This is a response to my post 9/11 A Controlled Demolition?.
Just as a side note: the AE911 (Architects and Engineers 911) is not refuted. An alternative explanation is provided. In any case both sides are presented. Me? I haven’t made up my mind. But I can tell you this. Either way I don’t trust our government. They don’t seem to have the best interests of the citizenry in their hearts.
My takeaway? There will always be a reservoir of distrust for the official explanation. Some warranted – Architects and Engineers for instance. Some not.
So what got me started on all this? I was looking in to Michael Mann’s book on Climate Change because of A Watts Up With That comment I made. Which led me to this and this. And I was off to the races.
At about 39 minutes in an Office Of Emergency Management guy, Richard Rotanz, mentions an elevator car blown out of its shaft. That will be fodder for the conspiracy guys. How does “blown out of its shaft” happen in a building that is just burning?
At about 49 minutes in they discuss beam erosion. The researcher claims it was eroded by hot slag consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur. Which is also consistent with the posited nanothermite which uses sulfur to make the iron easier to melt. Curious.
And the investigation was done with computer models? Dang. That is the way the evidence for Global Warming – which is not happening – is generated. Why didn’t they do experiments with fire, steel, and gypsum board to see if they could replicate the effects they claim happened?
Just for the record here is what the 911 Truther has to say about Michael Mann’s book. He is scathing.
Comments
17 responses to “WTC 7 – BBC Debunks The Third Tower Conspiracy Theories”
I don’t think that the U.S. government had any part in the 9/11 attacks. I don’t think that the U.S. government had, well, institutional awareness that the attacks were going to take place. (There were warnings of course, but I don’t think they were heeded.)
I doubt WTC 7 is different. AE911 makes a big deal out of the idea that no high-rise has ever collapsed from fire–but has a high-rise fire ever been allowed to burn out of control like that? There were also plenty of reports by first-responders of structural damage prior to the collapse. IF (a big IF) it turns out that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished, I think the best guess that it was brought down because it was no longer possible to keep the secret areas secured. There are certainly folks who say that embarrassing information was conveniently destroyed in the implosion, but there are much easier ways to destroy information than that. It’s possible, though, that there was no other way to keep the information quarantined.
And the investigation was done with computer models? Dang. That is the way the evidence for Global Warming – which is not happening – is generated. Why didn’t they do experiments with fire, steel, and gypsum board to see if they could replicate the effects they claim happened?
Because you’d have to build a new building just to burn/demolish it to confirm that – and the conspiracy types would just assert that the replication was faked, so why even bother?
On the other hand, unlike with Global Climate, we have a very good understanding of the mechanical and chemical properties of common building materials under “normal” disaster stresses; the most obvious difference being that the systems being modeled are orders of magnitude smaller and less complex.
That understanding that is pretty well tested, because we’ve had lots of examples of fires and collapses over the decades, painstakingly analyzed post facto.
(Also, what Neil said.)
Neil,
Try this on for size. Rudy Dekkers – who ran the flight training school that Atta attended was busted a year or two back for cocaine smuggling. Local papers in FLA claim the Venice airport was a smuggling hub.
Think Mena. Think Ollie North.
http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/09/12/the-fbi-took-a-powder-things-you-never-knew-about-911/
Government involvement in Drug Trafficking is not exactly a secret. Read Alfred McCoy (UWisc IIRC) “The Politics of Heroin”. Or look up the history of “Air America”. The latest doings are hidden. But the history is not a secret.
Hell. Look up “Iran Contra North cocaine Webb CIA” that should turn up a few links – including an admission by the CIA after the noise went down that the CIA was importing cocaine.
Also look up “CIA Justice Department Memorandum” – if the CIA or one of its assets or operatives are breaking the law in the name of National Security the Justice Dept. doesn’t prosecute.
My guess is that Rudy got inconvenient.
Sigivald.
I’m not asking for a full up recreation. Just some experiments with gypsum board, office furnishing fires, and steel. Let UL run and report on the experiments.
Ya know – gypsum board is used in building construction because it is fire resistant. The sulfur is not going to come out of that easily.
Did the NIST release the computer program and data used so what they claim could be independently recreated?
Who done it? Well I don’t know who. And I don’t know how. All I can say is that like A&E911 I believe there are loose ends. And the BBC didn’t dispel all the A&E911 claims. Just brought forward alternatives.
Ya know. Ten years ago or so when I first looked into this I thought the 911 Truthers were nut bags. Totally. Check with NSA for what I was saying then. But quite a few architects and building engineers? Maybe they have something.
And I didn’t go looking for this information. I stumbled on it. So my inclination was to buy the official reports. Until I listened to some engineers.
I guess it shows how far my faith in government has declined.
That understanding that is pretty well tested, because we’ve had lots of examples of fires and collapses over the decades, painstakingly analyzed post facto.
I can buy that. Got some links?
Neil,
IF (a big IF) it turns out that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished, I think the best guess that it was brought down because it was no longer possible to keep the secret areas secured. There are certainly folks who say that embarrassing information was conveniently destroyed in the implosion, but there are much easier ways to destroy information than that. It’s possible, though, that there was no other way to keep the information quarantined.
How do you destroy a LOT of paper files without some one noticing? Embassies have a LOT of trouble with this at the beginning of wars.
Was that the motive? If there was a motive. Hell if I know. And I’m not likely to find out.
What I do know is the end result is chaos in the Middle East. And I’m not too unhappy with that. It serves American interests given all the competing factions. WW2 has still not ended there. The Muslim Brotherhood was allied with the Nazis back then. Which gives some idea of their inclinations.
And government involvement in crime?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/05/prosecutor-whitey-bulger-one-most-vicious-violent-criminals-ever-walk-streets-boston/TNC57silP7SbCyY7wz4sCJ/story.html
Bulger’s lawyers aggressively attacked the government for cutting lenient plea deals with three former associates who admitted to participating in gruesome and unprovoked murders and blamed Bulger for their crimes.
“I ask you to find strength in the oath you took,” J.W. Carney Jr., one of Bulger’s lawyers, told jurors. “You have the power to stand up to government abuse.”
==
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/29/justice/massachusetts-bulger-trial/
Their first witness, a former FBI agent, testified that he was sent to clean up the “leaks” at the FBI in Boston in 1981, and that one of his assignments, given by the special agent in charge, was to evaluate Bulger as an informant and perform a “suitability study.”
After an evaluation, he recommended “terminating” Bulger as an informant.
====
There is lots more around on that case.
I’m mildly schizophrenic. I can make connections with very few dots. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn’t.
In this case? Too many loose ends. For me.
Here is the claim:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
===
I’d like some data points that contradict that. The data points should be building collapses. Other than 911.
[…] an ongoing discussion of The WTC 7 collapse on 911. Commenter Sigivald brought up the fact that other high rise fires have caused […]
NIST asks:
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. … A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
====
The “truthers” say in response:
The authors don’t speculate on whether the findings are evidence of explosives, but the New York Times called them “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
Despite the ASCE’s call for further investigation, NIST’s Report ignores the findings. Its five pages in Section 6.4 Learning from the Recovered Steel (p 86/136) includes a subsection on damage analysis with considerable detail, including some “observations of the microstructure of the steel.” It fails to mention the sulfidation discovered by ASCE volunteers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
========
Now that is the same question I’m asking – if gypsum board in conjunction with hot fires is a danger to steel shouldn’t some one be looking into it?
The construction industry if for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits.
Simon,
I agree that WTC 7 is a puzzle. That means the cause is not known for certain–along with all that implies.
Anyway, I got to wondering whether local building codes play a part here.
There’s a reason that Manhattan was the site of so many early skyscrapers. Manhattan is built on an outcropping of bedrock that is close to the surface. That’s why the Hudson carved the island out instead of going straight through it–it’s a big chunk of rock, harder than the stuff on either side. It’s also geologically more or less inert with little fear of earthquakes.
So, Manhattan skyscrapers are not built to the same standards as, say, L.A. Where the ground can, y’know, go somewhere else in a hurry.
Perhaps these buildings were just not built to stand up to a long-duration fire? Especially with structural damage caused by debris from WTC 1 & 2?
My recollection of early analysis was that the WTC was different from other skyscrapers in that the steel exoskeleton supported more of the building, with less reliance on the central concrete core. It wasn’t just a curtain wall supporting itself.
The heat of the fires weakened these relatively slender, unprotected members enough to cause the pancaking chain reactions that brought down the towers.
At least that’s what I recall as the initial engineering analysis.
The vast majority of skyscrapers now use curtain walls – which do self-destruct during fire.
Neil,
Let me put this in as simple an engineering perspective as possible.
Suppose you build a 10 story building that is adequate to resist fire and will also not sway too much in the wind.
Now suppose you make that building 10X higher. If you go for the same stiffness it will be 100X stronger.
============
So why do so many buy into the story given? Very few know a damn thing about material science. Building design. Building construction.
Fires – the Jet fuel burned out in 10 or 15 minutes. Office material fires burn out in 20 minutes.
If the whole area where the jets crashed was set totally on fire after 20 minutes the fires are out and the steel gets STRONGER. Compared to its weakened condition during the fire.
BTW buildings are designed to hold up during the 20 minute fire office materials can support. The minimum fire rating is 1 hour.
======
Now you have another little problem. Molten iron reported in the debris. No open fire gets hot enough to melt iron. You need a closed furnace with forced air.
=======
The NIST simulation required the iron to get to 700C to weaken enough. Evidence shows (what little that wasn’t carted away) that no area got hotter than 600C and most were below 250C. Design is 350C.
The 600C reported would be peak. Sometime during the 20 minute fire of the jet fuel or office furnishings.
In addition NIST stopped the simulation at initiation. We have no idea what the rest of the failure looks like. Pancake? Or twisting bending failure.
====
Ya know. It is just a fluke that I looked into this. And it is another fluke that I trained myself in structural engineering. Just as I trained myself in electronics. And went on to become an aerospace electronic engineer.
Because I too used to believe the truthers were nuts. Just the other day in fact.
Ben David,
The vast majority of skyscrapers now use curtain walls – which do self-destruct during fire.
Any examples you have a link to? Pancake failures especially welcome.
Ben Mendel
That’s the point: buildings built according to modern convention do not pancake when burning – like the Chinese hotel and examples cited in other posts – because the structural core is protected by all that concrete.
The relatively flimsy curtain walls – designed with increasingly vestigial metal frames over the past decades – pop/shatter and fall away as the interior burns.
But it takes a lot of heat – over a lot of time – to penetrate inches of concrete and soften rebar. So it doesn’t happen that often – the flammables are consumed before the ferro-cement core is compromised.
It takes much less heat to soften exposed structural metal elements. The WTC exterior was a neo-gothic tracery of narrow metal structural columns covered with thin aluminum cladding.
The proper comparison is not to reinforced concrete – but to bridges, which fail suddenly and spectacularly when their mechanical limits are breached even at a single point.
Structurally, the WTC was somewhere between the two…
We can also ask how dense the cores were in the WTC towers. They were constructed decades ago – and many of us New Yorkers remember the WTC swaying in light winds – it was noticeable when you visited offices on the upper floors – which indicates that the designers relied on more steel and less concrete than later convention would dictate.
Ben David,
Ah so you have no links to skyscraper pancake failures. No matter how or when the buildings were built.
Well except for demolitions.
Simon,
Ah monomania