The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: As steel is ductile, should the WTC have collapsed slower?  (Read 10442 times)

Offline L_D

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
As steel is ductile, should the WTC have collapsed slower?
« Reply #25 on: 15/05/2009 10:44:53 »
"It's odd that you say "they invariably collapse. With or without explosives" when only 3 highrise steel framed buildings have ever completely collapsed ultimately due to fire, and they all occcured on 9/11."
Roughly how many skyscrapers have been hit by deliberately targeted fully loaded modern jet aircraft?
Isn't it a spooky coincidence that there are also just 3 of these and they also happened on 9/11.
Must be a conspiracy to only fly planes into buildings that have been packed with explosives I guess.



Well only two of the 3 highrises that completely collapsed that day were hit by planes, have you taken the time to look at the collapse of the 3rd highrise (WTC 7) yet?

The fact that the Towers had aircraft damage and fire high up cannot explain how the whole buildings collapsed through themselves right down to the ground at a speed close to freefall.

I will give a few examples of other buildings that have suffered similar but worse damage than the Towers did and yet they did not collapse through themselves.

First is the unusual attempted demolition of a building by blowing out all the columns midway up the building:


Next is a photo of a building that, during an earthquake, has sheared midway up and fallen onto itself (bottom left of the montage):

http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/earthquakeCollage.jpg [nofollow]


I can understand your sarcasm towards this subject because I used to think the reason those buildings fell was obvious also, that is why I implore you to have another more objective look at the collapse of all THREE highrise buildings that collapsed that day.

There are now over 650 architects and engineers from all over the world who have signed a petition because they don't believe that gravity alone could allow those buildings to collapse through themselves.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ [nofollow]

 
 

Offline L_D

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
As steel is ductile, should the WTC have collapsed slower?
« Reply #26 on: 15/05/2009 17:56:41 »
Here is this part of the conspiracy debunked:

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include. [nofollow]

Dentstudent, these debunkers are never genuine nor do they present genuine arguments, I have a bit of time now so I will quickly go through some of the arguments in the link you provided.

The first comment I will make is on the assertion that all the fireproofing was removed, this is a claim made in the NIST final report, but the NIST don't prove that it happened at all. Here is a quote from one of the lead experts in the NIST team, Dr Quintiere, where he questions that assertion..
 
"2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?"
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm [nofollow]



The next claim is "not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner".

They try and make it sound as though all the supporting columns were lost by the aircraft impact, when the truth is that less than 20% of columns were lost and the buildings duly redistributed the loads to remain standing perfectly upright after the crashes.



Next they mention the Madrid Winsor tower fires where the upper 10 floors collapsed, it is worth noting that not only did the Madrid tower burn for 20 hrs, but the collapse of those upper floors took 2 hrs with lots of slow buckling evident, very different to if explosives were used.



Next they say.. "While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings".
We have covered the fireproofing but common sense says that if someone designs a building for aircraft impact they will take into account the jet fuel, they quote one engineer but this is very selective because they know full-well that the head engineer said this in an interview after the '93 bombing...

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 [nofollow]



At the end of this disengenuous piece of rubbish paper they go on to list a host of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, only they are low rise buildings and are generally large exhibition halls or factory spaces, they certainly do not detract from the fact that no highrise steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire before the 3 on 9/11.


I have spent a lot of my time replying to your link here, I ask that you re-examine the THREE collapses that occured that day for yourself, there is plenty of archival footage on youtube that is easily accessable. 




 


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

As steel is ductile, should the WTC have collapsed slower?
« Reply #26 on: 15/05/2009 17:56:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length