--- BREAKING NEWS ---


http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...0-%205-2007.pdf

I have some problem understanding a few things in the Bazant and Verdure paper. I was going to ask some questions here and while I looked up the URL link to the paper on the web page of Dr Bazant I found this!

I'm delighted.

Congratulation to Benson and Greening for the nice work!

I'll ask my trite questions later.

With 3000GJ available from the fire alone, why would you think it'd be necessary to have the 0.5GJ in the first place?

Wouldn't it make more sense to consider that the fire's nonuniform thermal distribution of the 3000GJ could have the same 0.5GJ effect?

Even if you don't think the fires were hot enough to *melt* the steel (something I don't think is necessary to drop the towers, but something I don't rule out happening in random hotspots, either), there had to be significant amounts of thermal expansion. Has anyone calculated how much the trusses would've expanded at the hottest parts of the fire, and shrunk once the fire started to cool?

The figure for the coefficient of thermal expansion for steel that I just ran across is 7.8ppm/degreeF. So multiply that number by the peak fire temperature (that you believe to be accurate) and the length of the truss under question, and that's how much it would expand. Trusses aren't designed for compression, so they'll just sag/bow. At peak temperatures, the steel is hot enough for plastic deformation. Once the fire cools off, the same truss, now cooler (and stiffer) will attempt to shrink by the same coefficient, same calculation as before (with the same answer for shrinkage as there was for expansion).

So as the truss cools, it exerts tension on the members holding it to the wall.

Anyone calculate the force one of these would be exerting from cooling? How does that force compare to the strength of the bolts (?) holding them in-place?

I think if you do these calculations, you'll find that the 0.5GJ postulated to drop the trusses aren't needed, and the building collapses progressively without anything other than the impact damage and subsequent fire caused by the hijacked plane hitting the towers.

Pierre-Normand:

Thank you for your kind words!

Frank

NF, an editorial comment:



Replace the double negative "does not disagree" with "agrees."

(good work, BTW)

Very good way to start my morning.

Thanks to the excellent work of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson.

I see the article has been submitted to the Journal of Mechanical Engineering.

David or Frank, do you know the publication date?

Arthur

Grumpy

[QUOTE]So now you are the expert on what dirty aluminum can look like AND an expert on what every other material in the building could not look like. All you are exposing is the abysmal ignorance of the under-educated. You cannot POSSIBLY defend this stupid statement with any evidence.[/QUOTE]

Steven jones proves it. You are under-educated, hes not. Prove him wrong then. NIST is lying. Again!, hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions,glass and computers) CANT display an orange glow like NIST says it can. It is very simple to do this experiment that steven jones did and he proved theme wrong, why haven't nist done any experiments? NIST the holy ones only say that it "can". Understand that NIST is an political document.

[QUOTE]i know. Steel did not melt in the towers[/QUOTE]

Steel melted. But i guess you can explain femas findings. They couldnt do it but you can right. And USGS findings was just a tiny Little sphere so that doesn't matter, and eyewitness isnt evidence, they all had an hallucination.


[/QUOTE]. But 1000C is hot enough that structural steel loses 85% of it's ability to hold a load and it buckles.[QUOTE]

No it does not. Not under 45 minutes. You believe that because NIST says so. If NIST says the world is flat you will believe that to.

Kevin ryan

A. UL's comments on testing WTC steel
September 2001
Loring Knoblauch, UL's CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC
November 2003
I asked Knoblauch in writing about UL's involvement, and he responded in December confirming details.
"We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully."
"As we did not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can given an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated."
"We test the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them."

That test Knoblauch was talking about was 1093C in 3 hours.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."

FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:

1. No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.

2. Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.

3. They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.

4. They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.

5. They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).

6. Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.


NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:

1. NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?

2. NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.

3. NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

4. NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".


NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".


The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.

Read more here: *www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_blueprints_leaked_by_whistleblower.htm