|
THE MIRACULOUSLY CHANGING PHYSICS OF THE WTC COLLPASE Media and science establishment complicity in the crimes of Sept 11 Page 1 of 3 . Go to page 2 3 Copyright: Sept 26 2006. This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without the express permission of the author in writing. This prohibition excludes the reasonable quotation of the article for the purpose of analysis or criticism of the article itself - providing that the article is linked to in association with any such analysis. On Sept 11 2001, three skyscrapers in Manhattan—WTC 1,2 and 7—all collapsed neatly into their own footprints just like controlled demolitions. Because they were controlled demolitions. Those who perpetrated Sept 11 and framed mythical Arabs armed with tiny knives and a psychotic hatred of our freedoms, taking over flights which didn’t even exist figured that it would be easier to sell new laws of physics to the public, rather than explain how the mythical Arabs also engineered the miraculously symmetrical collapse of all three buildings, one of which wasn’t even hit by anything. On Sept 12 2001, the Arizona Daily Wildcat reported in an article titled “Intense heat melted steel supports in Trade Center” [[Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the buildings steel supports.]] On Sept 13, the BBC agreed that the ferociously hot burning aviation fuel melted the steel in the buildings, which somehow brought them all down perfectly into their footprints. The collapse of WTC 7 which wasn’t alleged to have been subjected to any burning jet fuel, wasn’t mentioned. [[the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C... Temperatures at 800C But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing... ... "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno... ... steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below. ]] Apart from the astronomical odds against even one symmetrical collapse, let alone three, this claim has two major problems. Firstly, steel melts at about double that temperature. Secondly, “aviation fuel” is nothing more than pure kerosene. [[Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene ... It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines.]] If burning kerosene could melt steel, then household kerosene heaters, subject to hours of burning at a time, would melt and therefore be unusable. As J. McMichael observed in Muslims suspend laws of physics , published in Oct 2001 [[Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.]] Also note this from the BBC article. [[Steel-core design The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall. ]] Now we’ll examine how the scramble to cover the holes in the early spin, caused the story to change over time in the media. The very next day, the BBC ran a very similar story. And yet two crucial elements had been changed without any acknowledgement of error in the story from the day before. [[Despite the concrete cladding on the building’s steel frame temperatures probably reached around 1000 degrees Celcius. According to Chris Wise of the London-based company Expedition Engineering, it was this that brought the towers of the World Trade Centre crashing quickly to Earth. He explains: ‘The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.’ ‘Gradually the weight of the top of the World Trade Centre, which was probably about 100,000 tones, collapsed down on to the structure underneath it.’]] The identical analysis to the day before, but they’ve just added 25% to the temperature without any explanation or even any acknowledgement that just the previous day, they’d claimed 800C. Is there any scientific basis for the temperature claims or is someone just making them up and getting away with it by being labelled an expert ? [[But the World Trade Centre was an unusual building, with a frame built of steel tubes - which has raised in some peoples' minds the question of whether whoever planned the attack had some knowledge of civil engineering, and selected their target deliberately. Perhaps other kinds of structure might have survived the inferno longer? ]] Ah—not a “standard design “ after all. It seems that Winston Smith was doing overtime at the BBC on the evening of Sept 13. The BBC had got itself into a spot of bother here. Steel melting at 1000C was no more believable than steel melting at 800C, and it was unclear how the design of the buildings could be both “standard” and “unusual”. But help was not far away. By June 2002, steel had reverted to its previously accepted melting point of about 1500C, but the alleged temperatures in the WTC had increased accordingly. And the building design had progressed from “standard” to “unusual” to “revolutionary”, according to “Fire Chief” Magazine. [[The center core would carry only the gravity load of the building...This revolutionary construction system was a major change from the conventional system that used steel i-beams throughout the structure with non-structural exterior curtain walls. Prior to this time, curtain walls were used primarily to keep the elements out and were non-load bearing. All wind loads were transferred through the floor membrane and supported by the core of the structure. This new hollow tube system design resulted in a light and economical structure using only half the amount of steel required in a conventional building. It also provided for the wind bracing to be placed in the exterior walls — the most efficient place. The exterior wall in this system would be load bearing and used to support the structure itself.]] In its conclusion, the article asks [[Is hollow tube construction with load-bearing walls still state of the art for high-rise buildings? Perhaps we have to design more sturdy construction at the expense of aesthetics.]] What happened to the steel and concrete core which was “at the heart of the structure” ? This article also decided to try its hand at a little revisionism concerning the specifications of various types of Boeing aircraft. [[both buildings were built and designed to sustain a direct hit of a slow-flying Boeing 707, the largest plane at the time. However, the jets that hit the towers on Sept. 11 were much larger Boeing 767s and were traveling at speeds close to 500mph.]] What a shame that Boeing doesn't know such basic facts about its own aircraft . From official Boeing sites, we find the following specifications. |
|
GERARD HOLMGREN’S SEPT 11 WRITING AND RESEARCH |