Posted on 11/13/2010 7:25:07 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
On tonight's Geraldo Rivera show, he had on a couple of people purporting that 9/11 was an inside job because 'Fire Can't Melt Steel'. At least one was from 9/11 families (I do not know if it was one of the handful of anti-war 9/11 famil;ies or not).
Has Roger Ailes gone crazy!
What kind of drugs are you on?
IATZ!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
>> That you, Rosie?
Thought that was Joey Buttafuco...
Well, he lived up to the last four letters of his username...
Problem is the Towers DID NOT FALL IN 9 SECONDS! GOT IT?
At the risk of being REDUNDANT... I will give you access to the same information I provided “BocoLoco” ... for YOUR education in facts to begin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded#!
DEBUNKING 9-11 MYTHS:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Stop yelling. So the towers fell 20 to 30 percent slower than a rock in a vacuum. That would be expected. There are air resistance, metal shear, cement crush, and other things that held it up in the first place. What are you trying to prove?
“There is apparently a case to be made for poor joint design of the core columns (butt welds, all on the same horizontal plane - right where fractures of the columns occurred).”
Those are perimeter columns, not core columns. The only locations where bolted joints were located in the same plane occurred at three different levels, called “mechanical floors.” However, at these locations the joints were also welded.
WTC1 (North Tower) Impact zone: Floors 94-97
Perimeter columns destroyed: 31-36 of 60 (240 total for all four sides)
WTC2 (South Tower) Impact zone: Floors 78-84
Perimeter columns destroyed 23 of 60 (240 columns total),
including a corner.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
“The mechanical floors are 7-9, 41-43, 75-77, and 108-110, which are all beam framed floors. In each group of three floors, the upper and lower floors are type 12 and the middle floor is type 13 (mechanical mezzanine). The mechanical mezzanines were 50% open (no floor) outside the core so the floor area is 15,448.5 sq ft.”
So, for both WTC1 (the North Tower) and WTC2 (The South Tower) the impact zones did not include a mechanical floor. Thus at no point within the impact zone was bolting within a single plane involved.
The perimeter columns were modular assemblies grouped together in sets of three. The bolting of these units was not in the same plane but staggered. Since the perimeter steel columns were not welded, but bolted, the bolt connections would act like plastic hinges until tension stresses created by the sagging floor membranes (cantinary action) caused sheer failure.
Interesting to note that for WTC2 (South Tower) the second of the twin towers to be struck, but the first to first collapse, the 81st Floor was the first floor to fail and initiate the collapse. That floor housed 12 elevator hoists (weighing 24 tons each) that cover 1/2 the floor space.
For the idiots who choose to believe that demolition charges were involved, here is a good rebuttal to your insanity:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
A fair attempt to calculate the energy involved is located here:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Although the 500,000 ton weight of each building has since been demonstrated to be incorrect:
Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1
Gregory H. Urich
B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering
1 Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
Core Construction
Each tower contained an inner core of rectangular shape, and composed of 47 steel box-beam columns that supported 60 percent of the building’s gravity load. The core also provided an enclosure for the elevators, emergency stairwells, and the various support systems that served each tower. These systems included: utility, communications, HVAC, and the automatic and manual fire-suppression supply manifolds. The clustering of all these essential systems within the core proved to be a fatal design flaw.
Core box-columns were not continuously symmetrical; but rather, their cross-sections varied with height. Lower columns, measuring 14 inches wide by 36 inches deep, transitioned into heavy rolled wide-flange stock that became progressively lighter with height. A continuous steel channel, welded to the main columns, encircled the perimeter of the inner core at each floor level. Flanged seats, welded to the perimeter channel beam, served as bearing points for the upper chord of each floor truss.
The core area of each tower encompassed 99 service elevators, several freight elevators, and three independent emergency stairwells. Each stairwell served as the location for the automatic and manual fire suppression supply-manifolds, however these lines were not provided with hardened protection.
Stairwells did not run within continuous vertical shafts, but used transfer corridors, which traversed the length of the core at several floors. Zoned smoke control was built into each building’s ventilation system, and was activated through the responding FDNY Incident Commander. The system was designed to limit smoke spread from the tenant areas into the core area.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated, knew immediately that both towers were doomed to collapse: The buildings were hit low, they were of an open-span design—no reinforced concrete, only sheetrock on steel, and two-thirds of their external load-bearing columns were destroyed. Thousands of pounds of paper were mixed with jet fuel, and supplied with plenty of oxygen from the winds, high up—so plenty of ventilation for a really hot fire that will spread everywhere immediately. Progressive collapse was inevitable. Loizeaux tried to warn the FDNY, but all line and cellular phone circuits were busy—he could not get through.
Fire Proofing
Structural elements of WTC 1 were originally fireproofed with an asbestos product up to the 39th floor. However, these materials were later removed or encapsulated, and a spray-applied coating was subsequently used on all floors of both towers. The coating was a low-density factory-mixed product, consisting of manufactured inorganic fibers, cement binders, and additives to promote wetting, set, and dust control. Air, hydraulic, and ceramic setting binders were added at the site, depending on application and weather conditions. Water was added at the spray nozzle, as the material was applied.
Spandrels and girders were specified to a 3-hour fire rating. The interior face of perimeter columns was protected with a fire-rated plaster, but the remaining surfaces were protected with the spray-on coating. Thickness of spray-on protection varied, with more massive columns having less and the lighter elements receiving a heavier coating.
Each element of the floor trussing was protected. The average thickness of fireproofing was ¾ inches, but in the mid 1990’s, a decision was made to upgrade the protection by applying additional coating to a thickness of 1 and ½ inches. By September 11, 2001, thirty-one stories in the north tower had been upgraded, including the entire impact zone. Within the impact zone of the south tower only the 78th floor was upgraded.
Stairwells and elevator shafts were encased in 5/8-inch gypsum board, supported by metal studs: two layers composed the outer wall, and one layer formed the inner wall. This encasement provided the 2-hour fire rating stipulated within the New York City performance codes. (In 1968, the requirement for a smoke-proof masonry stairwell was eliminated from the New York building code.)
FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) determines fire resistance ratings. However, such ratings are based on laboratory tests, which are comparative only, and the rating of a particular material is not intended to predict its actual performance. Hourly fire ratings should not be thought to indicate a specific duration that the building assembly will withstand collapse in an actual fire. ASTM procedures measure only thermal properties, and structural connections are not evaluated [Table 4 and 5]. Problems cited with the current fire rating methods used by the ASTM are as follows:
1.) Laboratory-controlled tests are performed under ideal standardized scenarios that do not match typical fire conditions.
2.) Laboratory scenarios measure only the nominal ‘fire load’ predicted to exist within a structure; i.e.: the amount of combustible material already in the building. These analyses do not anticipate additional sources of energy.
3.) In calculating material longevity, laboratory testing does not anticipate the sudden intensity of fires.
4.) Laboratory testing does not anticipate the added stress of structural damage.
PERFORMANCE CODES
A performance code specifies a particular fire rating, and not a type or size of material to be used in a building’s construction. Fire protection in accordance with performance codes is based on laboratory test that have no correlation with actual fires. In his 1976 book, High Rise, Fire and Life Safety, Fire Commissioner John O’Hagan, FDNY (Ret), listed several serious fire-safety issues for buildings constructed post 1970:
1.) Sheet rock and spray-on fireproofing are insufficient protection.
2.) Surfaces must be thoroughly clean for adhesion of spray-on coatings.
3.) Spray-on protection is applied inconsistently, with great variance. The light-weight material is easily knocked off, or dislodged from beams and columns by electrical, plumbing and HVAC tradesmen, when performing finish work.
4.) Large open spaces allow faster spread of fire.
5.) Synthetic furnishings produce more heat and smoke.
Each of these concerns manifested themselves in the WTC fires of September 11, 2001.
There is great controversy over the collapse of the WTC towers, and the process of civil litigation is now ongoing between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey—the developer-owner and the surviving relatives of those killed in the collapse. Controversial though they may be, there are several aspects of the WTC fireproofing that require further scrutiny. The central issue is whether fire code practice was properly followed and verified during the construction of the WTC towers. There exists a body of evidence to support questions about whether fireproofing was properly done—if done at all.
During the initial construction there were reports that the structural steel was allowed to rust on site. The degraded surface condition of the steel would have made the application of spray-on fireproofing a futile endeavor. Spray-on mineral-based materials require absolutely clean surfaces for adhesion, but there are allegations that the fireproofing was applied over the rust. Additionally, and perhaps more telling, there were years of extensive litigation between the Port Authority and U.S. Minerals Product—the manufacturer of the spray-on fireproofing material, Blaze Shield-D.
There is also some bloody intrigue surrounding the contractor responsible for the application of fireproofing. Louis DiBono, a reputed member of the Gambino crime family, was paid $2.8 million to fireproof the steel in the WTC. The man, once described by the FBI as being a poor business manager whose construction companies “lost a great deal of money,” had been accused of shoddy workmanship. However we shall never hear his side of the story because, in October of 1990, Louis DiBono was gunned down in the parking garage of the north tower. John Gotti was later convicted of ordering the hit.
Leslie Robertson, the WTC project structural engineer, previously expressed doubts over the wisdom of using steel rods rather than bars for the floor truss webbing. Robertson pondered whether spray-on material would adhere to the 1-inch diameter cylindrical members, that the rods may not hold the spray-on fire protection as well as angled bars. But the contractor could save money by using rod stock, which was a factory-produced item—and cheaper. In the end, the project structural engineer approved the stock item for use.
Leslie Robertson has noted that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was exceptionally profit-minded: …This wasn’t corporate headquarters—a monument building, it was a moneymaking proposition. Being “exceptionally profit-minded” the Port Authority would be in a rather compromising position, since by 1973, the WTC project costs had already reached $800 million—a 60 percent budget overrun.
The Port Authority was a bi-state agency, and as such, was not subject to New York City fire regulations or inspections. According to Alan Reiss, former Director of the WTC, the Port Authority had a policy of complying with NYC fire codes and inspection procedures. However, there is increasing testimony to the contrary.
In December of 1975, Richard Klein accompanied structural engineer Fred Chang through the south tower, while the interior was still being completed. The reason for the visit was to perform inspections of the beams and columns, and to examine the 10,000 visco-elastic dampers installed by 3M Company. Mr. Klein has publicly stated that there was no fireproofing insulation on the majority of the beam and column members.
In 1992, Roger G. Morse, an architect who specializes in forensic and environmental investigations of buildings, inspected the floor joists in the north and south towers. The absence of fireproofing was so blatant that Morse did not report it immediately—thinking it had been omitted intentionally, in favor of some other method of fire safety: The fireproofing was thin or missing virtually everywhere I checked.
Following the 1993 bombing, an upgrade was made to the fireproofing material to increase its thickness from ¾ inch to 1 and ½ inches. On September 11, 2001, only 31 of 220 floors had been upgraded. Eighteen floors in the north tower, including all of the impact area, and 13 floors in the south tower. However, the 78th floor was the only section upgraded in the impact area of the south tower.
Inspections performed on core columns in the south tower by Roger Morse, as recently as June of 2000, revealed that much of the fireproofing material was peeled off. During a hearing before the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which was conducted in the summer of 2002, Morse testified that the fireproofing was frequently insufficient or else non-existent. Morse had originally presented photographic evidence of his findings at a seminar held in December of 2001 [Fig. 33]. Frederick Mowrer, Associate Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, arranged this seminar.
In September of 2001, in the days following the attacks, John Connar of MIT, quoted Ron Hamburger—the co-author of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, regarding the condition of fireproofing materials found in other WTC structures: “When I visited the site, I went through the American Express and the Bankers Trust buildings, and saw large chunks of the fireproofing in those buildings knocked off—and that was only by falling debris, not by an airplane hit…”
On October 25, 2002, an investigation conducted by Weidlinger Associates, and contracted by the WTC leaseholder—Silverstein Properties, exonerated the floor truss design and the fireproofing material. The conclusions reached were:
1.) Fire temperatures on the impact floors were between 750 and 1300 degrees F.
2.) The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was due to the failure of the columns alone, and independent of the floor trussing system.
3.) The floors survived the initial impacts, except for localized damage.
4.) Failure was due to lost fireproofing, or because of columns destroyed on impact.
5.) The WTC fire inspection program represented a greater standard of care.
However, on November 18, 2002, during a lecture given at Northwestern University, Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior V.P. of Construction Technology Laboratories, Incorporated, stated that much of the fireproofing within WTC 1 and 2 was not secured strongly enough to withstand the impacts. Gene Corley was a central member of the investigation team during the Weidlinger study, contracted by Silverstein Properties for insurance purposes. Dr Corley noted that fireproofing, an aspect the architect designs, was ultimately the problem.
“What are you trying to prove?”
Sorry to “yell,” but I am so #$%* tired of the “truther” squad and their demonstrable insanity.
WTC 1 and 2 did not “free fall” Moreover neither building came close to “free fall.” Individuals claiming such are either willfully ignoring the facts or too lazy to research legitimate sources (Wikipedia does not qualify!), and so they resort to repeating the myths spread by uneducated people.
You would get angry too, if, having a background in engineering and architecture, you had to battle this lunacy every other day. It gets old.
I freely admit that your field of expertise is beyond me. Can you define "free fall"?
MEG33: No fair! I wanted to post that one ;)
A free falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. Any object that is being acted upon only be the force of gravity is said to be in a state of free fall. There are two important motion characteristics that are true of free-falling objects:
* Free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance.
* All free-falling objects (on Earth) accelerate downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s
To wit: for each additional second in free fall, an object will accelerate so that its distance traveled in that one second is increased an additional 9.8 meters greater than that distance traveled in the previous second... This will continue until the object reaches terminal velocity.
Terminal Velocity
When an object which is falling under the influence of gravity or subject to some other constant driving force is subject to a resistance or drag force which increases with velocity, it will ultimately reach a maximum velocity where the drag force equals the driving force. This final, constant velocity of motion is called a “terminal velocity”, a terminology made popular by skydivers. For objects moving through a fluid at low speeds so that turbulence is not a major factor, the terminal velocity is determined by viscous drag.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/airfri2.html
A skydiver’s terminal (maximum) velocity in the Earth’s atmosphere is 196.533 feet per second.
That is in air, without any other impeding conditions present to act against his descent.
The roof of WTC Tower 1 (North Tower) stood at 1368 feet. WTC 2, the South Tower, was slightly less in height at 1362 feet. Even if we give the advantage of instantaneous terminal velocity (an impossibility) the roof of WTC 1, if collapsing at “free fall” (impossible because the building did not fall in a vacuum) should have hit the ground in 6.96 seconds. Of course it did not.
Neither did WTC 1 travel those 1368 feet in the 9.22 seconds required to transit from an acceleration of zero to its final velocity upon ground impact. WTC 1 fell in 22.02 seconds.
WTC 2 required from 14.75 seconds (video footage) to 15.28 seconds (based on audio recordings) in its collapse sequence.
Got it, and thanks for the information.
Geraldo says it Again! Here is FOX TV’s Judge Napolitano interviewing Geraldo asking him about this very controversial segment on his show last week!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HcliJUk0VY
I looked at the videos and then did some research. The technical people say that WTC 7 (not the twin towers) fell as if under free-fall for 100 feet ... eight stories. I don’t see any thing wrong with the math.
amen. In today’s world you can make so called facts seem reasonable especially if said discussion has anything to do with the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.