a liability after 1993 – it was a terrorist target and, as such, a great danger to the City of New York and the US economy in general, but to take it down would be seen as surrendering to terrorists. I’m suggesting the explosives were put in the WTC in response to the 1993 bombing, to prevent the towers collapsing any way but straight down if they were bombed again.

What were the towers actually doing before they collapsed?
One of the first claims was that the towers were demolished when they were because the fires were going out and this was the last moment the bomber could actually push the button. However, while this may have been true of the South Tower, the fires in the North Tower showed no signs of diminishing at 10:28. Were there any similarities in the towers’ behaviour before they collapsed?

Taken from the NIST report:
“At 10:06 a.m., an NYPD aviation unit advised that WTC 1 would come down and that all emergency vehicles should be moved away from it. At 10:20 a.m., observers in NYPD helicopters said that the top of the building was leaning; and at 10:21 a.m., they said that WTC 1 was buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.” Page 32

“Now the south side floors had sagged to the point where the south perimeter columns bowed inward (Figure 2-12). By 10:23 a.m., the south exterior wall had bowed inward as much as 55 in.” Page 32

So the North Tower was bowing, leaning even. What about the South Tower?
“… within 18 min. of the aircraft impact, there was inward bowing of the east perimeter columns as a result of the floors sagging. As the exposure time to the high temperatures lengthened, these pull-in forces from the sagging floors increased the inward bowing of the east perimeter columns.” Page 44

“The inward bowing of the columns on the east wall spread along the east face.” Page 44

So they’re both leaning and/or bowing and it looks like there might be a partial collapse. No wonder they were destroyed when they were. And no wonder the people who did it are keeping quiet – they think they saved lives that day.

“Do the orders still stand?”
“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?"
And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"” – Norman Mineta
Mineta obviously thinks the orders in question are to shoot down American 77, although, according to the official account, based on multiple testimonies, no such orders had been given at that point.
It has also been suggested that they were orders NOT to shoot down American 77, or alternatively orders to shoot down United 93.

American 77?
If the orders were secret ones NOT to shoot down American 77, then surely they should not be discussed in public when they could be (and were) overheard by someone who is obviously not part of this conspiracy. Also, the young man seems to think the orders should not stand (either circumstances have changed and the orders are no longer appropriate to the new situation, or things are not what they appeared initially and the orders should be cancelled or amended). If the young man is part of some pre-arranged plot, why does he think it should be cancelled at the last minute? However, if the young man were suggesting stopping a long-arranged conspiracy just before it came to fruition, the reason for his sharp reaction would be clear.

If the orders are to shoot down American 77, why does the young man think they should be cancelled when the plane is nearing Washington?

United 93?
Let’s assume Mineta is confused and Cheney said it later. If the order is to shoot the plane down, why does the young man think it should be cancelled? If the reason is the passenger revolt, there is only a small timeframe that the conversation can occur in – a couple of minutes either side of ten o’clock. Also, Mineta is obviously close to Cheney and knows nothing of any passenger revolt. There’s no evidence to suggest Cheney was being kept up-to-date about developments on the plane.

WTC?
If there were explosives in the WTC anyway to prevent it collapsing all over Lower Manhattan following a repeat of the 1993 bombing, it would be logical to order the WTC be made ready for demolition when American 11 hit it, as there would be initial concern the buildings would not survive the impacts. However, when it became apparent that the buildings were stable and there would only be a partial collapse of the areas most badly affected at most, the orders should have been cancelled. That’s why the young man asks, thinking the orders shouldn’t stand any more. However, meanwhile Cheney has been thinking about the angles and is determined to bring it down for its symbolic value. He’s mad at the young man because he’s mentioned something he shouldn’t in front of all those people.

Bush
“President Bush will say in a speech later that evening, “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans.” However, the Wall Street Journal reports that lower level officials activate CONPLAN (Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan) in response to the emerging crisis. CONPLAN, created in response to a 1995 Presidential Decision Directive issued by President Clinton and published in January 2001, details the responsibility of seven federal agencies if a terrorist attack occurs. It gives the FBI the responsibility for activating the plan and alerting other agencies.” Taken from PT’s timeline – 8:46.
If it wasn’t CONPLAN he initiated, what emergency response plans did he implement? I’m suggesting he gave the OK to get the North Tower ready for demolition due to the danger of (partial) collapse.

At 9:06 Card tells him “A second plane just hit the other tower, and America's under attack.” Bush does Scottish Football Association. How come? I’m suggesting the reason is he’s already given the order to get the North Tower ready for demolition and naturally (and correctly) assumes it will be extended to cover the South Tower. Card doesn’t say anything about the other planes in the air or even wait for an answer, so W. goes on with what he’s doing.

“After flying off in Air Force One, President Bush talks on the phone to Vice President Cheney. Cheney recommends that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any plane under control of the hijackers. “I said, ‘You bet,’ ” Bush later recalls. “We had a little discussion, but not much.” The 9/11 Commission claims that Cheney tells Bush three planes are still missing and one has hit the Pentagon. Bush later says that he doesn't make any major decisions about how to respond to the 9/11 attacks until after Air Force One takes off.” PT’s timeline – 9:56.
What major decisions does he take then? I’m suggesting he decides not only to shoot down any more hijacked planes, but also pull the South Tower. That Bush starts taking major decisions a couple of minutes before the South Tower goes is just a coincidence too far for me. If it’s a plot arranged in advance, why do the VP and W. need to discuss it then? The Rubicon would have been crossed an hour and ten minutes earlier.

[pox americana]

78. Interesting theory. One problem with Yousef's plan though:

It would be pretty hard to get WTC #1 to hit #2 because of the offset. I think I read on 911research that the cores were rectangular (80'x 140'), which would make it harder, and perpendicular to each other, which would make it even harder.



A tipping tower could have done a lot of damage, but I don't see how it would have been possible to tip one in any direction with a single bomb, unless it was a nuclear bomb. The 9/11 demolitions were an engineered series of explosions distributed throughout the buildings.

[Kevin Fenton]

79. Plan

That was Yousef's plan. It failed. I guess if the bomb is big enough and in exactly the right place it could just be done. I don't think it's likely, but even if one tower misses the other, it still kills all the people in it and lots of others when it lands. The worst thing for a group of bombers to do would be to tip the North Tower north and the South Tower south.

[pox americana]

82. Well, rational thinking is not exactly a hallmark of Bushevism

so I can see how they might plan for such a contingency. But there was really no reason to. Any bomb big enough to tip one of the WTC towers would have also demolished any structure it would be likely to hit.

[Christophera]

138. Yes, If It;s All Dust, Sand And Gravel, What Impacts The Ground?

Steel is heavy and hard but there is no connection between the many pieces so it is not quite believable that seismic reading such as this would exist so uniformly from a "collapse".

[philb]

59. Could pancake collapse throw a 30 ton steel beam 390 feet

in a horizontal direction? More than a football field.

What kind of horizontal force like that could a pancake collapse cause?

http://www.gallerize.com/150%20WINDY%20TOWERS%20OF%209-11%20One.htm

[philb]

60. Impossible physics of proposed South Tower pancake collapse.

The outer wall was shredded before the bulk of the falling mass reached it. Only the simultaneous inflicting of symmetrical damage (controlled demolition) can bring about such a vertical collapse.
www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Collapse/uniform_demolition.htm
The North Tower fall took only about 10 seconds (almost the rate of free-fall). The steel frame was shredded, and the building's concrete and its contents were pulverized in the air to create a volcano-like flows of thick dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan. The image on the cover is of the North Tower about four seconds into its destruction. The arrow points to pieces of the steel columns hurled about 200 feet away from the building.

Note that the top block of South Tower was leaning a lot. So no uniform collapse or pressure on the floor below. It might collapse
one wall but could not be the cause of the collapse in other parts of the building.

How could such a leaning block cause a pancake collapse? The pressure point would be a line, not the entire area of a floor section. And the beams and floor in question were designed to support the entire weight of everything above it; with a reserve.

[pox americana]

61. No and that's a problem: all that horizontal force

blowing columns, debris, heat and shockwaves out like a huge cannon. There is simply no way a gravity collapse, even if it were physically possible (like if the building had concrete columns, not steel), could do that.

p.s. I've heard of collapsing masonry that shot bricks out like cannonballs, but there was no masonry in the WTC.

[LARED]

64. Is it a 30 ton beam or a 300 ton beam?

The image states it's a 600,000 lb beam.

[Make7]

72. If it weighs about one ton per foot, wouldn't that make it 300 ft long?

One ton is probably a little bit too much for an estimate. I think it might have been long enough to just tip over onto the other building.

-Make7

[pox americana]

75. It sounds like a core column.

600,000 pounds = 300 tons, which is a lot of steel. The exterior columns were hollow and something like 18" square, so I don't think it was one of those. And the beams were pretty short, since the core columns were closely spaced, and they used the famous web trusses for the floor joists.

Now: what the HECK was a core column doing flying 390 feet into the WFC?!?!

[Christophera]

80. Jagged Piece Of Exterior Box Column Assembly Hit BLDG.

There are photos of that piece flying through space.

The exterior box columns were 14" square and spaced 22" between them. 52" tall spandrel plates connected the box columns horizontally at each floor.

Assemblies of lengths of exterior box column were lifted whole to be placed in the advancing tower faces. The jointing scheme was specifically designed to avoid continuous horizontal or vertical joining of assembeld sections. Such continous joints weaken the building.

There are a number of photos of the demolition that show exterior box column assemblies of varying size flying outwards from the building.

[pox americana]

81. Why so it is...

It's hard to see it clearly but it looks like two box columns, maybe two or three floors high, still connected to the spandrels and still as straight as arrows.



Funny how all those exterior columns never got around to buckling. I guess that means there was no pancaking on the floors with exterior columns, which I guess means there was no pancaking.

[hack89]

83. Is that WTC 7 ?

And how many exterior columns were there? Is a sample of one meaningful for drawing such sweeping and general conclusions? Show me pictures of at least 75% of the exterior columns and I'll believe you.

[pox americana]

84. No it's WFC 3

and your beliefs are not my concern.

[hack89]

85. So you have no real interest in proving anything?

I can understand that - sometimes the social aspect of conspiracies is enough for some.

[pox americana]

86. Open your eyes.

The proof has been presented many times in many threads, and you've participated in them.

[hack89]

89. Open your eyes,,,

your views are not even a majority in DU - why do you think all the 9/11 stuff is quickly shuffled off to this obscure corner like some crazy relative. If you want your eyes opened - take your google engineering over to the Science forum and hear their opinion on "woo woo" science.

You have proved nothing.

[pox americana]

90. I have no interest in faith-based science, so I'll take a rain check.

But thanks.

[hack89]

91. OK n/t

[philb]

102. Which science forum? Is it being discussed there?

I suspect there would be a lot of agreement between myself and most other scientists.

[hack89]

114. Take your analysis of the WTC collapse to the DU Science board..

and see what kind of reception you will get. Please post a link so we can all see.

[pox americana]

115. And watch your thread get deleted or locked within seconds.

Very poor advice, and given in bad faith.

[hack89]

116. But it shows how 9/11 CT theories are viewed at DU..

doesn't it? Yours is a minority, marginalized point of view even at DU - if you are unable to convince your fellow progressives, it makes one wonder how you will be able to convince the rest of the American public.

[pox americana]

117. It doesn't, and this is not the place to discuss DU policies. (n/t)

[hack89]

118. Ok - if you say so. n/t

[petgoat]

119. "if you are unable to convince your fellow progressives"

Unable to convince them the official story is full of holes, and we need
a new investigation? Half of all New Yorkers believe that already,
according to Zogby.

Are you the one that keeps demanding proof? The way things are,
official suppression of evidence is the best proof we're ever going to
get.

[pox americana]

120. Deluded Bushbots are a minority, and a shrinking one. (n/t)

[pox americana]

121. p.s. I think we have all the proof we need.

There was a massive cover-up and destruction of evidence, yes. But there's still plenty of proof that:

A) WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse as a result of compressive load failures,

B) explosive charges were set off in both structures, and

C) the FEMA and NIST theories are scientifically implausible, if not impossible, and provably inaccurate.

So I think it's fair to say that it's been proved beyond doubt that WTC 1 and 2 were not destroyed by airplanes or fires on 9/11.

[petgoat]

122. "it's been proved beyond doubt"

If that's so, then where is the brave engineer who will stand up to FEMA
and NIST and MIT and say so? If somebody would just make the statements
a compelling DVD complete with photos and charts and video could be
circulating within a few weeks.

Personally I think it's just like the voting machines issue: we're
stuck with the position of "the official story can not be proven, and is
in fact highly improbable, and is extremely suspect given all the
suppression of evidence going on."

Which is all just a bit too pointy-headed to play in Peoria.

[pox americana]

123. goat, it's not like the voting machines.

Those votes are gone. There's no record of them disappearing. There's no evidence to be had without a subpoena.

On the contrary, there's an abundance of evidence of what happened in Manhattan on 9/11. That's just the way it is. There's no way they could confiscate all those photographs, videotapes, witness statements, seismographs, thermal images, and on and on. The evidence is available, it's been analyzed, it's compelling and it's available for inspection.

Saying "we don't have the evidence" just plays into the Bushbot's hands.

[janedoe]

125. I just discovered some new evidence, today!

I just discovered some new evidence, today!

Check this out:

SPECTRAL MAP Red and yellow indicate where concrete dust fell, and purple shows gypsum wallboard in this USGS map of lower Manhattan made using a visible/infrared imaging spectrometer.
(http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html)


What strikes me is the quantity and distance of the concrete dust. i.e. This is fairly good proof that the cloud we saw, following the "collapse," wasn't just burning stuff. So, how could the concrete dust spread in the same way as the wall-board dust, with a wide distribution over a large distance. Why would wallboard (like chalk, no strength) "collapse" just like concrete?  What would make them "liquefy" together?

Also, It's shocking how the author struggles to rationalize what he saw, without concluding controlled demolition!!!


Here is a quote from the article:

Cahill first started to wonder about the plume after the rainfall of Sept. 14. "The color of the plume was all wrong," he said. "It was a light blue. My background is atmospheric physics, and the color of the plume tells me a lot. A light blue plume means very fine particles. Clearly, the pile was still hot and was giving off very fine particles." Yet very fine particles, he said, are more characteristic of a very high temperature process, such as a coal-fired power plant, a smelter, or a diesel engine. The pile at ground zero wasn't hot enough to generate such fine particles.

I underlined that last sentence, showing an assumption he was making, then he sought to rationalize his findings ("fixing facts around the policy"). 

They also found evidence of demolition in the dust... but then "assumed" that it was from the "cleanup demolition." The majority of their "dust" analysis was from September 2001. Gee... how fast did the folks in charge setup the "cleanup demolitions?" I don't think they can use the excuse "we were trying to rescue as many people as possible" for why they set up "controlled demolition" at the site.

[pox americana]

126. "fixing facts around the policy"

Welcome to the world of faith-based science.

p.s. This is good stuff!

[janedoe]

127. Isn't this how an investigation is supposed to be done?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#How_the_aircraft_broke_up)
Isn't this how an investigation is supposed to be done?




And then they tested their theory!
(http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/lockerbie/8.html)



And the pieces from Flight 103 (Lockerbie) are still being saved!
http://archives.syr.edu/arch/panam.htm

[petgoat]

130. But jane, jane, jane, we already know what happened. Investigating

would take away from the war effort. It would be unpatriotic. ;>)

[janedoe]

132. You forgot, we can't investigate it because...

..."because of 9/11." Yeah, that's it.

Isn't "9/11" to blame for everything?

[petgoat]

128. Saying "we don't have the evidence"

I certainly didn't mean to play into the Bushcist's hands. I
considered it fairly realistic to say that the strongest evidence
about WTC demolition is circumstantial: the destruction of evidence,
and the motive, means, and opportunity of the Bushcists.

Witnesses' reports of explosions can be explained away as the sound of
floors pancaking and as inappropriate conclusions drawn by stressed
witnesses.

If the seisomographic evidence is compelling, shouldn't we have a
geologist who's willing to come forward?

Photos and videotapes must be interpreted, and interpretations differ.

If FDNY is gagged, why have we not had any anonymous affidavits by
pissed-off firemen?

The thermal evidence is interesting, though it's a long way from being
presented in a fashion that Joe Six-Pack can understand.

I'm extremely skeptical of the official explanation of the collapse,
and so I imagine there are a lot of engineers out there who are too.
So why won't they come forward?

[janedoe]

131. They have come forward,

at least in anonymity.

Why would they want to lose their career, their family, and ...maybe their life?
Note, we don't have a democratic society that protects us.

[petgoat]

133. Well I'd like to see them come forward in a more formal way.

If they want to remain anonymous I completely understand that, but I'd
like to see papers and affidavits from "Fireman Joe" and "Engineer Dave"
and "Seismologist Yee-Fang" of a quality that would appear in a court
case.

I don't see anything like that and I wonder why.

[janedoe]

134. That can't be done anonymously!

If you were called as an expert witness in court, you'd need to use your identity and validate your credentials.
i.e. You'd be on the hit list before you get to court!
What witness protection program is there for that???
Heck, the system can't even take care of their own CIA agents.

[petgoat]

137. can't be done anonymously?

The papers and the affidavits could be released anonymously. I said
they should be of court quality, not that the witnesses should be
qualified by a genuine court proceeding.

If we had documents like that, then instead of being reactionaries
attacking the NIST report, we would have something affirmative that the
OCT types would have to try to debunk.

[janedoe]

135. What happened to Ryan, the UL steel expert?

That's a great illustration.
Also, there's the demolition guy who said on that day that it was controlled demolition... then changed his mind a week later. He's collected around $85 million in grants, since then. That sure beats being homeless or being sent to Gitmo. ;-)

[gbwarming]

136. Don't think UL had a steel expert named Ryan.

They had a water quality lab manager by that name.

[pox americana]

124. p.s. don't let the Bushbots fool you.

They're not "unconvinced," "skeptical," or in any way influenced by the quantity or quality of any evidence; they're just spinning.

They're also dishonest, in case you hadn't noticed.

[petgoat]

129. "They're also dishonest"

Oh I've debunked that five times already and I'm simply not going to
discuss it any more.

"Besides, here's my thousand-page pdf that says whatever I want it to
say. Sorry but I'm so busy in my high-flying professional life that I
can't be bothered to cite the page numbers."

;>)

[petgoat]

87. no real interest in proving anything?

It's somewhat disingenuous to demand proof knowing full well that the
steel was destroyed, FDNY is gagged, the blueprints are secret, and
photographs were prohibited.

Lack of proof is the reason WTC skepticism exists at all. Lack of proof
is a basic fact of life of WTC investigation.

[pox americana]

88. There's plenty of photographic evidence

and it's conclusive. All she has to do is click around.

[hack89]

99. Then you are admitting that you will never be able to prove your theories?

How can there be justice without proof?

[philb]

103. Complicity and coverup is well documented; isn't that enough

[hack89]

106. No,,,

It is not. I believe that they are covering up incompetence and corruption - you still need to prove they are covering up murder.

[demodewd]

101. re: buckling

Funny how all those exterior columns never got around to buckling. I guess that means there was no pancaking on the floors with exterior columns, which I guess means there was no pancaking.

Excellent observation.

[LARED]

107. Picture of bukling WTC 2

Notice the column on the right side of image

[pox americana]

108. You forgot the pancakes.

There does seem to be some column deformation in that photo, but it's not clear that it's buckling. I see bending and a section that looks like it was blown out by airplane debris.

In any case, there's no evidence of pancaking, and this is where it's supposed to have started -- between the top chunk and the structure below.

[LARED]

111. Is this failure mode what you think column buckiling is limited to?

[pox americana]

112. No.

That's a good example of lab-produced buckling, but that's not what buckled WTC columns would necessarily look like.

They would, however, show evidence of buckling.

[pox americana]

109. thanks

I can't wait to see what the NIST comes up with to explain all those undeformed columns.

[yodermon]

38. One question

you said:

5) molten pools of steel at the bottom of the rubble.

My question is this: Are there any sources OTHER than the American Free Press that have reported this?

I understand that the primary source for this statement is Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, who was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site. Did he (or anyone else) make his "molten steel" comments to any other media besides AFP?

Thanks.

[janedoe]

40. Smoking of the pile

We've all seen pictures or heard news reports (mainstream media, as well as the "official story") that the pile was "burning" for at least 3 months after 9-11, despite all of the water hoses on the pile. And, I'm sure there were many good rains that fall. why did it burn (or at least smolder) for 3 months?

Recall the huge fires that have been discussed, here. (Madrid, Philadelphia) How long did it take those fires to go out? From what I remember, they just let the Madrid fire go, deciding it was too hard to water down. It burned out by the next day and I'm guessing that the smoke even stopped by the following day, unless they had a rainstorm overnight. Then it would have stopped that night. I don't know the exact details, perhaps someone else would like to help? Madrid fire burned for 18 hours?

Remember, the WTC is right there near sea level. How much water do you think they needed to pour on ground zero before it became saturated?

[hack89]

65. Wouldn't that water also rapidly cool any molten steel?

without combustion to sustain it how could the steel remain molten for so long?

[philb]

104. So what would remain hot; even after much water?

Water would extinguish a paper fire pretty quick. So what would remain hot? Huge steel beams would remain hot longer than things of less mass.

But, did anyone test for radioactivity at WTC?
Or at the landfill?
What did they find?

[hack89]

113. Here is a good description of not only the fires..

but the chemical analysis of the aerosols at ground zero.

There is evidence of combustion in the rubble for many weeks after 9/11. Combustion products = combustion = fires seems simple to me.

They did not find traces of radioactive material

Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html